So.. this is a rant about a model who didn't pay for a shoot and expects un-watermarked images.

[Mr. Innuendo]

Have you read the contract? Did the contract specify in what format the photographs would be delivered?

Given what the OP has presented, it's probably safe to conclude that the model didn't sign the contract having no idea what it was or what it meant. And, even if that was the case, it doesn't absolve her from needing to adhere to the contract she signed. The format of delivery doesn't seem to be what's in question here. What seems to be in question here is the presence of his watermark on the image. From what the OP has stated, it seems pretty clear that's laid out in the contract.

If networking and getting referrals while building a portfolio is the goal then being right is irrelevant.

And that's a two-way street.

How many models want to have the reputation of signing contracts and then completely reneging on them? It would appear as though th OP is in a position to demonstrate how this one model does just that.

Again, I'm not defending the OP's approach as the right thing to do; I honestly don't have an opinion on that. But, if a contract was signed, then all parties should adhere to the terms of the contract. If one of those parties (in this case the model) didn't understand the terms of the contract, she shouldn't have signed it.

 

[Mr. Innuendo]

I'm with the OP, simply because, apparently, the model signed a contract. She knew the terms of the shoot.

Did i miss it?
Where is it made apparent that the model signed a contract?

Second to last paragraph:

"Too bad she signed a contract that allowed me keep all copyrights to the images."

That certainly suggests to me that she signed a contract but, hey, maybe "she signed a contract" means something different in your neck o' the woods.

 

[Mr. Innuendo]

If you can afford a camera, you can afford a lawyer.

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

 

[Mr. Innuendo]

I have, on occasion, photographed models.

When I went to them, I paid them. When they came to me, they paid me.

Pretty simple stuff, really.

 

[photoguy99]

If you can afford a camera, you can afford a lawyer.

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

Oh do tell.

Perhaps you need to get out more?

 

[Designer]

Have you read the contract? Did the contract specify in what format the photographs would be delivered?

Given what the OP has presented, it's probably safe to conclude that the model didn't sign the contract having no idea what it was or what it meant. And, even if that was the case, it doesn't absolve her from needing to adhere to the contract she signed. The format of delivery doesn't seem to be what's in question here. What seems to be in question here is the presence of his watermark on the image. From what the OP has stated, it seems pretty clear that's laid out in the contract.

There is no "contract". We were shown a model release that was poorly written.

The format of delivery seems to be the ONLY issue. With or without a watermark.

 

[pgriz]

Of course, the real problem is that the contract, as written (see post #53), does not touch upon either what the "consideration" is, nor is there any mention of watermarks. The model may well insist that for her the "value" are the unwatermarked prints, and there's nothing in the contract as written that would contradict that interpretation. The point of any good contract is to define the deliverables, the responsibilities of both parties, and the expectations of what will transpire. If these details were covered verbally, but not in the contract, then the contract has limited (if any) value, as it becomes a case of "he said-she said".

In my business, I deal with the retail clients every single day, and when we sign a contract, it is very clear what the deliverables are, when they will be done, what my and my client's responsibilities are, including any assumptions about the environment is prior to work being started, and the conditions of work. There are also several points at which either party can change the agreement based on previously-defined checkpoints.

The point of consulting a lawyer is that case law in any given jurisdiction may strongly influence the interpretation of a "standard" contract or clauses. It is usually unrealistic for a lay person to be aware of these issues, and it takes only one lawsuit to make the initial cost of consultation to look like a very good investment.

The point has also been made earlier that what the OP really needs is a license agreement that governs how the prints or images he may supply will be used. I believe that is still valid.

 

[Mr. Innuendo]

Have you read the contract? Did the contract specify in what format the photographs would be delivered?

Given what the OP has presented, it's probably safe to conclude that the model didn't sign the contract having no idea what it was or what it meant. And, even if that was the case, it doesn't absolve her from needing to adhere to the contract she signed. The format of delivery doesn't seem to be what's in question here. What seems to be in question here is the presence of his watermark on the image. From what the OP has stated, it seems pretty clear that's laid out in the contract.

There is no "contract". We were shown a model release that was poorly written.

The format of delivery seems to be the ONLY issue. With or without a watermark.

I was going by what the OP said; that the model signed a contract.

To that point, though, a model release is a contract, in that its terms cannot be altered or deviated from without the knowledge and consent of each signatory. If one of the signatories deviated from it, and the other filed a lawsuit, what would be the basis for it? Breach of model release? No, it would be breach of contract.

 

[Mr. Innuendo]

If you can afford a camera, you can afford a lawyer.

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

Oh do tell.

Perhaps you need to get out more?

You're the one who said someone who can afford a camera can, by default, afford a lawyer.

Sorry, but that's not ridiculous, that's stupid.

Or, perhaps you can explain it a little further. Barring that, though, it will remain only a stupid comment.

 

[photoguy99]

If you have bought a camera for a business, then you can afford a lawyer, because the lawyer will make money for you. The lawyer costs less than nothing. Most people can afford, at least, nothing.

If you bought a camera for pleasure, then presumably you have a little loose cash or at any rate credit, and can afford a lawyer based on that.

Note that I did not say "you can afford to place a top-end law firm on retainer" or "you can afford to pay a lawyer to mount a lawsuit against Citibank and take it to the supreme court", I said you can afford a lawyer. In context, that means a modest fee to a lawyer to look over a contract and make some suggestions and improvement on language. We're talking a billable hour here.

 

[Mr. Innuendo]

If you have bought a camera for a business, then you can afford a lawyer, because the lawyer will make money for you. The lawyer costs less than nothing. Most people can afford, at least, nothing.

In context, that means a modest fee to a lawyer to look over a contract and make some suggestions and improvement on language. We're talking a billable hour here.

So a "billable hour" costs less than nothing?

Can't be too good an attorney, then.

 

[Designer]

I was going by what the OP said; that the model signed a contract.

Uh huh. He did write that.

He also wrote the model release that he called a "contract".

I usually attempt to understand what someone writes even if the writer doesn't always understand it.

 

[joeymas]

LOL, can we start being realistic... Has anyone here ever hired a lawyer over a digital photo? Be for real. Unless WARNER BROS. Steals and uses your shot, it is not worth your time or money.

 

[Overread]

Mod notice
I just removed a couple of posts. Lets keep this thread going sensibly and cut the sillyness. If you want to be silly go into Off-topic and be silly down there; not just by picking a long thread and messing around childishly.

 

[Overread]

LOL, can we start being realistic... Has anyone here ever hired a lawyer over a digital photo? Be for real. Unless WARNER BROS. Steals and uses your shot, it is not worth your time or money.

"A" photo possibly not; but this is a discussion not just on a single set of photos taken, but upon the OP's general professional approach to their photography; both in the cases of Trade for Prints and also in general. As such a lawyer hired/consulted for the purposes of ensuring that contracts are legal, fair and sensible is a very important step.