Parents want a model release back

<p>Blake - I doubt it.</p>

<p>Blake - I doubt it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do portrait photographers really use images of their clients for commercial licensing based on the release that a sitter signed as part of the portrait session</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Usually not since it would alienate so many customers.</p>

<p>@blake - <br>

None that I know of. </p>

<p>I ask my clients if I can show their images on my web site and facebook. If they say no - then it's over - I don't put the images up. I never have gone into a portrait session with the intention of selling the images for a commercial use nor have I come out of one thinking that I would start. Not because the quality isn't there - but rather because that isn't the intent of the session. </p>

<p>Parent or legal guardian. In most cases - sitters are not considered legal guardians. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I amend that above. Destroy the images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That sounds like a wonderful idea. To add emphasis, you might want to stick your tongue out and show them a nice selection of rude gestures. That will demonstrate clearly to your customers how unreasonable they were. Further, it will help to ensure that you won't have problem customers in the future - because you'll probably never have another CUSTOMER again.</p>

<p>I don't understand how anyone in business could ever seriously consider taking action to spite a client. You might THINK about in an effort to deal with your own stress and aggravation, but taking such action is business suicide.</p>

<p>It all comes down to the Golden Rule: treat others as you would like to be treated. If you paid for a portrait session, and after a disagreement the photographer said, "Okay, fine, I'll just destroy the images," I'll be that you wouldn't leave their studio with a positive impression.</p>

<p>I don't know about the right to take back. If I were them and realized my mistake of signing the release then I would consult my lawyer to see what it takes to get the release back. I would be willing to pay good amount of money to take the release back from you. It's simply a very stupid mistake to sign the release and for that as parent I would be willing to pay dearly to get it back if I can at all. The wiser thing to do is not to sign to begin with but then mistakes are already made.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's simply a very stupid mistake to sign the release and for that as parent I would be willing to pay dearly to get it back</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We weren't told what the scope of the release is. It may very well be limited for portfolio sample use. If that's the case then its not as likely to be "a very stupid mistake" or worth paying "dearly to get it back" compared to with uses.</p>

<p>The OP asked about the right to use the images, failed to give sufficient information to get an accurate answer and many people responded, despite the question, that it wasn't a good business decision to assert whatever rights the OP has in any event. That's really all there is here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The OP...failed to give sufficient information to get an accurate answer</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Until the OP responds to the requests for more information, John's response is really the one that matters for the release issue. There are other business issues that have been raised about the whole nature of the OP's proposed interaction with the client, and those are reasonable. Otherwise, this should really sit until the OP gives more information.</p>

<p>And if the OP is facing legal conflicts, he probably shouldn't discuss it on line either.</p>

<p>(I think "Nicole" is usually a "she")</p>

<p>As a parent, it's photographers like the OP who really make me feel I should never hire another photographer to take pics of my kid. I mean, what the heck! Just give them a CD or if you don't want to do that, cancel the release and return it. I hope the OP's herself not a parent (hard to see anyone with kids acting like this). And if they do sue you, I personally do hope that they win because otherwise it is indeed a very scary situation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I personally do hope that they win because otherwise it is indeed a very scary situation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In what way is it actually scary? I think this is just paranoia.</p>

<p>Surprising that the OP used her real name to post this. If you google for "nicole powell photography" her website's the first link (the pictures in her portfolio there match the pictures on her photo.net album).</p>

<p>Steve,</p>

<p>So I hire someone to snap my pics, and I don't really read the entire agreement. She makes me sign some papers (that again I don't read in detail). Both are my fault, but most people don't read agreements in any real detail.</p>

<p>After the session I am told I won't get digital copies of the images (a fact that was most likely well disguised prior to the session). I get upset and want to cancel the agreement. At that time the photographer tells me that he/she has model release rights and I can't get them back. So here's a situation where she/he has pics of my children, that I can't get copies of, but he/she can distribute it as they wish! To me that's a big invasion of my privacy and if it's not defensible under law, then it is indeed a very scary situation.</p>

<p>Nish Sivakumar</p>

<p>you don't know that anything in your version of events is true- its what you think might have happened. So why risk spreading inaccurate information that comes though more than a little uncontrolled and paranoid? Why don't we just wait for the poster to tell us what actually happened. This could yet turn out to be the parents more to blame than the photographer. Lets just see. </p>

<p>Well, the parents are not present to give their perspective. The photographer only gave us half-facts. And has not replied despite getting several responses. What I said is based on what I read from her post. If she provides more information, and that information indicates that it was the parents at fault, then I reckon we can re-discuss things differently. So I agree with your last sentence, let's see what she follows up with.</p>

<p>Why would you ask for a release up front anyway? If <em>they</em> hired y<em>ou</em>, they should not have signed the release and they should have found another photographer if you had insisted. Perhaps they should have asked <em>you</em> for a release.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"she can distribute it as they wish!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Any photographer owning the copyright can use and distribute images "as they wish" with narrow exceptions which fall under the umbrella of "invasion of privacy". A model release is used to shield against liability if the use fits in one of those exceptions. If a particular use fitting one of the exceptions exceeds the scope of the release language, the release won't cover that use. As already discussed, the scope of the release here has not been explained at all. Portraiture releases, when used, tend to be for portfolio sample use only. Unless you are privy to facts that we don't have, there is no evidence showing "she can distribute it as they wish" within any of the exceptions.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>that's a big invasion of my privacy and if it's not defensible under law, then it is indeed a very scary situation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, as already discussed, it may only be a release for portfolio/sample use which is difficult to describe as a "big" situation. Moreover, a release is designed to be proof of and/or be a contract so that the use described will specifically not be an "invasion of privacy". Its a voluntary agreement so there's no reason to be scared in any event.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>if they do sue you, I personally do hope that they win</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There isn't enough information given to know what the release covers, if the customer did not know what it meant or even if its effective or not. Its absurd to wish some lawsuit to be won when one doesn't even know what it would be about.</p>

<p>Many people have discussed that asserting all the rights, whatever they are, is not a wise business decision because its not worth alienating customers. No one can arrive at any actual legal conclusions here because there isn't enough information to do so.</p>

<p>The OP has not stated the nature of the contract, the negotiations that led up to the contract, nor what function the release serves in relation to the services contracted for and provided, or not.</p>

<p>As such, most of the comments here involve a lot of speculation. If the OP wants effective feedback, supplying a comprehensive factual background is essential. Communication and mutual understanding are essential in the making of any contract. Same for for getting feedback from the time and experience of the members of the forum.</p>

<p>Her web site does indicate that the actual prints are done by third party print labs, not by herself. Another curiosity is the published bias in her pricing. Almost any male customer has a 25% markup from the price charged to females, or to males that are in the military, police or firemen. I'd love to hear why what looks like deliberate commercial sex discrimination, legal or not in Colorado, is a commendable business practice. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Almost any male customer has a 25% markup from the price charged to females, or to males that are in the military, police or firemen. I'd love to hear why what looks like deliberate commercial sex discrimination</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The site indicates there is a discount "to Military, Police and Firemen and Women". It appears, in the context of the paragraph the criteria is contained in, that the discount applies to both genders serving in those roles. If it "looks like deliberate commercial sex discrimination", its probably due to inartful drafting. </p>

<p><br /></p>

<p>Give the release back and then delete all the photo files. </p>

<p>This incident is part of a larger trend; and as such, it should not be viewed as an isolated incident, but rather, seen for what it is. Because, at heart, this issue is primarily about educating the customer.<br>

We now live in a time when customers see the photographer as merely an agent to produce the pictures, but not the one who will RE-PRODUCE the pictures. As such,while they are grateful to be presented with the beautiful results of your work, in their minds, your job is to relinquish the digital negatives, so that they can forward them to the printing service of their choice – Snapfish, Walmart,or a host of other options.<br>

In times past, customers neither had access to your negatives, (on film, that is),nor did they possess the darkroom skills to turn those negatives into photos. You were an indispensable part of the chain of reproduction. But those days are over – and for the most part, all of us are glad to see them gone, because they involved a lot of tedious tasks which we do not miss. However, the question then becomes, have we done a good job of educating the customer to let them know that we are either (a) an excellent option for printing your photos,and as professionals, we have access to the best quality printing labs, or (b) as a stipulation in our contracts, we do not merely sell our images on a disk to be reproduced by someone else, but as a complete package, which includes being the printers of our own work?<br>

You'll notice that the key words above are "option" and "stipulation".<br>

We must realize that, in the eyes of the customer, we are merely one of numerous options available for printing your photos. they are used to purchasing many of the tasks that were formerly the exclusive domain of professionals – such as printing albums and high quality photo books – and they can place those orders from the comfort of their kitchen table, and receive books that easily rival the quality of the best photo books at Barnes & Noble.<br>

So, when we come along and surprise them by saying that we require all of their printing services to be purchased through us, it comes as a shock to them… And they will indignantly assume that you are holding "their" photos hostage.<br>

This is a matter that is going to become more and more commonplace, as consumers become more familiar with all of the third-party printing options available to them. And so,it really boils down to a matter of educating the customer as to what your contract requires, before your photo session concludes.<br>

If they understand that you sell packages of images, and you are not merely a gun for hire, this will go a long way in establishing both your credibility as a professional, and it lets them know right up front that they will not be merely receiving a disc of images as the conclusion of your services.<br>

While a number of startup photographers choose the business model of shooting the images, and immediately providing the client with photos straight from the camera, most serious professionals do not want to have their work out there, without at least some basic retouching or enhancement of those photos. And because printing the images allows the photographer to offer a high-value, and potentially profitable, service to the customer. So, how can you fault a photographer for wanting to add a lucrative revenue stream to their business?<br>

But again, the key words in that paragraph are "high-value"… Because many customers do not consider it a high-value service to order images which they can just as easily order for themselves. And, to be honest, many of the labs which cater to consumers are every bit as good as the labs geared towards professionals. (Obviously, there are also a number of stinkers out there, as well. But the gap between consumer level, and professional level, is narrowing every day… And in the minds of our customers, many of those differences seem negligible at best.)<br>

So I return to this theme of education: Do we as professionals do a good job of selling the reasons why using us as a middleman is valuable to the client? Can we justify in their minds the added expense of paying us to do a job which they can easily – and often enjoyably – do for themselves?<br>

Whatever the answer to that question may be, if we make it known up front – and place language in our agreements which spells this out clearly – and we have gone a long way in avoiding misunderstandings such as the one in which this photographer currently finds himself embroiled.<br>

In fact, having a separate checkbox which the client must both checked and initial, can be very helpful. It can be short and sweet, with words such as, "I understand that the photographer does not sell CDs of images, but rather complete packages, as outlined on their website."<br>

Now, they may entirely forget that they ever checked and initialed this box, it comes in quite handy when later discussing the matter with clients. I have used this technique for years in a variety of businesses, and it does wonders to soothe the savage beast who says, "You never told me that!" You merely reply in a soft voice, "I could've sworn that I did… Let me just check your file real quickly to make sure, because I have a terrible memory for these things... Oh, there it is… yes, we covered that… And right here is where you initialed it. But we had so much going on that day, that it would be easy to forget about it."<br>

What this does is to allow the customer to save face, by gently showing them the error of their thinking,and letting them know that it is easy to forget such a detail… Although you most certainly did cover that information with them, and they agreed to it in writing.<br>

Now, for many customers, this is all you need to do. But in my experience, there are simply people out there who know good and well that you covered that stipulation, but they don't care. To them, a contract is something that they are used to weaseling out of whenever it suits them – and these are also the people who are the first to mention getting a lawyer.<br>

Often this type of customer is simply using a tried-and-true technique of getting concessions or freebies from a vendor – in this case, you.since you are most likely a sole proprietorship, they know that you are likely to give in, and not be able to hide behind the phrase, "I'm sorry, but that's the company policy" - the way a national chain might do.<br>

However, I have found that if a customer mentions getting a lawyer, it works quite well to respond in a soft and helpful voice saying, "I understand what you're saying… And that's why we have already consulted a lawyer for you. I'm not a lawyer myself, so we had our entire agreement thoroughly reviewed by a legal staff, to make sure that everything was proper. In fact, that's why we have folks initial this little box right here, just so that there are no misunderstandings that all. So, according to the lawyers, everything in our agreement is just as it should be."<br>

That pretty much shuts everyone up, because in a very demure but unmistakably firm manner, you let them know that you are not going to be bullied, and that the law is on your side. And there's not much that they can do, when you point out to them that they not only signed your agreement, but they specifically initialed the portion in dispute.<br>

and if, in that rare instance where someone says, "I still want to discuss this with my attorney", then you can offer to scan and e-mail a copy of the agreement to their attorney… Adding, "and I'll be glad to highlight the portion where you initialed your consent, in case they have any questions."<br>

Your goal is not to make the client feel stupid; you can win the battle and lose the war. At this point, your goal is to help them ease out of that confrontational mode, and back into being a satisfied client. This is where storytelling really comes into place.<br>

By telling a short and simple story about another customer in a similar situation, who also had a misunderstanding that was resolved to their satisfaction, you let them see that they are not alone, and that they have no reason to feel stupid.<br>

Simply saying, "you know, I had a customer last week in a very similar situation. She was so used to printing her own photos, that it just seemed natural to her to assume that we would just hand her a disc of images print them herself. In fact,she said she really looks forward to creating her own photo books. But here's what she found – I told her to just wait a couple of weeks until her order arrived, and she was see how what we offer is very different from what she has available as a nonprofessional. And when she finally saw her photo books, she told me that she could instantly see that this was on a much higher level than what she had ever been able to do on her own. She said that both the quality of the book, and also the quality of the design was obviously done by professionals. And so, while at first she wondered why we didn't just sell CDs of our pictures, she said it all made sense once she saw the final product."<br>

speaking of contracts, there is one other troubling aspect to this kind of dispute, which was mentioned above; namely, the ability for a disgruntled consumer to trash your reputation through a myriad of options – such as Facebook, ePinions.com, yelp.com, the Better Business Bureau and many others.<br>

I also include in my contracts a simple stipulation which says that in the event of a dispute, the customer agrees that they will not post negative information or reviews about your business without first agreeing to arbitration. <br>

It is a very thorny issue these days when negative comments from a single customer may be that what potential customers first encounter when doing a Google search of your business. <br>

I am very upfront with every customer about how highly I value my reputation. I let them know that if they have any problems at all, we generally bend over backwards to resolve them. But I also let them know that it is a two-way street, and that each customer has responsibility to let me know if there's a problem. I use a simple phrase, "I am The World's Worst Mindreader! If you are having a problem,you have to let me know about it… Because otherwise, I will have no idea what you are thinking. And the last thing that I want, is to find out that a customer is venting on their Facebook page to all their friends about some simple problem that I could've easily solved. And because we value our reputation so highly, we've had to include a paragraph in our agreement which simply says that if you have a problem with us, you'll work with us to resolve it first. Because we have seen perfectly good businesses trashed publicly, all because the client didn't understand some basic matter – such as, they thought the photographer was going to simply hand them a disk of all the pictures. Because once negative words get out there on Google… Then you can pretty much never take them back. So our policy is simply that we ask you to let us know right up front if there's any problem, so that we can take care of it. Sometimes it's our fault, and sometimes it's the fault of the customer… But either way, we just want to get things settled everyone's satisfaction. Because after all, the whole reason we are in business is to make people happy. Does that make sense?"<br>

What this does is to get the customer on your side, like an ally. Everybody knows someone who is a loudmouth or a hothead, and most people now realize that the Internet gives people a worldwide megaphone for their ( sometimes unreasonable) rants. And they all know somebody who has used their Facebook page has a forum for spreading bad word-of-mouth. So, by simply asking for the opportunity to work things out, before a person decides to make a permanent record of their dispute, most customers will actually want to be in the role of the good guy, rather than the hothead.<br>

Deciding when to give in to unreasonable customers is something that each professional needs to decide for themselves. I have to admit, there's something about having my reputation held hostage by the threat of a bad online review, or negative Facebook comments, which really sticks in my craw. And yet, as a realist, you sometimes have to bite the bullet and let people go as sweetly as possible – even when what they really deserve is a swift kick in the rear, and a firm shove out the door. But fortunately, those people are few and far between. Yet the damage that they can do far exceeds their tiny percentage of your total client base. And so, you have to decide in every instance when to take a stand, and when to merely wish them well and swallow the loss.<br>

But my purpose in writing this is to say that a large part of the blame does, indeed, rest on the shoulders of the photographer. Because a small amount of client education upfront – not to mention, aptly worded language in your contract – can help to head off hard feelings down the road.<br>

How hard is it to simply say up front, "By the way, you'll notice in our agreement that all of our finished products come in the form of complete packages. We are not like those beginning photography students on Craigslist who offer to sell you a CD of pictures straight out of the camera. We spend a lot of time after the shoot lovingly enhancing each and every shot to make sure that it is worthy of having our name on it. That's also why we only use labs and vendors that we know we can trust, because we don't want to entrust our hard work to the kid in the photo lab at Costco or Walmart. Those places are fine for snapshots, but I have a feeling that the reason you chose us is because you want your pictures to be at a much higher caliber… And that's why we can ensure that every photo in our packages looks gorgeous."<br>

That one little paragraph may save you a lot of heartache down the road. And it may also save you some cold hard cash, that might normally line the pockets of a contract attorney. And most importantly, it helps to preserve your reputation – because, unlike the so-called "permanent record" that teachers threatened you with when you were in high school, the Internet is the ultimate permanent record. And once those negative reviews go out there, they are almost impossible to erase.</p>

<p>A successful business is one which gives the customers what they want (and for a good price). As a business you cannot dictate what the customer is going to get because if the customer wants something else he/she will go elsewhere.</p>

<p>Business models need to change with the times and if there is an increasing number of customers who just want a CD of images which they can print where they like you can either provide that service and make some money from it or let them go somewhere else.</p>

<p>I'm surprised at how many responses (almost all of them) suggest the photographer give up the releases and give the CD. It hardly seems likely the photographer contracted with a customer for photos where the customer didn't know the cost up front.</p>

<p>It would seem the customer now wants to renegotiate the deal, and since the photographer refuses, they want the releases back in a purely spiteful gesture. Then they threaten the photographer with legal action. It's practically extortion.</p>

<p>What court is going to side with a customer on that? I think none. And I wouldn't even bother to hire an attorney for such a clear, cut and dry case, if the customer actually did take the photographer to court, which seems highly unlikely. The customer is almost certainly making empty threats. What benefit would it be to them to actually go to court, even if they won, which is highly unlikely. </p>

<p>All that being said, I would suggest the photographer sell the CD, but price it appropriately, taking into account that she will not get any print sales from here on in. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm surprised at how many responses (almost all of them) suggest the photographer give up the releases... ...the customer now wants to renegotiate the deal, and since the photographer refuses, they want the releases back in a purely spiteful gesture... ...What benefit would it be to them to actually go to court</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The responses recognize that business issues outweigh legal issues and the desire to assert rights because one can. It is unlikely that there was any significant fee amount adjusted for the releases and that it was just part of the ordinary portrait contract. It appears there was no special need for these particular images and that it would just be part of the sample of the studio's work, not a shoot for a huge advertising campaign. Its just not worth inspiring the people to badmouth the photographer with a version of events that will probably be misstated to be worse than it was. Releases for this kind of use are usually designed to avoid legal liability not as a central part of the business. If the negativity got around too much over something so minor it would be a potential big loss for the business.</p>

<p>The reality is that is it better not to win the battle that's a sure thing, as you suggest, just to risk losing the whole war by getting a bad reputation from such a trivial matter. Plus, spending the time alone on it isn't worth it. Its just something to have as a defense if one gets sued later in case the complaint came later than it did. Its outlived its usefulness. There's no point in fighting over it now. </p>