Models wants unedited image

<p>I hired a "model" (a pretty girl who thinks she is a model) for a TFP/TFCD for a test shoot. She wants the unedited electronic images so that her friend can photoshop them to her liking.<br>

Question one: have you ever heard of such a request?<br>

Question two: is there a way to embed an unerasable watermark?<br>

Knowing the girl, I am 99% sure my images will end up in less than reputable, sexually oriented website. </p>

<p>Unless called for in the contract, I wouldn't even consider this! And, if files were not agreed upon in advance, and given your concerns about the future of the shots, it would be a couple of fully edited prints, only.</p>

<p>An acquaintance who shoots corporate work told me that's what a lot of companies want (the raw files). Since he has a family to support, he agrees to do so. <br>

It's up to the photographer. To me, it's like handing over the negatives.</p>

<p>They want to make prints from the RAW files. I would never allow this because I couldn't control the quality.</p>

<p>You are in total charge of what you sell. if you are not comfortable, then write a contract which would suit you, and see if the client finds it agreeable as well. If the whole thing is just too tacky for you, then walk away from it.<br>

If the client wasnt un-watermarked, un-edited images all all rights to them......then set a price and sell the client what they want. If you don't like it....walk away. No big issue really here except for you to decide what you will, or will not, sell, and a price.</p>

<p>To answer your questions directly:<br>

Question one: yes. I've even heard of models who like to play in photoshop themselves with their images. Personally, I spell it all out before hand, that the model will not recieve all of the images, only a select number that we (or I) deem to be the best from the group, and that those selected images will be edited by me. The model will recieve a full-size version of the final images for printing, and a smaller web-sized version with watermark for any online uses. These are meant to go in a portfolio and represent not only the model but the photographer as well. And I do not give out RAW files.</p>

<p>Question two: No. You can add a watermark but even then it can always be cropped out or the EXIF data can always be stripped. Sorry.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thank you for your responses. <br>

I think the issue is that in her mind she hired me to take photos of her, when I am the one who placed the ad in the "for hire" section.</p>

<p>Be careful - hopefully you have a written release / contract signed by her that states she gets a CD of edited images only. </p>

<p>You could very easily get into a she said / she said situation with her - </p>

<p>Yes - I've heard of models that want the "unedited" files. </p>

<p>No - I do not give those out. I make it clear in the contract that I retain the raw images and provide the model with the edited versions. If she / he doesn't like an effect or edit - I'll gladly do another edit that they want. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>As I see it, TFP /TFCD situations do not add up to anyone hiring anyone. There is little chance the "images will end up in less than reputable, sexually oriented website" unless they are cheezy, sexually oriented images to begin with. If that is not the kind of work you want your name associated with don't shoot that kind of work, write far better contracts, or at least work with people with a bit more integrity.</p>

<p>There is nothing cheezy about the portraits I take, thanks. They are beautiful photos of a beautiful young woman who may be using them as advertisement on sites for less than beautiful intentions. I had no idea what her line of work was until the end of the shoot.<br>

The contract states that I retain the copyright to all images. Legally, this means I have and control the ownership of the images. I work closely with a top intellectual property attorney who writes my contracts. I had never thought my images could be used by hookers for advertisement. Sorry, this is new to me. My point was not really about what I "legally" owe her, but more what is being done in the industry. I have never encountered this problem before, in 20 years of TFP.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I had never thought my images could be used by hookers for advertisement</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure what your contract reads exactly, but I suppose if you don't care what the final use of the image is, then there's no problem there. I personally have a section in my license agreement that covers restricted usage of the images (i.e. not allowed) and one of them is as follows:<br />

<p>

<p><em>Use any Image in a defamatory, libelous or otherwise illegal manner, whether directly or in context or juxtaposition with other materials</em></p>

</p>

<br />I suppose one could make an argument that the intended use of advertisement for a "personal escort service" could be considered usage in a libelous or illegal manner, but like I said, I guess that depends on how you feel about the end use of the pictures.</p>

<p>As for the original reason for your post, the editing issue, If your contract does not state anything about who has the right to edit the pics, I'm not sure where you stand legally. Like someone mentioned it could easily turn into a she said / she said senario. Personally I'd feel more comfortable doing the edits myself.</p>

<p>Can I ask a simple question? Who are you - and any of us - to dictate the final use of the images? If I am hired by a woman to take her photos so she can use them in promoting her escort service, then so be it. If a client wants me to photograph his/her range of sex toys for use in their site, then so be it. The images are hers to do what she wants.</p>

<p>That said, I agree with you that only the final, edited images should be given, but that's where it ends. And if you refuse to edit them to her desires (I take it the Liquify tool will catch fire there!), trust me, she'll find someone else to do it. AND remove ANY copyright notice you might embed.</p>

<p>So, no, don't give her the unedited images if you so wish, but unless you end up not giving her anything, chances are she'll do what she wants with them.</p>

<p>Just be aware that providing final edited images doesn't stop the client from reworking them in photoshop. I did a session for a band and the wife of one of the members heavily reworked (quite badly) some of the provided jpeg images. I've thought of having them remove the photo credit.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I am hired by a woman to take her photos so she can use them in promoting her escort service, then so be it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Normally I would agree, but read the original post again. The OP hired the model, not the other way round.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Normally I would agree, but read the original post again. The OP hired the model, not the other way round</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed, as per the original post:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I hired a "model" (a pretty girl who thinks she is a model) for a TFP/TFCD for a test shoot</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If the model would have been the one doing the hiring of the photographer for a specific purpose, then that would be different. But seeing as it was the photographer who "hired" the model, then that's different.</p>

 

<p>Oh, I agree perfectly, that was not my point actually. The OP's question/qualm is whether he should give unedited images or not and who owns the copyright. Correct? If the girl wants to use the end product for her own purposes, can he - legally - stop her? Can he prevent her, practically (not legally), from further editing any images she receives?</p>

<p>I'm sure that's an interesting thought...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If the girl wants to use the end product for her own purposes, can he - legally - stop her? Can he prevent her, practically (not legally), from further editing any images she receives?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only way to practically stop her using the images in any way is to not give her any images.</p>

<p>If they pay me, they're paying for the license to use my photos, they are not paying for my photos. Obviously a family portrait is treated by a shot used for advertising.</p>

<p>A while ago, I shot a model's portfolio, and she gave the low-res .jpgs to a friend who butchered them in photoshop (bright white eyes, etc...) to practice with and then put them on Facebook with Photo by: Marlon Kuhnreich. </p>

<p>I asked her nicely and she understood. I wasn't trying to be a dick, but I do have to protect myself as this model has other agents, casting directors, photographers, stylists, makeup artists etc... as her Facebook friends, and I don't them to associate that image with me.</p>

<p>However, I always have Photography Agreements signed so there can be no arguments or misunderstandings about this, and I suggest using them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The OP hired the model, not the other way round... ...If the model would have been the one doing the hiring of the photographer for a specific purpose, then that would be different. But seeing as it was the photographer who "hired" the model, then that's different.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It doesn't matter who hired who to he extent the contract supersedes any ordinary default rights and countless contracts confirm the photographer owns copyrights to images while still providing other rights to the counterpart to the contract. Issues that I gather were addressed if the contract were drafted by a "top intellectual property attorney". Since we don't have information on what licenses or other rights, if any, the counterpart has in the contract, the outcome is just speculation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The contract states that I retain the copyright to all images. Legally, this means I have and control the ownership of the images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So what rights are granted to the model? Was she really just paid for her time and you have a right to control everything or does your contract say you need to give the model some kind of usage rights? Does it really forbid where and how the image is used? Does it address watermarking?</p>

<p>At the heart of the issue here is what rights the model has over the images. Because the photographer owes all the rights, he grants the model a subset of those. Normally these discussions are discussed prior to the shoot. One of the clauses on my license grant is that the model has the right to use the images for promotional purposes and this includes promoting herself in any way she wants. She does not have any rights to sell the image. She also has no rights to modify the images - of course she can do it in violation of the contract, but I discuss with her the need for me to maintain control over the creative integrity of the images. <br>

For what is worth.</p>

<p>Since this was a TF shoot and no money changed hands between the model and you, you are still in complete control here. I am assuming (!) she signed a model release before the shoot. In my model release, I clearly state that I and I alone own the rights to the .raw files. If the model wants .raw instead of .jpg or .tif, then they will pay for them, and the cost will be fairly substantial.</p>

<p>As was already mentioned, handing .raw files to a model or agency is the modern day equivalent to handing over the negatives or transparencies. Once you do that, you are relinquishing any control, or even input, to what the final image will look like.</p>

<p>Ultimately the decision is up to you, but were it me, I would not turn over the .raw files to anyone.</p>

<p>First of all you did not "Hire" here if you are shooting "FTP/TFCD" Thus the word TRADE. I always give the models a disk of everything we shot together. Sometimes they are happy with that than me spending time editing a shot I picked out. I pick out and edit the shots I want for my portfolio and give them a disk with all the RAW or JPG which ever I shot and I am done with it. Then we are both happy and I get a lot more return business. If I am paying the model then they need to pay me for copies of the prints. They can not have both the money and copies of the photos. Maybe, if I really like them I will give them a copy of the edited shots I used in my port.</p>

<p>Also, I would like to point out to most models there is no difference to whether you give them a RAW file or a JPG file. Both can be equally editied and modified substantially in photoshop. However, if you want to give the model the best possible source for editing and havie the highest quality to represent your work give the RAW. I reduce the size of my jpg images using Arles images and place my copyright on every photo automatically. That wazy than can edit, but it will never look as good as my edits because they have a smaller file my TFCD product. Not my 21mp JPG or RAW which I reserve for my paying customers. Also, many of my studio images don't require editing because I get the images correct off the camera just like in the old days when we shot film.</p>

<p>I wouldn't give her the RAW files with out release of license without payment for the release. I only give jpg's and contract state the files are not to be modified or use for any purpose other than what's stated in the contract or with out consent from me the photographer. I specially don't want anyone editing my files other than advertisers that I do contract work for and thats because I get enough money with those shoots to justify the use as they see fit or course they can't resale the photos. <br>

Now it the model wanted a different look of the images done in photoshop I would suggest sitting down with her and have her work with you explaining what she wants done to the images.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>First of all you did not "Hire" here if you are shooting "FTP/TFCD" Thus the word TRADE.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the key point here that seems to be missed. One has to ask what the agreement was for with "trade." If the photographer doesn't spell it out, the model can certainly ask for the RAW images. It should have been the photographer's responsibility to specify exactly what was being delivered.</p>

<p>Both can be equally editied and modified substantially in photoshop.</p>

<p>And this is the other key point. If they are going to end up on "less than reputable" website, it doesn't matter what format they are in, it's not like high quality imaging is a key factor on those sites.</p>

<p>All this stuff here about "pay" and "hire" is totally irrelevant.</p>