2nd shooter trouble

[jodygarland]

I have been working with a second shooter with a signed WFH agreement stating that there is no web usage allowed of photos from my

private parties. I went to Second shooter's web site today and I see that she is using images that she shot of children from one of my

events. I have explained to her previously that I would not put images of children on my own website without a signed model release from

the guardian. No, she does not have any releases signed from anyone.

She is using these images to advertise her business. She states nowhere that she shot them while working for my company as WFH but

anyone who sees their child would know the party. I, being the primary contracted photographer, am worried that I could get into trouble

with these families whose images are being used by my second photographer without their knowledge.

 

Second Shooter agreed in writing stating that she understood no web use but she did it anyway. Can I be held liable for her? The way she

has these images set up on her site, they can be downloaded by anyone visiting the non-password protected site. I feel sick about this. I

feel like she has violated my clients privacy as well as disrespecting my business. As a mom, I would hate to know pictures of my children

were available online for anyone to see/take.

 

I think I know how harsh I am going to have to be with her. She is learning the business of photography, I don't want it to be at my clients

expense.

[picturesque]

You should consult a lawyer, but I would guess that you can be held liable, so I'd get on the phone with your second shooter right now and demand that the images be taken down immediately. I would say that her actions are immediate grounds for never hiring her again since they nullified your working agreement.

[craig_gillette]

This could be ugly if the parents get upset. It's not necessarily easy or possible to dodge the fall-out when an employee does something wrong - even if you have documentation that they acted outside of contract and your policies. I'd agree with Nadine, discuss this with your attorney as quickly as you can, then take action as they suggest.

[jeffrey_blake_adams]

Consult your atty, nothing you say to her verbally will matter. As for your liability, that is what your biz insurance is for. You may wish to notify them of the issue and they may choose to contact the 2nd shooter. J

[david_schilling___chicago_]

I would suggest trying a personal, civil conversation with her and simply ask that she remove the photos from the site. Also explaining the implications that this has on your relationship with her. Why is it necceassary to go public and post here first?

[jodygarland]

David, the reason I posted here is because I would like to know how other pros who work with second shooters would

handle this kind of situation. This second shooter asked me if I ever obtained a model release from the client of the event.

When I said no, she said that was too bad that I couldn't put up the really nice pictures on my site. She didn't say a word

about putting them up on her site. Now in retrospect, she has asked me about model releases from all my events that I

used her to second shoot at. I can only assume that her intent was to use these even though she signed a contract at the

start of each event stating that she understood the use/non use allowed. We are talking about 30+ kids whose faces are

visible in the images. That is 30 children's privacy she doesn't care about. I don't know how personal or civil I should be

with her. She knows full well that what she did is ethically wrong, maybe against the law?

[catherinevankempen]

This is obviously not the main problem here but I was under the impression that as long as she was not selling/making money off of these pictures there is no need for model release forms. Am i incorrect in this assumption. I personally do not see the big deal of her posting pictures of children on her website (and Im a mom too). My son has his picture taken all the time and not always by me, at parties, at daycare, even the YMCA has you sign a release form in case he happens to be in a picture they take and want to use for advertisement or brochures or anything. I think I'd be flattered if they choose a picture with him in it .. Anyhow, this is besides the point.

 

The issue to me seems that she is disregarding the contract between the two of you and it seems to me that you have a right to insist she remove those images from her web site.

 

 

Catherine

[iconometry.net]

The law regards commercial use as more "suable" than editorial use. I can't remember exactly but believe the test

case involved the New Yorks Times magazine, found in their favor after they had published an unflattering image

used in a news story. Using photos to promote a business, even if not sold, probably would be considered as

commercial use. An example of editorial use would be a news photo. And, yes, there is more concern with images of

minors. Internet searches or looking at media law sites should provide you with the needed law. So, yes, put your

communication in writing,

or, at least, follow up with written correspondence. You might be able to explain this to the second shooter. If

this doesn't help, consult an attorney.

[bluphoto]

Is she an employee of your company, or a contractor you've hired? If the latter then she's self employed and should have her own liability insurance.

[jodygarland]

This was a work for hire situation. She is not an employee. I state in the WFH contract that while they are on a job for me,

they are covered by my liability insurance. I may have to rethink that one in light of this.

This is the first problem I have had so far with a second shooter aside from a different second shooter giving my client

their business card right in front of me and then asking me if that was the wrong thing to do:))

[edrodgers]

As was already stated, You should probably consult a lawyer, but at the same time I would formally request in writing that the images should be removed.

 

On a personal note, my kids are online for the world to see, posted by me, along with hundreds of thousands of other kids posted on Flickr. I think it's sad that people worry so much about pictures. What's the difference between posting a picture of a kid and taking them to the mall? I think a mall is much more dangerous.

[jodygarland]

My kids images are online along with model released signed clients are up on my website for the world to see as well. I

give my clients the choice of accepting or declining the use of their images. I do enough events/shoots that I don't need to

post anyone's photos if they don't say in writing that it would be ok. Most of my clients choose to keep their family/private

event photos private. I don't question their reasons, just respect their requests.

I put a photo montage up on youtube of my own child painting and was creeped-out by some of the people that subscribed

to my videos shortly after. yucky feeling that the beauty I was was being looked at differently. That is another topic

altogether.

[scott_b.4]

I would educated her that without a model release, the parents can sue her, especially she does not have a contract with them. I would also talk to the parents of the children to make them aware of the situation instead of them finding out on their own.

 

This is a lesson to be learn. If you are going to use a second shooter, I suggest you buy extra memory cards. When the shoot is done, take the card from the second shooter. This way you avoid unauthorized posting of pictures.

[edrodgers]

"...choose to keep their family/private event photos private."

 

I know what you mean. I work from an opt-out point of view. I post what I like, and honor requests to have images removed. (But that's never happened.) My model release has language that expresses that concept for the bride and groom, as well as the guests. I've only had two weddings where there were privacy concerns, and both were covert government types. (I work in the D.C. area..) For these weddings, I don't use the images out of courtesy.

 

I'm just saying there is a ton of pointless paranoia out there, and I think it is sad. Not only does it restrict photographers as artists, it also restricts our rights as the owners of our work. Maybe I might get in trouble for putting up a contested image on my professional site, but I can plaster them up as art wherever I like, even without a model release.

 

Of course, that's a bit off topic. Your second shooter is way out of line.

[ty_mixon]

Slight rant here:

 

For all those that say 'get a lawyer & let the shark handle it' - That's the wrong first step, from a sensible human viewpoint. First step is let the person know. And perhaps let the other person know you will be contacting an attny to check what your responsibilities are.

 

Why do so many ppl want to run to an authority figure instead of trying to handle the situation in an adult manner first? That is not to say you shouldn't cover yourself- use polite language & do things inwriting. But sueing right off? Yeech!

 

Sorry for the rant.

[edrodgers]

I don't think contacting a lawyer means that a law suit will inevitably follow. I'd simply contact a lawyer to get a better understanding of the law as it applies to the specific situation, and write letters accordingly.

 

My version of the law is always clouded by my personal view of morality. :)

[kiva]

Slow up ... just call her and ask her if she recalls the terms of the contract she signed.

 

Maybe she just lost track of it in her excitement if she's just learning. You can create good out of this by asking her a question instead of stomping in with demands and accusations.

 

If the friendly / teaching approach fails then you always have many suggestions above that are available.

[idobelieve]

I just want to completely back up William Morgan's response. Before you jump to conclusions about your second

shooters intentions and sick your attorney on her, give her a call and calmly and firmly remind her of the terms

of your contract and tell her she needs to remove said photos immediately. If it was an embarrassing mistake on

her part then she will comply without any need to call in the law. If she doesn't remove them promptly you can

get out the big guns.

[veeee]

So when Tv stations take shots of crowds in lets say a event or you take shots of your kids/party in a public place and there are people in the background, do you get a model release from them? does the TV station get one? She took a picture at the wedding and is posting it up, yep maybe she can call the parents up and ask and get a form, but she is not directly selling the photos to a mag? C'mon stop being anal, I think you just don't want her to come up..if you did you would ask her to ask the parents consent and you're cool with it then? Alot of parents would be cool of it. So take a chill pill, it people like you who have made this world worriesome about being sued and all.

[jodygarland]

Hi Veej, I don't think you understood the post. I am a professional event photographer who is contracted to shoot a

completely private party not a public gathering. The client has signed a statement with my business saying that their

images cannot be used by my company for any purposes of advertising/publication. These are not public images, this is

not street photography.

I asked in my post if I could suffer any liability if my second shooter gets in trouble for using these photos to advertise

her business. My client doesn't know my second shooter and I don't know for sure that my shooter won't turn around and

sell these through a stock photography site. Just when should I be concerned that I have personal liability. I have liability

insurance but I don't know if it would cover this type of situation.

I hope that helps you explain the problem. Would you do this to your employer as a second shooter? Don't you think it

shows complete lack of respect to sign a contract with your employer and then break the trust?

[edrodgers]

I didn't realize you signed a contract not to use the images.

 

Given that information, I would not have given the images to the second shooter at all. It seems you have contracted

yourself out of your rights, and I think you might be sued.

 

You were negligent in that you did not take reasonable precautions to protect the privacy of the images.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

My question about why you needed to post here before speaking directly with the photographer was actually rhetorical. Why not simply talk to this person and ask them to pull the images from the net?

 

Odds that these images could actually be sold as stock images are slim and would leave that photographer liable since that would require a release.

 

BTW, the industry contract standard allows studios to use images for studio promotion,....I don't understand why your contract would specifically spell out the opposite. Additionally, that clause could indeed leave you liable for not taking precautions to protect the images as Ed states above.

[jodygarland]

I have a model release that is presented with the contract giving the client a place to sign to accept and a place to sign to

decline use for advertising/publication use of their images. I sometimes work with some very public clients in my area such

as Rabbi's and sports figures who really don't want their images used to sell work. I have found that this ability to decline

the model release has actually brought me business from people who want this type of privacy. This is why I have my

second shooter sign a contract at the start of each event stating that they will not use these images for anything other then

so they can see how they did and learn from their shots.

[neal_warren]

Whenever I use a second shooter, I provide all equipment and memory cards. Yes, it costs more initially. But then they

never have access to the images they shoot. I take all equipment and images home with me at the end of the event. No

copies (digital or print) are ever given to the second shooter. This is because it is my studio's work even if they shot it while

hired by me. We can't both use the same images to promote our separate photography businesses.

 

Neal

[rachel_peek]

Bottom line is your second shooter signed a contract explicitly stating that she is to not display the images on her

website and that ALONE should be enough to compel her to remove the images at your request. Hopefully your

contract also includes a transfer of copyright (in which case, you OWN the image) or lifetime licensing rights so that

you can legally sell the images that she shot to your client.

 

Second to that, she does not have a release from the children's parents to legally display their recognizable likeness

for commercial purposes (and her posting the images on her website is commercial, as she's using the site to

promote herself as a photographer for hire) so she's opening herself up to trouble if the parents find out and have a fit.

 

I would NOT notify the parents of the situation at this point, as this could raise flags, no matter how unwarranted,

about your professionalism and dependability in their eyes (such as you don't have control your "employees" or you

aren't savvy enough to hire ethical employees, etc.). Try to deal directly with the photographer, and should things go

south, THEN decide on whether or not the clients need to be in the know.

 

Also, if any legal moves had to be made, whether by you against the second shooter or by the client against you,

are you a member of PPA? If so, they'll have your back!