john_h.1

If we follow your "fairness" standard, selling people DVDs of movies, phonographs of music, ect, means they own the copyrights to the content found on such tangible items. The person bought a tangible item. that is all they are and should be entitled to.

This is an incredibly deranged statement. There is something seriously wrong with this person and this type of comment has no place in a business oriented forum.

"Isn't selling a photo without the permission from a model or property owner pretty much the same as a publication using my photo without permission?" Not at all. Infringement involves ownership and use with consent is almost always required except for fair use and public domain, ect. and is criminal in some instances. Property releases are almost never required and model releases are only required to avoid liability in four situations. Most commonly advertising/promotional/endorsement uses. Also known as commercial use. Most times the person inquiring is seeking for a legal basis to avoid liability unlike the infringing uses they complain of.

"In this instance the model changed her mind" If the type of use requires consent, the model can revoke the consent unless there was a contract for perpetual use (or at least a contract that doesn't mention a termination date) The contract usually comes in the form of a model release or has release language in a broader contract. Some releases don't contain the elements of a contract and are revocable. Here, the model changed her mind and provided notice of it. If consent is needed for this particular use, it no longer exists.

"Location could matter with this because laws are not the same everywhere." ---For a claims of intrusion, yes, For a claim of disclosure of private facts, mostly rarely. For claims of false light, very rarely, For commercial use/misapproriation, no. Location is irrelevant. The issue will be if the likeness is used for endorsements, promotions and advertising. In all states.

"The subject, or the hired attorney, will go after the photographer and the client." ---Unless there is a claim for intrusion, disclosure of private facts or false light, there is no legal basis to "go after" a photographer for a third party misappropriation. claim.

>>>or use them in any other way for profit<<< "And there, I believe, lies the rub..." ---Making profit by selling an image is irrelevant. It does not amount to commercial use. Commercial use involves uses relating to endorsements, promotions and advertisements. "many agencies and clients wouldn't accept the image without a release, or insist that you indemnify them" ---The OP is contemplating direct sale art images, mentioning ebay specifically. releases and indemification won't be an issue.

"Will these people ever go away? Don't think so. Weddings should cost about $3000 for 1 or 2 shooters" No. No one owes other photographers a living. If you can't compete on price, you better do so on results.

"you'll likely run into clients like that again, so taking a stand as a matter of policy is in your own business interest in the long haul" That would be accomplished by not turning over images when there is an outstanding balance but without all the hassle and fuss.

<blockquote> <p>What would you do if you were me?</p> </blockquote> <p>Nicely remind her of the issues you just provided to us.</p>

<p><strong><em>"Their choice is either to sign the cancellation agreement and only lose the retainer, or be liable for the entire contract amount."</em></strong></p> <p>Don't assume a court will enforce the latter part when there has already been a clear repudiation of going forward already. If the contract is just as "crystal clear" that the form has to be filled out, to effectively cancel, that might help but don't count on it. Your best position will be if the contract is "crystal clear" that you can't start mitigating and looking for other work until the form is done. Even that might not fly. These forms are CYA worthy when signed but too often not final dispositions when they are not. Trying to use them can put oneself in a predicament. A contract that says any written or electronic notice by the client indicating that the services are to be canceled or no longer desired will trigger the retainer/liquidated damages clause and release the photographer from any duty to shoot the event is sufficient and doesn't require chasing after people for speculative results. </p>

<p>Subject: Being around others photography people obsessing over non-photography people ...<br /><br />Go to social dining event, spend the time embarking on something completely different thinking everyone else should as well, wonder why people completed social dining event without them.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>"They want 70 photos for $500. We don't mind doing this if it'll get them off our case forever"<br /><br />Agree to these terms only if there is also included an executed release of liability from all claims of any kind arising from the shoot and imagery. Tell them this is because they raised the spectre of litigation. If they don't agree. Tell them that you're obligations were discharged long ago and good day to you sir.</p>

<p>For general scenic photography Orleans to Provincetown is where there is an abundance of shooting locations compared to the 'elbow to armit' region. As to the intended subject, any non-busy water area has good potential. Protected non vehicular traffic areas of the National Seashore will tend to have many terns and plovers such as the north spit of Nauset Beach. Learning where to park for such places is another issue. The National Seashore area in Eastham has lots of easy access though and a mix of different water environments.</p>

<p><strong><em>"Under what situation/stipulation would I have to oblige?"</em></strong><br /> <br /> http://copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf<br /><br />The more formal critria is fairly clear cut. The tricky scenario is if your shooting were within the scope of your employment. A review of many factors is required to show whether, on balance, there was sufficient control by the hiring party. Using your own equipment is just one factor which goes in the lack of control column. We don't know the whole story so its impossible to say if the activity was within the scope of employment.</p> <p><em><strong>"One could say that if you took the pictures when they were paying you, then it was part of your job."</strong><br /><br /></em>Not really. But, it may be one of the factors.<em> <br /></em><br /> <strong><em>"No matter, ask that you get a photo credit on the website if your images are used."</em></strong></p> <p>Eschewing a discussion over whether credit actually has any meaningful value, if the employer owns the image that's all that can be done to get it. To ask.<strong><em><br /></em></strong></p>

<blockquote> <p>John H., only my first paragraph was directed at you... ...Nobody is suggesting that John H. is making innuendos. Those come from other follow up posts.</p> </blockquote> <p> The use of the word "you" continued elsewhere in the post which explains why it appeared to be otherwise. Thanks for the clarification.<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote> <p>John H... ...B&H is harly alone. For example, there are plenty of reports about poor factory conditions that manufacture products for various well known US brands... ...rather than drawing more innuendos and per-mature conclusions, let's keep an eye on how this case evolves. If it reaches a point that you are unsatisfied about B&H, you can certainly take your <a id="itxthook2" href="/casual-conversations-forum/00dldu?start=10" rel="nofollow">business </a>elsewhere.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm not sure why all this is directed at me. I didn't make any innuendos or conclusions, mature or otherwise. I didn't even offer any opinions or suggest B&H is alone or not or doing anything. I didn't indicate whether I approved of anything or not. I merely posted an article that may be of interest to many people because of the organization's substantial relationship with the photographic community.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"You are dealing with clients who use contracts every day for their business and would probably think someone amateurish not to use contracts in their business."</p> </blockquote> <p>That would include themselves since they, likewise, are not using a contract. The important issue is whether there will be any future business if these copyright issues are pursued. Namely whether it is better to win the copyright battle only to lose the war of getting zero $$$ from the client ever again. Unless there is substitute work for at least the same money and/or more marketable imagery, it seems foolish to do fight that battle.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"it has the earmarks of election year politics."</p> </blockquote> <p>These enforcement activities occur all the time. There's no evidence, whatsoever, of any electoral motivations.</p> <blockquote> <p>The sad fact is you can't win against the government, at least without spending far more in legal fees than the cost of settlement.</p> <p> </p> </blockquote> <p>This is inaccurate. The opposite has occurred often.<br /><br />Let's stop making stuff up.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"I know how this will go. Unless you do exactly as they desire, you won't be working for them again."</p> </blockquote> <p>You are correct sir.</p>

<p>http://nypost.com/2016/02/25/bh-forced-hispanic-workers-to-use-separate-bathroom-feds/</p>

<blockquote> <p>Since photo.net doesn't identify what rating someone gave you, you have no clue who gave you the low rating nor why, so you can't ask them what it was that made them rate your photo so low.</p> </blockquote> <p>One can't send so easily venomous messages and commit acts of revenge as much to givers of undesired ratings either.</p>

<p>Rating criticism posts used to be almost daily. <br /><br />Like then, one of the issues whas that low ratings should come with an explanation because it offers constructive insight while such insight is somehow unavailable as to why an image was deemed so worthy. Both high and low ratings are potentially arbitrary or unfit for analytical use. The twist here is that it is the rater, arguing for low rating explanations rather then the recipient who often seemed to have a bruised ego.<br> The ratings, once an issue of great angst featuring revenge ratings, cries of unfairness and alleged in inadequacies eventually evolved in to the simple format and governance used to this day. It is probably best to treat ratings reflecting the whims of the raters involved. Ideally, ratings would come with explanations but that has been promoted for a very long time with little success. I recommend seeking out individual members who willing to critique photos posted here or otherwise provided.<br> <br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>The photographer's information is right on the referenced website. Who better to ask...<br /><br />Email: info@candaceberry.com<br />Phone: 1(902) 830-2490</p>

<p>The photography is merely of someone else's artwork so its future value to you for any other potential client seems remote and may have its own pre-established copyright issues so having "rights" isn't very important in that respect. This leaves you with the issue if you want to be compensated by a usage standard or a flat fee for your time and talents. If you have a lot of people knocking at your door for work, then having usage model may be suitable. If you don't want this client to walk away (which they can easily do since competence rather than style is needed) then you may need to yield and make your one off offer. I suppose you could have a hybrid arrangement of some sort or offer up exclusivity and such but it sounds like they phycoologically are fixated on having simple unfettered control even though book use doesn't require it. That's just what's in their head. There's something to be said for doing a shoot, getting paid and never having to worry ever again about what is going on with the images and tracking usage, getting fussy with clients ect. So...</p>