john_h.1

<blockquote> <p>they should honour your verbal agreement, but as mentioned above it will be hard to prove what that was… …you didn't detail the terms in a written agreement so ultimately it is your word against theirs.</p> </blockquote> <p>Mark explained that, <em>“[n]ow that the shoot is over they are asking for more money than originally agreed and do not want the website, even though I have text messages discussing this.</em>” This indicates that the bargain may, indeed, have been reduced to a memorialized writing or at least as evidence of the intentions. </p>

<blockquote> <p>"They have not released the images to me and have gone off to 'think about it'."<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>---Suggest the thought process include whether being paid the agreed amount of money is better then being paid no money. I gather they aren't the only game in town and you have the evidence of what the bargain was.<br /><br /></p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>"if they turned around and sold the images of my property would this be copyright infringement?"<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>---Probably not in most places. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>Good idea.</p>

<blockquote> <p>does this form cover the rest of the wedding party members?<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>No. <br /><br />If you think about it, would you really believe one can just sign away someone else' rights without prior consent of the other person? If so, anyone could organize some event or just hire a photographer to shoot at an event, you show up and, with no warning, you're suddenly you lose any right to control commercial use of you likeness because someone merely said so on a piece of paper? It makes no sense.</p> <p>At a minimum, there would have to be a warning before entry. If its an invite event like a wedding where people are obviously going to expend significant resources to go, the notice should be made before that occurs. A lovely thing to add to a wedding invitation. (sarcasm emoticon here).<br /><br />People do expect to be in photos at a wedding and that they will be seen in them. That's legit and is so called editorial use (not commercial use) anyway. But putting a child, whose parents or guardians are the only ones who can provide legal consent, on a business card? That's commercial use and playing with fire by using other people's children with no parental involvement.<br /><br />It neither passes the legal test, nor common sense.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"The agreement stipulates a 35% advance; the agreement is basically null and void if the advance isn't paid."</p> </blockquote> <p>I don't know how it is done in the country at issue here but, even in the U.S., missed payments or other sceduled performance doesn't necessarily excuse the counterpart's performance or make the contract "null and void". Which is why many wedding photographers here, for example, will shoot a wedding even if the client missed a payment deadline. Many contracts go out of the way to clarify what happens if a payment is missed to avoid this exact issue.<br /><br /><br />Do we know how the situation is treated in Singapore or wherever the jurisdiction may be or what the contract even says?</p>

<blockquote> <p>"I would find it humiliating!"</p> </blockquote> <p>Why?</p>

<p>In addition to research which is important but generic, you can post some images here to seek some direct feedback on your particular work.</p>

<blockquote> <p>3. Which lens should I predominantly use? (I've heard wide-angle lenses are bad for portraiture)<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>This is a most basic and rudimentary question. Stating that you merely "heard" the other information also reveals a grave lack of knowledge of the very activity for which you plan to engage in on a professional level. Imagine proposing to repair computers and not knowing what tools to use or what they are even for. What if someone wanted to open a painting business and didn't understand what type of paint is suitable for a particular situation or how to apply it correctly? <br /><br />If we could review an average sample of your portrait images, we might better know how much the lack of knowledge is effecting the end result. The ability to produce marketable images is a perquisite to trying to market them in the first place. Even to an less than discerning clientele. The question is whether you can produce the goods you plan to deliver. Then get in to the method for doing so.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"I hate to charge too much to the event organizers considering they're paying me enough to cover my hotel room, gas, food, etc. (which I'd normally have to pay myself)"</p> </blockquote> <p>That's just expenses and should have nothing to do with the fee for the work portion itself. You're not going there for mere jollies, you are obligated to perform for a client. Negating the "would have to pay for this stuff' issue entirely. You would have to include that in your price if the rodeo were not paying for the itemized expenses.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I refuse... ...Now he's asking... the FOB had his assistant taking pictures throughout the day... ...despite my contract stating I will be the sole photographer... ...the FOB presumably has all of her images on top of the ones I'm supplying... ...I've tried explaining... ...I've also explained...<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>I agree with William and add that its probably time to indicate, as much as professional courtesy and respect allows, that there will be no deviations from the contract <strong>-and-</strong> that further discussion on the issue will not be entertained. Otherwise, there will be more requests and explanations. </p>

<blockquote> <p>"the father is not a party to it."<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>...or is he? </p>

<blockquote> <p>"They agreed. We all sat down and made a selection of 11 final images, and they were very happy... ...A couple of days later they've contacted me to say they expect to be given all 700 of the images, and will use whichever ones they wish. They argue that the requirement for "6 or 7 strong images" was a target to guide the shoot, not a final requirement."<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Hopefully you have this alleged "target" discussion in writing somewhere. If you can at least prove a "meeting of the minds" was for several images or so, then their position of that 100x that are due should not appear as credible in the event they attempt to enforce such terms in a court action.</p>

<p>The requests are not only beyond the scope of the contract, the father is not a party to it. If you conclude that you shouldn't turn over the files, there is nothing improper about that. You might consider,for good will , throwing in some extras to the client if it is not too cumbersome to edit them.</p>

<p>The cynic and realist in me says that the clients, if told of an intended but unfulfilled surprise album later, will tell the family that they would have been very pleased to get one. Even if they actually wouldn't have.</p>

<blockquote> <p>WW x2</p> </blockquote> <p>WW x3. The clients may love it but, only having a teaser, they could become upset that others, no matter how well intentioned, had access they did not have. Profiting from that may make it even worse in that event.<br /><br />It's too risky.</p>

<blockquote> <p>An oral agreement isn't worth the paper it is printed on.</p> </blockquote> <p>What oral agreement?</p> <p><em>"there was an ongoing email that states the date/time/expectations/rate for this occasion as well as the other person agreeing to the terms. (Contract!)"</em></p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>"I tried to help them improve their experience... ...I IMO had all the reason to get really angry and cause some kind of scene... ...I let them finish their 'set', and just waited them to fade away... ...To my amazement and indignation though, they basically kept hanging round for almost half an hour on the very spot I was shooting at previously, looking and staring at me... ...I decided to just wait them out, and they eventually slunk off, throwing dirty looks at me"'</p> </blockquote> <p>They thought you were something of a psycho. I'm pretty sure.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"I went in to the final discussion with bases covered and walked away with the rights to use the photos in albums and the likes. If I were to publish them in a public forum I would have to credit her and her company. I have opted to not publish them publicly."</p> </blockquote> <p>The second's decision making up to this point seems irrational as far a business practices go but it is water under bridge now except for the 'damage control'. Since you don't appear to need use of the images for any other reason than to give to the client and have no problem crediting should you decide to publish them in some way, it seems like a suitable arrangement to make it all go away. <br /><br />It may be tempting to discuss this with the referring friend still but it may get back to the second and lead to them acting irrational and petty again re-ignating the headache. There was little to lose and much to gain before but that is no longer the case. Its the other way around now. If the referrer asks about future work for the second, you can probably come up with some generic, but accurate, stylistic or 'right fit' type response or just a non committal response if they aren't pushing it.</p> <p>I hope you found photo.net to be a helpful experience and visit again. Consider asking for a name change posted here from the admin so the second or others in the future don't find you discussing this stuff online.</p>

<blockquote> <p>They want to return the money I paid them for their services in exchange for ownership of the photos they took.</p> </blockquote> <p>Revisiting the post, this line stands out. This suggests the second believes you own the photos. While acknowledgment of someone else owning something tends to be evidence of the other, in fact, owning the property, it is not as useful when it comes to titled property and intellectual property which has special rules for successfully transferring ownership. But, if you did own the images, namely the copyright to them, then the only remedy the second has to forbid use would be contractual. Which makes no sense.</p> <blockquote> <p><br />I fell for the whole "oh, my friend won't do....." and look at where it got me.<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p> Can we make the legal questions and the whole issue go away by asking the friend to put pressure on their friend, the second? Telling the referring friend you assured me that so and so wouldn't screw things up and can they tell the second photographer freind to knock it off. If I made a referral and that happened, I would be embarrassed and tell the second that they are the cause and that they need to make it right and that future referrals hang in the balance.</p>

<p>It is probably time to get a work for hire type contractual arrangement going as well as surrender of the images by the time the shoot is complete.</p>

<p>Assuming U.S. Law:<br /><br />1. Yes, assuming all the necessary elements are there. Also, due to the unique nature of wedding photos, enforcement can include being made whole by "specific performance" of allowing photo use, not just a refund. Assuming you don't have them. If you do, it should still overcome an infringement claim as you had a license that isn't revocable at will apparently. There are many practical hassles associated with bringing an infringement claim in federal court against you anyway before even getting the whether a claim has merit. If your arrangement arises to a contract, what would they argue in state court (incl. small claims)? Do the writings include or suggest a revocable license? I'm guessing no.<br /><br />2. See Circular 9 at Copyright.gov. Unless you finessed the writings and situation adequately to make it a work for hire, the other photographer owns the images. Assuming that is the case, you're argument is that there is an enforceable license granted for the use.</p> <p>3. If the parameter of the writings/terms encompass such use, then there is a license for the use. There may also be implied licensing if the writings are not enough. Implied use for normal wedding usage ( a wedding album) should be easy to establish. Why else would they have been hired but to provide wedding photos? <br /><br /><br />See local counsel in case of variations and for specific contract interpretation.</p>

<blockquote> <p>My advice, learn to clean your sensor then you won't have that 'worry'.</p> </blockquote> <p>Lousy advice. While it is useful knowledge, avoiding the need to clean it is the most desirable goal.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"I should be free from worrying about someone flying a drone over my property and photographing me in my backyard."</p> </blockquote> <p>No more than being free from being photographed by someone next to your property and photographing you in your backyard. <br /><br /></p> <blockquote> <p>"I am all about First Amendment freedoms."<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Unless it is something that isn't liked apparently. The whole point of such freedoms being to disregard such criteria. So much for being "all about" them.<br /><br /></p> <blockquote> <p>That said, there are some creeps I see at sporting events who are just tagging the cheerleaders and girls in shorts. <br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Yeah, its not like those cheerleaders are dressed up in skimpy outfits for the crowd or anything.<br /><br /></p> <blockquote> <p>The Texas law was a joke. No doubt about that.<br /><br /></p> <p> </p> </blockquote> <p>Despite claiming, in the same paragraph, that its a "tough question" as to whether people should be "controlled" about taking pictures with cheerleaders in them. The exact type of activity the statute intended to control.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></p>

<blockquote> <p>"There was no agreement anywhere that my images may be used"</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm confused now. It sounded before as though you allowed the image to be used but assumed it would be with the watermark left intact. Is that true or did you not grant permission for the imagery to be used at all?</p>

<blockquote> <p>"Obviously there is some perceived marketing/promotional value by the company to your photos, how much is anyone's guess, but this also means the photos have financial value to you the photographer as well."</p> </blockquote> <p><br />Ellis rightly points out an element of uncertainty in response to the questions I raised. I believe, however, there is some additional uncertainty to this issue. Namely, that the company might not have been willing to pay anything as is often the case despite value in using certain images. Here, the odds seem a bit higher that they would have paid since it is their product and there might not be many images to choose from without hiring a photographer to custom shoot the product which may be expensive.</p> <p>In any event, this is probably inconsequential because, if the company was willing to pay for the images if required to use the images, it probably would have required watermark free versions anyway.<br /><br />I probably would have offered use with at least some payment or other return considering it is s business enterprise that approached about usage.</p>