open your mouth and remove all doubt..

This voicemail arrived after calling the office to inquire how an image was used to create an ad for a 3rd party, that was then re-published in the mag.

I wonder who's bluffing ...

"shot for my magazine, shot for my company, shot and that is my shop I own that shop I do everything with me!"

(copy and paste in your browser - very small file)

www.phillyriderz.com/ImageLink/rbaez.mp3

Some people just DONT GET IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Some magazines (Playboy comes to mind, but there are others) insist that any photo they buy becomes theirs, to do with as they will.  They have a lengthy contract which specifies just that, and even put a paragraph on the back of their checks to photographers and models to reinforce their rights.

If something like that happened in this case, he's absolutely right.

On the other hand, most magazines buy "one time use" or "exclusive editorial use" for a specified period of time.  Again, that should be in the contract between the photographer and the magazine, and whatever it says both parties should be held to.

(As an aside, if a model is in the shot, the release she signed has to be consistent with the rights granted to the magazine.  A photographer cannot license rights he does not have.  So in this case if the model signed a release for editorial use only, she has a cause of action against the magazine and the client for which the ad was created.)

If there was no written agreement on the use of the photos, the magazine is legally wrong, but collecting on it could be something of an issue.  If you don't care to work with this magazine again, going directly to the client for the ad and asking for payment may be more effective.

That's what I pay my lawyer for, when I mentioned that someone was bluffing; I wasn't talking about me.

I agreed to a 2 paragraph contract; 4 sentences a paragraph, that outlined length of contract, specifically what the images would be used for; covers and model features only, not 3rd party commercial ads, and compensation.

I'm not sure what the model knows, I'm not concerned about her, I'm concerned for me.

That just goes to show, a person can run a magazine and still not know what they are doing.

And BTW, "I'm not sure what the model knows, I'm not concerned about her, I'm concerned for me.", you should be concerned about her because depending on the release wording she could also have a civil action which would put additional pressure on the magazine.

But another question, before involving lawyers and such, have you considered simply sending him a fat invoice for the additional use?

When I called the office, I got an answering machine, I left a message stating that I saw the image in the mag and I wanted to know how we could work it out because the release doesn't give him permission to use the image, outside of promotion for the mag. This ad was for a neighborhood audio shop.

I would have settled for a full page ad in the mag in exchange to make it go away, but when I got that message I felt like I had no choice but to call my lawyer.

The response to my message is what is in the audio clip.

The model in the photo was provided by the magazine for the magazine. At this point I just wanted to put it out there that these are the type of people that we face in the industry, and that everyone should always be prepared to go to bat for their (copy)rights.