John Allan wrote:
This is so over-the-top.
Ask the mother politely to have her attorney contact you (or your council) and discontine any business discussion with her.
The attorney will have a cool head and will immediately recognize her demand as the rediculous flailings of a woman in grief.
If she harasses you - file a police report.
I'm amazed that anyone would actually consider this demand.

John

This is a excellent ideal and one I was about to write, darn you.  Sometimes while
its nice to be nice when people make demands it changes things and who knows
whats next.  She could accuse him of having more images he didn't give. 
Her attorney has no emotional attachment to the issue and knows the laws.
Only deal with him/her.

David Baxter wrote:
Am I the only one that finds this strange? A healthy 21 year old just dies in her sleep? Could it be possible that the mom found out the daughter was modeling, freaked out, and made up some story just to try and get the pictures back? Considering some of the excuses I've heard in my life I wouldn't put it past some mothers to do such a thing.

actually no, this can really happen.  your body paralyses itself when you go to sleep so you don't move around too much or act out the dream.  your body also does different processes while you are asleep.  you could even have a heart attack while you're asleep and not know it. So, whatever happened to her she still could have died in her sleep like anyone else.  You can be the person with the best track record of health and still die in your sleep.

CUnique wrote:

If he isn't going to use the photos anyways what good does it do him to bych about it and keep photos that will probably steam other people up and cause him alot of aggravation?

Some people just like drama...I guess.
*shrugs

That really isn't a good point. From a legal presepective, the property is his. It doesn't matter if he never uses them, it's his property. come on now, you are making the photographer look like a man that is solely looking for trouble. Life would be a 'bytch' if this always happens when something like this comes up. The steaming up part is coming from a lost of a family member and not from holdng pictures hostage.

I agree with what has been addressed here by many, the mother is upset, and needs some time. If I were the photographer, I'd talk to her let her know what time it is and tell her, that is if he can, that he understands what she's going through and that she needs some time to herself to think and clear her mind. And hopefully we can get together and try to clear this up the best way that we both can for both of our sakes. The women threatning the photographer isn't going to make a situation any better.

Interesting, not sure if this model was a MM member, but this is the second one that I've read on here that died. But the first one was a MM member.

John Allan wrote:
This is so over-the-top.
Ask the mother politely to have her attorney contact you (or your council) and discontine any business discussion with her.
The attorney will have a cool head and will immediately recognize her demand as the rediculous flailings of a woman in grief.
If she harasses you - file a police report.
I'm amazed that anyone would actually consider this demand.

John

Very true John -- one thing I've discovered -- when you face issues like this, you want your "opponent" to have the best lawyer possible. A good lawyer will behave as you suggest. A lousy one will tell her she has a great chance of success, thus putting you both through agony for months. . .

Wing Wong wrote:
That is fairly irrational thinking.

lets keep it in context.  and unless youve lost a son or daughter, i doubt you can relate.  im saying she has a "get out of jail free card" on this one.

but yes, being that the images have been sold.  keep a certefied copy of the release.  and why not have the mom sign a release when you give her the negs/discs?  upon recipt of disc...said mom agrees to hold said photog responsible for nuthin!  in this lifetime or any other, in this unverse or any other. 

and is intittled to no further compesation in any way from said photog. 

(i love all the universe/inter-galactic mumbo jumbo on some of these contracts.  and wing-wong, im not picking on you.  i just grabbed your quote as an example)

CUnique wrote:
I say you stick to your guns and keep the photos...obviously you have nothing else better to do then concern yourself with this woman you don't even know about photos you don't even use to prove a point lost amongst all of this rambling on and on and so forth.

Like the T-Shirt Says:

Just Do It

:-P

But now you are assuming and making judgements. damn there are many times on these forums that it don't pay to ask question when you are being put on a cross.

Mayhaps there is more than what meets the eye. It's so easy to have sympathy for another without knowing the unknowing first. There are some very decieving people out there. Look at some the people who took advantage of the 9/11 wtc situation. pretended to be dead to collect on a insurance policy. you'd be amazed at the types of stuff people do. but, let's just hope this isn't the case. the first thing to do is find out all of the details and go from there. it's always good to get both sides of the story instead getting emotionally caughtup with what you believe vs what you really now.

Nemi wrote:
Okay, ready for some rational thinking here people?

Chances are if this girl was a model, the OP was not the the first photographer contacted.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Nemi wrote:
Chances are every photographer is not as nice as the OP in willingness to give up the images, and it is quite possible she was already frazzled from and altercation with another photographer BEFORE she called you.

Again, assumes facts not in evidence.

Nemi wrote:
The threat to sue likely comes from a combonation of her life falling apart + catching attitude from other photographers that are more territorial of their images.

A conclusion which is but one of many possible conclusions given the facts, and based on facts not in evidence.

Nemi wrote:
Don't take it personally because It most likely has absolutely nothing to do with the OP, but instead, outside forces.

Once again, assumes facts not in evidence.

We don't know what it's about.  Several scenarios have been proposed, and there is insufficient information to rule any of them out. What we do know is that once "lawsuit" becomes an issue, it's very wise to get more facts before taking action.

Nemi wrote:
Have a little compassion people.

Indeed, but it seems to me that compassion works in both ways.  The mother MIGHT simply be being unreasonable out of grief - but that's by no means assured. 

And we might consider showing a little compassion for the photographer, who seems to have done nothing wrong.  When faced with an unreasonable and potentially costly thread, decided to think for a bit before taking action.  That, it seems to me, does not warrant all the scorn that some folks have heaped upon him.

jason messer wrote:
lets keep it in context.  and unless youve lost a son or daughter, i doubt you can relate.  im saying she has a "get out of jail free card" on this one.

but yes, being that the images have been sold.  keep a certefied copy of the release.  and why not have the mom sign a release when you give her the negs/discs?  upon recipt of disc...said mom agrees to hold said photog responsible for nuthin!  in this lifetime or any other, in this unverse or any other. 

and is intittled to no further compesation in any way from said photog. 

(i love all the universe/inter-galactic mumbo jumbo on some of these contracts.  and wing-wong, im not picking on you.  i just grabbed your quote as an example)

Hey, no prob. ^_- Definitely not taken personally.

I've lost family members, though thankfully no children yet. It IS something that shakes the foundations of your world and turns it upside down. And it does render one's thought process to be irrational. And until everyone is calm and less emotionally charged... very little real discussion can happen.

I know for a fact that should something like a child dying, I would become VERY irrational. I'd probably end up doing what the mother did. What the mother needs to do is find her peace and calm. Until then, there is little agreement that can happen between the photographer and the mother.

^_- In the future... should I end up doing something like this, I dearly hope that someone will point me back to this forum(if it exists) to remind me of what I've posted/said and what others have posted and said. It is VERY hard to make clear decisions when emotions are involved... especially when they escalate into threats.

I agree with the signed/notarized document for the mother waiving all rights to sue/make additional claims against the photographer. If you turn over stuff, it needs to be done with. Nothing like a good emotionally charged mindset to bring on the paranoia about "hidden negatives" and such.

It is amazing how dividing this topic is turning out to be though.

Edit/Add:

When you get that lawyer to draft up the contract... have another lawyer look it over. Seriously.

Whether or not the mother decides to sue you... cover your bases... retain the counsel and services of a good lawyer. Don't wait for the lawsuit to appear. You don't want to be looking for a lawyer with the lawsuit already slapped against you.

She, in her grief, gets to make her outburts... but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have legal protection just in case. She might be emotional and upset, but the lawyers she may send to your door are serious enough.

The Don Mon wrote:
Got a phone call yesterday from a mother of a model I helped get started.
She informed me that she had passed away 2 weeks ago.She had died while asleep
with no warning and she pretty much just never woke up.

she was 21...wasnt informed on what her death was from.
Ill be finding out in a day or so.

Her mother requested any and all negatives and disks.
Im going to do it because im not really doing anything with the shots.
However I did sell some of them,shortly after i shot with her.

Reason why is she says that she regreated doing photos((news to me))
She signed a release and we never had any issues i also told her what i was going to do with them right off the bat.She was fine with it ((the model)).

so out of nowhere the mother threatens me that if i dont ((after i already said i was going to.)) that she is going to sue me if i dont.im like wtf where the hell did that come from?

((now im debating why should i even bother )) let her try to sue me then i counter sue for lost wages and distress...

so im asking you all what would you do ?

((i already have my own answer i just want to see what you all say...
keep in mind that my beliefs is... i always educated and looked all for
all the girls ever shot with as much as i can from fraud and what not.))

You have rights to the photos, the model signed the contract they are yours. She can sue, but she won't win.

jason messer wrote:
lets keep it in context.  and unless youve lost a son or daughter, i doubt you can relate.  im saying she has a "get out of jail free card" on this one.

Unfortunately, I'm in position to see both sides of this discussion.
As a grieving parent, I was floored when Lifetouch sent me the original negative of the school photograph they had shot two weeks prior with a full release. Needless to say alot of respect was gained that day!

Cover your butt legally, but "no good deed goes unpunished"

Iris Swope wrote:

I dunno, the Bible says something about being modest, Adam & Eve covering their nudity once they had the knowledge of good and evil....ya know basic stuff like that.. I can't quote it at the moment, because I've been up since around 3 yesterday.. But ya, I'm pretty sure somewhere in there, there was something about not being publicly naked....

But you have to understand what that basic stuff means. But that's another story for another time. And the photographer may not be a Christian. He or she may have their own belief.

Julian Watt wrote:
What would Lewis Hine think of this?

??

I am confused about the Lewis Hine question.  What would a photographer from the early 1900's have to do with this?

Iris Swope wrote:

Something like that. Y'all can be naked all you want. I won't stop you, tell you you're wrong, make comments on it, etc....

Do as you will! That's my motto...

question? is it a sin for many of the African tribes who are butt naked?

Dan  Hood  MM/Moderator wrote:
Do you know for a fact that the model did indeed die?

That was moy question too and it has been raised by others.  I can't tell you how many models over the years have made every excuse there is to get out of contracts.  My guess is she probably isn't and instead has a reason she wants to unring the bell.

If she really is dead, then sensitivity is in order.  Her mother is obviously going through grief.  I wouldn't purport to advise you what to do, if you CONFIRM she is really dead.  Sudden, unexplained death of a 21 year old in their sleep is such a rare thing. 

In the end though, if she really is dead, whatever you do, you need to take into consideration the feelings and grief of the mother.  I am not telling you that you need to give back the photos (which you might choose to do), but if she is indeed grieving, be nice.

But it still gets back to the original question, how do you know she is dead?

Cyberhawk Studios wrote:
Because he has sold some, he needs to keep the negatives/RAW files and the release just to cover his butt should those sales turn south and he needs to prove legality.

I don't understand how this is true.

It seems to me there is a much better way to handle the situation, and one that helps with other possibilities as well.  The photographer should send copies of the pictures off to the Copyright office with a Form VA and $30.  Get the photos registered as legally his.  Then he can proceed with a little more confidence in being able to control the situation should something stupid happen (caused either by his customer, or the mother, or someone else).

From Several Posts wrote:
She can sue, but she won't win.

I'm seeing this recurring theme of the mother suing and not winning or not having a case... it doesn't matter if she has a case or not. An attorney will look at the case and if there is any merit to it or any chance it can work, the case will go forward... or the attorney will just file a legal looking letter to be sent to the photographer. In either case, the photographer still gets hit with the time needed to deal with the attorney, potentially needing to attend a court hearing, and/or spending his own money to defend himself in court.

She may not win, but she can definitely cost him alot of money.

The main reason why the photographer, when confronted with a threat to be sued, needs to retain the services of a lawyer/attorney... if he has not already done so.

(Btw, references to "he" should be generalized to "he/she" as there are a good number of photographers who are female and should also retain legal counsel for such situation.)

Nemi wrote:
Okay, ready for some rational thinking here people? ( all rationality based on the story being true)

Chances are if this girl was a model, the OP was not the the first photographer contacted.

The mother has just abrutly lost her daughter and still doesn't know why.

Chances are every photographer is not as nice as the OP in willingness to give up the images, and it is quite possible she was already frazzled from and altercation with another photographer BEFORE she called you.

The threat to sue likely comes from a combonation of her life falling apart + catching attitude from other photographers that are more territorial of their images.

Don't take it personally because It most likely has absolutely nothing to do with the OP, but instead, outside forces.


Have a little compassion people.


( If the mom is in fact a lying whore, disregard all statements of logic. )

But you are just coming up with theories to what may have been.

Wing Wong wrote:
The main reason why the photographer, when confronted with a threat to be sued, needs to retain the services of a lawyer/attorney... if he has not already done so.

I disagree.  Not that I think it's inappropriate to talk to an attorney at this stage, but it seems premature. 

1.  We don't know upon what grounds the lawsuit may be brought.  No obvious ones present themselves, so whatever it is will be creative.  It seems like knowing the cause of action would be helpful before talking to an attorney.

2.  The vast majority of threats to bring suit result in nothing.  If we talk to attorneys every time someone raises the possibility, attorneys get rich, we get poor, and we are no better off legally than we were before.

I'd recommend waiting until at attorney is actually involved on the other side, and there is some indication what, if any, cause of action is being suggested.

TXPhotog wrote:

Nemi wrote:
Okay, ready for some rational thinking here people?

Chances are if this girl was a model, the OP was not the the first photographer contacted.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Nemi wrote:
Chances are every photographer is not as nice as the OP in willingness to give up the images, and it is quite possible she was already frazzled from and altercation with another photographer BEFORE she called you.

Again, assumes facts not in evidence.

Nemi wrote:
The threat to sue likely comes from a combonation of her life falling apart + catching attitude from other photographers that are more territorial of their images.

A conclusion which is but one of many possible conclusions given the facts, and based on facts not in evidence.

Nemi wrote:
Don't take it personally because It most likely has absolutely nothing to do with the OP, but instead, outside forces.

Once again, assumes facts not in evidence.

We don't know what it's about.  Several scenarios have been proposed, and there is insufficient information to rule any of them out. What we do know is that once "lawsuit" becomes an issue, it's very wise to get more facts before taking action.


Indeed, but it seems to me that compassion works in both ways.  The mother MIGHT simply be being unreasonable out of grief - but that's by no means assured. 

And we might consider showing a little compassion for the photographer, who seems to have done nothing wrong.  When faced with an unreasonable and potentially costly thread, decided to think for a bit before taking action.  That, it seems to me, does not warrant all the scorn that some folks have heaped upon him.

Well being there isn't much evidence...most of this thread is based on assumptions, and within my post I did say things like "likely" and "chances are". I made sure not to present anything as absolute fact.

Wing Wong wrote:
She doesn't trust the photographer. Even if he gave her everything, she will think there is something worse. She is irrational with grief right now and the only safe thing is to let her calm down before trying to talk to her.

The 1st rule of negotiation is: Never make the first offer;

The 2nd rule of negotiation is: Never, ever, continue to negotiate with someone that has thretened to sue you. Anything you say, or do, will invariably be held against you.

As soon as "mom" mentioned the "S" word it was no longer a negotiation anyway. It was a dead duck!

Studio36

kickfight wrote:
The issue of an offspring's death is always difficult, but let us not be naive or get caught up in cheap sentimentalism. There's nothing the mother can gain by this... if she wants copies of the images, that's fine. But she has NO legal entitlement to the images or the negatives, and simply yielding them to her because she's grieving means someone's hard work is surrendered for no good reason. This is not a treasured heirloom or a family memento we're talking about... this is work that the model performed for the photographer, and that work belongs to the photographer. The request to surrender the photos and negatives is unreasonable. The unreasonable-ness of it MAY be motivated by grief, but that doesn't make it any less unreasonable. There may also be ulterior motives, although there's no proof thereof. Best to just play it safe, and playing it safe means consulting a lawyer, and releasing NOTHING to ANYONE.

cheap sentimentalism?  dude...what is the matter with you?

nothing to gain?  yes she does....its called the memory of her child the way it is right now.  people are jumping all over this like hes releasing negs of princess di. 

again...keep it in perspective.  she just lost a child.

i wonder how she would feel seeing her dead kid in a print add about herpes?  or for a massage parlor, escort service, phoine sex ad, billboard for a "gentlemens" club...etc.  all possible with the photog having a signed release.  shes knows this as they've already been sold once.

shes probably already ran into another photographer like kickfight.  hence the "guns out" stance from the start.

give her the stuff.  be kind.

Nemi wrote:
Well being there isn't much evidence...most of this thread is based on assumptions, and within my post I did say things like "likely" and "chances are". I made sure not to present anything as absolute fact.

Yes, but "rational thinking" would then suggest that there are many other possibilities besides the ones that you suggest.  It would further be rational to consider those other possibilities, not just yours, when coming to a conclusion on what to do.

The Don Mon wrote:
Got a phone call yesterday from a mother of a model I helped get started.
She informed me that she had passed away 2 weeks ago.She had died while asleep
with no warning and she pretty much just never woke up.

she was 21...wasnt informed on what her death was from.
Ill be finding out in a day or so.

Her mother requested any and all negatives and disks.
Im going to do it because im not really doing anything with the shots.
However I did sell some of them,shortly after i shot with her.

Reason why is she says that she regreated doing photos((news to me))
She signed a release and we never had any issues i also told her what i was going to do with them right off the bat.She was fine with it ((the model)).

so out of nowhere the mother threatens me that if i dont ((after i already said i was going to.)) that she is going to sue me if i dont.im like wtf where the hell did that come from?

((now im debating why should i even bother )) let her try to sue me then i counter sue for lost wages and distress...

so im asking you all what would you do ?

((i already have my own answer i just want to see what you all say...
keep in mind that my beliefs is... i always educated and looked all for
all the girls ever shot with as much as i can from fraud and what not.))

From the intial request-I would do it. (= human decency)

From the terrorist threat-I wouldn't do it. (= human indecency)

I don't work with terrorists. (they are indecent)

I don't care how "upset" they are. (lay the gun down, and I am your friend)

Respect is a two way street.

TXPhotog wrote:

I disagree.  Not that I think it's inappropriate to talk to an attorney at this stage, but it seems premature. 

1.  We don't know upon what grounds the lawsuit may be brought.  No obvious ones present themselves, so whatever it is will be creative.  It seems like knowing the cause of action would be helpful before talking to an attorney.

2.  The vast majority of threats to bring suit result in nothing.  If we talk to attorneys every time someone raises the possibility, attorneys get rich, we get poor, and we are no better off legally than we were before.

I'd recommend waiting until at attorney is actually involved on the other side, and there is some indication what, if any, cause of action is being suggested.

Some legal retainerships are fairly inexpensive and counsel is free for X hours per month. Though... it probably helps to have a friend who's a lawyer. ^_^;;

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

Sudden, unexplained death of a 21 year old in their sleep is such a rare thing.

I guess some of you have seen models lie about death to get out of contracts, but my sister was 22 when she died that way, so the claim that the model is dead isn't far fetched to me.

For a long time afterwards, I saw my mother do some very nutty things out of grief.

Perez Imagery wrote:
dont give her the negs!!!!... sad about the death..... but the question came to mind, did the model regret doing the photos or did the mom regret the daughter doing the photos?

And on the other hand.... maybe the daughter isnt dead, but trying to get her negs back for whatever reson she may have.

Dont give her your work. The circumstances are sad but thats life, we all die. For all you know you could just be getting shafted. People do lie!

offer some complimentary prints, ask for the address where the ceremony will be that youd like to send some flowers and have a print made for the servce.

Please excuse the typos.... late, cant sleep

Yeah, that was going to be my question, are  you sure she is dead?  How did the mother get your contact info?  Under what circumstances would she have had this?  I think you said she just died,  did she have time to go out and find every photographer she worked with, and why?

She has no right to threaten you what so ever.  Her daughter dies and the first thing she is worried about is that she had some pictures out there.

jason messer wrote:
cheap sentimentalism?  dude...what is the matter with you?

nothing to gain?  yes she does....its called the memory of her child the way it is right now.  people are jumping all over this like hes releasing negs of princess di. 

again...keep it in perspective.  she just lost a child.

Dude, forgive me, but wake up. That's NOT how things work. We don't capitulate to someone's grief with the fruit of our hard work. The memories of her child can be provided to her in the form of COPIES of the images. There's NO need for her to have the negatives and the images. NONE. You're letting emotion cloud your reason.

jason messer wrote:
i wonder how she would feel seeing her dead kid in a print add about herpes?  or for a massage parlor, escort service, phoine sex ad, billboard for a "gentlemens" club...etc.  all possible with the photog having a signed release.  shes knows this as they've already been sold once.

People die every day. By this illogic, we should have no public record of dead people whatsoever. If the mother wants to negotiate some kind of transaction, where the photographer is compensated for a transfer of rights, that's one thing. But just handing all his work over is just plain stupid.

jason messer wrote:
shes probably already ran into another photographer like kickfight.  hence the "guns out" stance from the start.

give her the stuff.  be kind.

kindness has nothing to do with this. It has EVERYTHING to do with doing things the right way, by the book, without letting emotion override wisdom.

lotusphoto wrote:
... minus any nudes of course...

1) Then you wouldn't be giving her ALL of the images;

and

2) If "mom" knows that there are nudes and you don't turn them over - she will sue you anyway

and

3) If there are nudes chances are she will stir the shit at the local constabulary to try and have you charged with something... anything.

I said it before... I suspect, indeed expect, that "mom" already knows what the images are... before she ever asked for the negs. If it was TFP and the model got her copies then that would be almost certain that "mom" knew once "mom" had access to her daughter's possessions.

On "mom's" part there is a whole lot more to this story.

Studio36

Legacys 7 wrote:
question? is it a sin for many of the African tribes who are butt naked?

Sure it is... but it doesn't matter because they are all heathens anyway and automatically go to hell.

Studio36

donald "kickfight" trump wrote:
The memories of her child can be provided to her in the form of COPIES of the images. There's NO need for her to have the negatives and the images. NONE. You're letting emotion cloud your reason.

i think you misunderstood what i meant.  im betting she wants her childs memories INTACT.

she wants the negs to PREVENT future sales that would TARNISH the image of her child.  like the ones i mentioned in my last post.

have a heart.

id give them to her.  why not find a new model, shoot the same photos, and get another release?

Iris Swope wrote:
Wow, alot of you people are mean. If you're not doing anything with them, it doesn't make since to me to keep them just because you can.

If you bought a coat from someone, legally, and it sat in your closet. Then they died and their relative asked to have it. Why keep it? If you don't need it, give to someone who wants it....

Because you bought it and it belongs to you. They can buy it back.