gene corleto  wrote:
just so you all know, i did take them all down  as soon as they asked except on my myspace site  since there having problems over there i  cant get in to delete  them

I seem to recall a thread regarding MySpace, but if I remember correctly, in creating a profile on MySpace, you've agreed that MySpace "owns" the posted imagery. (Others, feel free to chime in about it.) This is the same issue regarding Deviantart for which I have STOPPED posting images there. You cannot "delete" your images ... ever. If someone has since found a way to do it, again, feel free to chime in and let me know how you managed that.

JAY carreon wrote:
I once had a model's AGENCY tell me to take her photos down.  Guess what my answer was . . .

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Gimme a clue here... did it start with an "F"?

Studio36

Kendal Carr wrote:
I think if they had paid me I would take the images down and do nothing else with them out of respect for a paying client.  If it was TFCD/TFP then I'd continue to use them if I felt they would make a nice addition to my portfolio.  I don't think it's being rude at all if so.  I think that when you sign up for a TFCD/TFP shoot you are under contract whether it's verbal or written and the idea is that you both donate time to get images you can use.  If they change their mind after the fact they are still responsible for upholding that deal.  There are way too many flakey internet models out there who try all kinds of crap and this is some of it.  I wouldn't give a flying hoot about her boyfriend issues if my payment was images to use.  To me that's as crazy as walking into a photographer's studio and asking him for your money back because your boyfriend didn't approve of the photos.  Or even worse.  That would be like me hiring a model and then  demanding my money back after the images were finished saying that it was because my girlfriend thought the images were too provactive and didn't want me to use them for anything.  How stupid does that sound?  I think a person makes a deal they should keep it.  I'd give them the chance or a way out of it which would just probably be for them to pay me my full rate for a shoot and if they said no then I'd continue to use them.  I don't think it's about there being other fish in the sea.  Yes, we all know there are tons of other models but I think that as professionals we should set the pace and not allow the fly by night wanna be a model today but then quit next month people tell us how it's going to go down.  It's like the game is changing and it's being run and manipulate by these 3-6 month long part time models.  LOL!  But hey, that's just my opinion and who am I?

It's a personal judgment call, like any other it goes without saying. I certainly appreciated others' consideration when circumstances required I go into stealth mode for a while. Although I didn't DEMAND and in some cases, offered payment for, no one who I asked to remove images gave me a problem about it -- 1) the images had been used for a considerable time and they shot other and better things to replace them,  2) if commercially used, had outlived their commercial viability; and 3) they were just darned nice about it. The rules of the game change all the time ... rules only apply to those who consent to follow them. So, as in anything else, if I HAD run across a problem, I would either have found an alternative means or not. It's a pretty binary thing. Agreements and settlements are always based on personal judgment and circumstances and "rules" are more like "guidelines" ... no one way works for everyone.

Britni Hall wrote:
I've never asked a photographer to take down my pictures, but I have been asked by a photographer WHY I took his down.    Seriously, and he was the first one I ever shot with and I felt my work had improved and I didn't want to display those anymore....and he wrote back complaining about it and going on about how he shot for free and I felt bad so I put one up for a little while but eventually took it back down.

Yeah I had that too.  My early shots with a really bad model; I had outgrown them by a long shot and buried them, but she asked me to put them back up.  I did for a little while as a favor also, but couldnt bear to leave them up.  They were AWFUL.

Britni Hall wrote:
I've never asked a photographer to take down my pictures, but I have been asked by a photographer WHY I took his down.    Seriously, and he was the first one I ever shot with and I felt my work had improved and I didn't want to display those anymore....and he wrote back complaining about it and going on about how he shot for free and I felt bad so I put one up for a little while but eventually took it back down.

Who cares if he shot you for free? So, let HIM display the photos, he has them also, right? It's perfectly reasonable to remove earlier work from your portfolio, in fact  I'd say it's expected. It's silly for the photographer to get his panties in a wad over that, I'd hope he'd understand, just like as he improved he'd display his newer work. Weird.

Claire Elizabeth wrote:
Ask them how much its worth to them. That usually shuts them up.

Claire for president!

Aurora wrote:
Who cares if he shot you for free? So, let HIM display the photos, he has them also, right? It's perfectly reasonable to remove earlier work from your portfolio, in fact  I'd say it's expected. It's silly for the photographer to get his panties in a wad over that, I'd hope he'd understand, just like as he improved he'd display his newer work. Weird.

That was the funny thing.  He hadn't displayed my pics on HIS site.  I mentioned that as well and he gave me a story about how he's been taking care of his sick mom and didn't have time yet.  And I guess I ticked him off because he never did as far as I saw display my pictures.  I thought it was weird too.  I was glad he didn't tho because I really like to move forward.  I like some of my earlier stuff but I feel I improve and I'm always looking for the next best idea. 

Mayanlee wrote:
I seem to recall a thread regarding MySpace, but if I remember correctly, in creating a profile on MySpace, you've agreed that MySpace "owns" the posted imagery. (Others, feel free to chime in about it.) This is the same issue regarding Deviantart for which I have STOPPED posting images there. You cannot "delete" your images ... ever. If someone has since found a way to do it, again, feel free to chime in and let me know how you managed that.

Not true.  But by posting images you are granting them a license to use the photo.  Someone pointed out that they HAVE to that, otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to hold the image on their servers so that your friends can look at your photos in your profile.  For them to legally host your image, they must have a right to the photo.  This right is given when you sign up.  This does not give them the right to print them out and make keychains with your photos.

Mayanlee wrote:

I seem to recall a thread regarding MySpace, but if I remember correctly, in creating a profile on MySpace, you've agreed that MySpace "owns" the posted imagery. (Others, feel free to chime in about it.) This is the same issue regarding Deviantart for which I have STOPPED posting images there. You cannot "delete" your images ... ever. If someone has since found a way to do it, again, feel free to chime in and let me know how you managed that.

This is direct from DeviantArt -

'Does deviantART own my art?
Ownership and Copyrights
The Submission Agreement explicitely states that you, as the original artist, retain any and all rights appropriate to your artwork at all times. These rights include, but are not limited to, the full and exclusive copyrights to your original artwork. By agreeing to the Submission Agreement what you are really doing is granting deviantART the basic permissions we need in order to display, showcase, and make your artwork available to viewers.

This means at no time do you lose ownership or any of the exclusive copyrights granted to you by law on any deviation or scrapbook submission which you make to deviantART

The portion of the Submission Agreement which most people find confusing is part 3 License to Use Artist Materials which we will briefly attempt to make a bit clearer;

Essentially part 3 states that you are granting us permission to generate thumbnails and previews from your artwork, and that we may otherwise take the necessary steps required to make your art viewable on someone's personal computer. Since some of these steps require that we change your work (such as making it smaller for previews), and because of the fact that viewers will be able to obtain a copy of your work from our server you need to provide permission for these things to occur. We need both your involvement as well as additional privileges not granted to deviantART by the Submission Agreement in order to be able to include your work in our printing services.

The permissions we ask you grant us must be considered worldwide privileges due to the fact that deviantART may be accessed from any part of the world and are non-exclusive which means that you can grant this permission to other persons and companies as well- you are not limited solely to deviantART. Our use of your materials must also be considered royalty-free, which means that you cannot charge us a fee for the privilege of handling and displaying your works.

The bottomline is that the Submission Agreement is designed only to obtain the necessary permissions we require to legally handle your materials, as the artist you retain the full and exclusive copyrights associated with your original artwork; deviantART cannot be considered a 'co-owner' and the privileges which you grant to us may be revoked by you at any time.'  :faq226:

What am I missing here?  I'd like to know if posting there is a screw up (which I'm known for).

JAY carreon wrote:
I once had a model's AGENCY tell me to take her photos down.  Guess what my answer was . . .

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

I'm going to go out on a limb here...  Your answer was "No" *click*

-James

JAY carreon wrote:
I once had a model's AGENCY tell me to take her photos down.  Guess what my answer was . . .

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Haha ... that's the same as you telling them to take down their pictures. What should we expect them to say about that?

Yes, that's a good time to employ the F word.

Fuzzybear Photography wrote:
Something similar happened to me once. A model that I get along with very well was enthusiastic about doing some semi-nudes. She came to my place with her sister and we began the shoot.

After a few shots she was already topless. I paused and warned her in the friendliest way that she shouldn't volunteer pictures that she won't allow me to use. She said that it was OK and we agreed (like we did before the shoot) that the semi nudes were for a private portfolio that I keep. I show this portfolio only at my place and only to models who have expressed a strong interest in this kind of photography.

Fast forward one week: she gets prints and CD and she's delighted with the picture but then politely and apologetically informed me that I can't use any of the pictures. :>)

So the resolution we've come to on all this leads one to ask a couple of fork-in-the-road questions:

1) Was this a paid shoot?
2) Was a model release signed?

Depending on the answers leaves us with a definite response to her polite and apologetic request.

Fuzzybear Photography wrote:
she gets prints and CD and she's delighted with the picture but then politely and apologetically informed me that I can't use any of the pictures. :>)

I'd politely and apologetically then request that she either a) return the prints and CD which I will gladly destroy along with the RAW files or b) please compensate me for the cost of the photography session, prints and cd and sign a copyright notice stating she is aware she may not use these photos for other than personal display and she has no license to any of the rights granted under copyright.

If options a & b are unacceptable, then I'm sorry...we'll just stick with the original agreement.

Claire Elizabeth wrote:
Ask them how much its worth to them. That usually shuts them up.

Love this advice!  I've only had this happen once and it was the boyfriend who was pretending to be her attorney.  I engaged him in some email back and forth until it was completely unambiguous that he was presenting himself as legal counsel and then I turned all the emails over to the County Attorney's office and the Calif Bar Association.

Frank Tammen wrote:
You own the copyright...she needs to pay you for myspace pix...heck, Rupert Murdoch paid 550MM for myspace, so she can shell out a few bucks to use your images...and I'd be a hard-ass about out.

If you get a reputation as a chump/sucker it'll take a lotta' time to reverse it.

Yeah but if you get a rep as an unsympathetic dick, thats not so good either.  A big name in town really stiffed one of my girls pretty bad.  I've redirected overflow work away from him because he turns out to be a dick.

Images by Lester wrote:
I've had that happen twice. Not a problem, took the requested photos down (did not ask that all be removed) I have an agreement with the models beforehand, which states that I will not post any photo they do not want posted, or remove any they wish removed. We all have family, boyfriends/girlfriends, friends, that sway the model's opinion. So comply, what's the problem?

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.

Let us assume that this was a TFCD.  We have established that there is a release.  The photographer goes to great expense for the shoot.  I know that I do.  When I do a TFCD, I rent the studio, pay for a MUA and/or stylist, sometimes rent equipment and invest hours of work in post-production.  I also give a recipical release allowing the model to use the images for her self promotion.

After all of that money, time and work invested, to be told that I can not use the images for MY self promotion is indeed problematic.

The answer is "no".

I am a professional, and I assume that I am dealing with professionals. 

Also, what do you think a model would do if I asked her to take down images that I shot of her off of HER website because I changed my mind about allowing her to use them?  That wouldn't be fair or professional.  Neither is her request.

That being said, I did have one request that I had no problem complying with.  In that case, the model was in the Marines.  She said that the images were causing problems with her security clearance.  That, I felt, was a valid reason.

If a boyfriend or someone had a problem with the images, pay me what I have expended and I might comply.

DigitalCMH wrote:
... the dreaded boyfriend story.  She chose the boyfriend over modeling.

You have to wonder how many good modeling careers have been ruined by boyfriends?

Pixel Fisher wrote:
yada yada yada....And any one who uses your images for a web page or any other usage must state you name and year with the copyright symbol ©...for without the symbol it will not stand up in court.  All the MMers who list under the "copyright" line for their images, must place the symbol, name and year...if not it's just wrong.  So many do not know the law and what has been standards in this business for many years.  I suggest you research the copyright site:
http://www.copyright.gov/

You're right, not even you have it right.
From the site you link to:

Circular 3
Copyright Notice
Introduction

The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law, although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works.

and

   1. The symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word “Copyright,” or the abbreviation “Copr.”; and
      2. The year of first publication. If the work is a derivative work or a compilation incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the derivative work or compilation is sufficient. Examples of derivative works are translations or dramatizations; an example of a compilation is an anthology.

      The year may be omitted when a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or useful articles; and

   3.   The name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner.*
      Example: © 2004 Jane Doe

Pixel Fisher wrote:
And any one who uses your images for a web page or any other usage must state you name and year with the copyright symbol ©...for without the symbol it will not stand up in court.  All the MMers who list under the "copyright" line for their images, must place the symbol, name and year...if not it's just wrong.  So many do not know the law and what has been standards in this business for many years.  I suggest you research the copyright site:
http://www.copyright.gov/

Ken

Impressive rant.

A small misstatement on your part which I've quoted there.

The reality from copyright.gov (emphasis mine):

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#noc

"The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law, although it is often beneficial."

"Form of Notice for Visually Perceptible Copies

The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all the following three elements:

1. The symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word “Copyright,” or the abbreviation “Copr.”; and"

note how it can be any of those three things...not just "©"... now... since the notice isn't even *required* by law...it doesn't *have* to follow this format but to be a properly formatted notice it should also read:

"2. The year of first publication of the work. In the case of compilations or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful article; and

3. The name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner."

so...no big deal...no big argument...just saying...it can be done completely wrong and it will still stand up in court because the notice isn't legally required.

"Omission of the Notice and Errors in Notice

The 1976 Copyright Act attempted to ameliorate the strict consequences of failure to include notice under prior law. It contained provisions that set out specific corrective steps to cure omissions or certain errors in notice. Under these provisions, an applicant had 5 years after publication to cure omission of notice or certain errors. Although these provisions are technically still in the law, their impact has been limited by the amendment making notice optional for all works published on and after March 1, 1989.. For further information, request Circular 3."

gene corleto  wrote:
end of  story
the model contacted me this morning and i quote  "Thank you so much Gene.  I'll still model with you I jsut can keep having people steal my pics and using them its soooooooooooooooooo f--king annoying. You can keep like one or two on each site but thats it, not a shit load of them please.''
story over
but im not putting them up again
peace
gene corleto
mm675

I'm just amused that they're "[her] pics" that people are stealing. *smirk*

Guess she should get a cameraphone.

Stevens Photography wrote:
It ain't worth the hassle--take 'em down and move on.

Sorry, where is the hassle?
One model is still using the pictures.

gene corleto  wrote:
peace
gene corleto

Is she still using the images?

Eric S. wrote:
Make sure your name is on the shots they are using on MySpace, that's great exposure.

AMEN! to that..  All of my event shots are ending up as peoples Myspace avatar's and it'd been a great boon to business.

George Butler wrote:
never give something without getting soemthing in return.

I STRONGLY disagree with this philosophy.  Life is SO MUCH bigger than that.  Giving, in itself, is very rewarding.  Greed and selfishness is very ugly.

-Glenn