Alli B wrote:
And my take on this...im a model/photographer....for one...MOST photogs that ive worked with has seen and acknowledged my work as a photographer...i am a trained graphic designer with the skills and training i have received extensively...and most other times ive learned on my own...as far as letting me process their images of me...some are cool with it, because they know that i am capable of handling of editing my images...some like it because they have other work to do and helps in their workload and honestly i love editing images...most of them on my port are edited by me...the ones youll have to guess   I build a trust factor with the photographer i work with...and in return everyone is happy...some photographers are somewhat curious to see what you can do with an image....then there are some that are picky and like to keep a certain style which is cool and i respect that....to each their own

You're different, you don't count, Alli. LOL

I am definitely with you about the photographer's style. I'm of the type that thinks that "less is better," and that you should do the majority of your "post-processing work" DURING the time you are shooting, not afterwards.

Some models like what I call the "plastic" look, where they almost look fake. That's not VRG's style, so I don't edit to that type of "look." Each person has their own character, and skin tones, blemishes, etc., that actually MAKE the model unique. I like to show that in my images. It's kinda cool to see what they can do with an image, but like you mentioned above, some of us are picky, and like to stick with our style.

VRG Photography wrote:
Don't people normally use a photographer for their overall skills? Reason I ask is that I see that models don't mind shooting with a photographer, but will take the images given and edit to their own taste.

That is what happens when the photographer and the model want to make a different statement.  Of course, in a paid shoot, there is no issue.  The photographer has hired the model and it would normally be inappropriate for a model to want to change the statement they were hired to make.  In that case, a model should choose to either display an image if she was given one or she should not.  She was hired and the perrogative is that of the photographer to decide the message he wants to convey.

Where the problem comes is TFP.  Quite frankly, I don't care what terms are agreed upon between a model and photographer.  I don't do TFP but I realize that many of you do.  However, those terms need to be agreed upon in advance or negotiated at a later date.

I fully understand that there are models who are often better with Photoshop than photographers.  I am not a great photoshop master.  That isn't the point though.

My kudos go to all the models who want to edit their images and get the permission from the photographer first.  I admire people who play by the rules.

Meehan Photography wrote:
Let me state it a bit more clearly. No F'n way should anyone be altering your images without your permission.

This says it all. If it's not already stated in your model release, it should be. That is shameful and though it may be done with good intentions it's outrageous. Ok the intentions don't matter lol. I would be livid!

Revel wrote:
I rarely trust photographers with the post-processing- a lot don't know how to handle the programs.

Both of these pictures are posted publicly here on MM- one is mine, the other is the photographer's. Which would you prefer?

It doesn't matter which one is preferred. I see a lot of ads that could be photoshopped to look different (not better). The photo you receive is the photographers work and regardless of how anyone thinks it could be improved (subjective) it shouldn't be touched or altered in ANY way.

Lew of Vividere wrote:
Anyway, back to the topic, I work under a more liberal policy apparently than the current generation of photographers.  Maybe I am alone, but I give the model her set of hi res pix and that is my agreement with them.  I don't hold pix back, I don't give them shrunk versions, I don't force them to use my logo when they have equal rights, and I don't restrict their creativity with the pix.   Maybe I am the lone stranger when it comes to being "fair" to the models and giving them equal value for their time.

Sounds more like being foolish than being fair to me.

BronxBeauty8 wrote:
I have rights over my images to do whatever I want.

This is not a slam, but the question is, how did you get those rights?  Did you ask for them when you shot with the photographer?

BronxBeauty8 wrote:
I have rights over my images to do whatever I want.

Only if the photographer was paid or signed those rights over to you.

This is endemic (the whole argument, not just this statement) of something I've been seeing more & more with models demanding all the RAW files at ful size high res and then saying they have the right & will edit them however they want, even in a PAID SHOOT.

That's not only wrong, unfair, and of questionable legality (unless a photographer signs those rights away) but it seems terribly follish & counterproductive to me.

First of all, as an artist I don't want my name out there associated with images I'm not happy with or that I feel make my work look poor.
Second, if someone approaches me for work it's because I have a "look" or style they appreciate and want for themselves, so why in the world wouldn't they want me to create it for them??  All the models here saying "I'm better than the photographers and can make myself look better" ok fine, use a self timer or pay some guy to shoot plain images of you & then do what you want.  But why go to a quality photographer & then mangle his work???
Find someone whose work you like or do it yourself.

Revel wrote:
I rarely trust photographers with the post-processing- a lot don't know how to handle the programs.

Both of these pictures are posted publicly here on MM- one is mine, the other is the photographer's. Which would you prefer?

the black and white one..

Lapis wrote:
What about models who are also photographers, practice photoshop 20-40 hrs a week and get secret editing as well as not so secret editing rights, show the pics to the photographer, who then tells them to edit more so he can put it in his new book?

Well, there is only one Lapis.

But the OP is asking about editing WITHOUT the rights to edit the photos.

_Tabitha_Rose_ wrote:
I dont see why the model isnt allowed to edit her own images however she should always say that she edited them herself.

This isn't a slam but the answer is that isn't the way copyright law works.  The photographer, not the model owns the copyright (unless it is transferred or shared with the model in writing which is rare).  Most models don't understand that.

Copyright gives the photographer alone the right to modify or control who can modify his images.  The law is unambiguous.

That having been said, if you want to edit your photographs, just negotiate that with the photographer in advance.  Some will let you do it, others will not.  If they say no, then you can decide if you want to work with them or not.

The bottom line though is that the law is the law.  My point is not to criticize models who want to edit their images but to teach them to negotiate the issue with the photographer before they shoot.  Once there is an agreement, there is no misunderstanding.

BronxBeauty8 wrote:
This is my RAW image. I love it. But as you can see, I edited it to black and white. I have rights over my images to do whatever I want. I know the photographer wouldn't like me putting his name on anything because we were just trying out some different lighting and angles with different screens and he hasn't edited them [yet].

*Holds up cross in BronxBeauty's direction* Back!  BACK I say! haha.  Just keeding.

Seriously though.. he who mashes the button owns the picture.  Read that again.  So...unless your button-masher gave you *permission* to edit that photo, you're breaking all kinds of icky laws... both legal, and moral.

To the rest of you: If you look at a button-mashers port, and you think "I'm going to have to fix this and that and...blah blah".. why work with him?  Free does not always equal good.. yes?

To the OP: Go to her house, kick in the door, kidnap her favorite teddy-bear, and send her an arm in the mail.  Tell her that the bear loses an apendage for every hour that the mangled photo is still up.  If that doesn't work.. get all legal-like on her ass.  If you drop the soap on this one, then we'll(other photogs) have to deal with her and her morally-bankrupt tendendies later.

*Forest Gump voice..* I'm off to mush me sum buttuns.
-D

Artistic Impressions wrote:
I have experienced that problem with a few models that I sent a few images to so they could post them on their portfolio.Same thing:They incorrectly re -cropped them,turned a beautiful color image into a dreary dull black/white one.I am embarassed to have my name attached to them now.I just recently amended my model release to address this specific issue,NO changes with any images without prior SPECIFIC authorization in writing ! Period.If anyone is interested in it,I can attach the new release to an email message.

Please do and thanks... [email protected]

Alexander

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

It doesn't matter which one is preferred. I see a lot of ads that could be photoshopped to look different (not better). The photo you receive is the photographers work and regardless of how anyone thinks it could be improved (subjective) it shouldn't be touched or altered in ANY way.

Thank you...well said

Demarcus Freeman wrote:
*Holds up cross in BronxBeauty's direction* Back!  BACK I say! haha.  Just keeding.

Seriously though.. he who mashes the button owns the picture.  Read that again.  So...unless your button-masher gave you *permission* to edit that photo, you're breaking all kinds of icky laws... both legal, and moral.

To the rest of you: If you look at a button-mashers port, and you think "I'm going to have to fix this and that and...blah blah".. why work with him?  Free does not always equal good.. yes?

To the OP: Go to her house, kick in the door, kidnap her favorite teddy-bear, and send her an arm in the mail.  Tell her that the bear loses an apendage for every hour that the mangled photo is still up.  If that doesn't work.. get all legal-like on her ass.  If you drop the soap on this one, then we'll(other photogs) have to deal with her and her morally-bankrupt tendendies later.

*Forest Gump voice..* I'm off to mush me sum buttuns.
-D

You know -- all you guys shaking the law books in the model's general direction are absolutely right -- but I can't help but wonder -- with all the strident voices defending the intellectual property rights of the photographer here -- I wonder how many of those same screamers are using pirated versions of photoshop or photoshop plug-ins, running on a pirated version of Windows XP, while listening to pirated music downloaded from a file-sharing service? It would really make my day to know the answer to this question!

To those of you who have a legal license for all the software on your computer, and all the movies and music in your library -- I congratulate you -- continue ranting, by all means! The rest of you hypocrites who rant about property rights while listening to stolen music and editing on stolen software -- shame on you.

Paul

Meehan Photography wrote:
**Coming out of the corporate world, I'm surprised to see so many photographers say they NEVER let anybody edit their work.**


Commercial work and Personal artistic statements are two different animals. SURRRRE clone out that DIODE that runs into the words, no problemo.

I hear you -- but the sad thing is -- just as the commercial world has gotten wiser and more savvy about rights, and is increasingly strangling the photographer, so it will go with models.

The more we talk about these issues, the more law we throw at models, the more often they will start demanding more rights from the "personal artistic statement" work they do with photographers.

Overall, I'm not sure that it wouldn't be better for photographers to just let them edit if they want. I'm unconvinced that it would do anyone's career damage, and I AM convinced that all this discussion and focus on releases and usage agreements will ultimately result in clients (including models) becoming more knowledgable, and photographers giving up even more rights than we already do today.

When faced with overwhelming pressure, it's tempting to fight every little battle as though it were our last -- but the wise general knows that you have to pick your battles carefully. I'm not sure this is a hill worth defending, much less dying on.

Paul

Demarcus Freeman wrote:

*Holds up cross in BronxBeauty's direction* Back!  BACK I say! haha.  Just keeding.

Seriously though.. he who mashes the button owns the picture.  Read that again.  So...unless your button-masher gave you *permission* to edit that photo, you're breaking all kinds of icky laws... both legal, and moral.

To the rest of you: If you look at a button-mashers port, and you think "I'm going to have to fix this and that and...blah blah".. why work with him?  Free does not always equal good.. yes?

To the OP: Go to her house, kick in the door, kidnap her favorite teddy-bear, and send her an arm in the mail.  Tell her that the bear loses an apendage for every hour that the mangled photo is still up.  If that doesn't work.. get all legal-like on her ass.  If you drop the soap on this one, then we'll(other photogs) have to deal with her and her morally-bankrupt tendendies later.

*Forest Gump voice..* I'm off to mush me sum buttuns.
-D

I do have the rights. Its not like I do it all the time. That washed out image on the first page will stop me from ever doing it again. But I do get a lot of compliments on the black & white one only because its not just black and white - its black & white, and green and purple and blue and red and lighter and darker and black & white again and Tada! Told ya, I was just trying it for the first time. I will never be able to recreate that image again using the RAW photo.

bang bang photo wrote:
To those of you who have a legal license for all the software on your computer, and all the movies and music in your library -- I congratulate you -- continue ranting, by all means! The rest of you hypocrites who rant about property rights while listening to stolen music and editing on stolen software -- shame on you.

Actually, I have a legal copy of all the software on my system.  I do believe in intellectual property rights.

I really want to make my position clear.  I happen to agree, that there is little harm in a model asking a photographer for permission to edit an image.  I rarely do TFP, but quite frankly, I am not one who cares if a model edits.

I just don't think it is about hypocracy.  I think it is learning the rights of each party and respecting them.  I am equally concerned when a photographer uses an image without getting a release from a model.  I have participated just as many times in threads where I criticize photographers for torturing the law to give the impression that they can use an image any way, any time without a release.

My belief is that the more we all know about the rights and obligations of both the model and the photographer, the more likely we are to avoid problems.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

Actually, I have a legal copy of all the software on my system.  I do believe in intellectual property rights.

I really want to make my position clear.  I happen to agree, that there is little harm in a model asking a photographer for permission to edit an image.  I rarely do TFP, but quite frankly, I am not one who cares if a model edits.

I just don't think it is about hypocracy.  I think it is learning the rights of each party and respecting them.  I am equally concerned when a photographer uses an image without getting a release from a model.  I have participated just as many times in threads where I criticize photographers for torturing the law to give the impression that they can use an image any way, any time without a release.

My belief is that the more we all know about the rights and obligations of both the model and the photographer, the more likely we are to avoid problems.

AHEM to that!

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
My belief is that the more we all know about the rights and obligations of both the model and the photographer, the more likely we are to avoid problems.

I generally agree with you -- and by the way, have often enjoyed and learned from your participation in those sorts of discussions in the past.

I guess my point is -- there needs to be balance in these things. It's a little like Walmart -- up until recently, they had a zero-tolerance policy for shoplifting, and they prosecuted the guy who stole a $2.00 pack of batteries as vigorously as someone who stole $2000. Law enforcement hated it, because doing five hours of paperwork for a $2 theft wasn't good policy.

Another side of the same thing -- the answer you hear here SO often is -- always get a lawyer's opinion. The problem is, given the value of the transactions we're typically talking about, the only one who makes any money turns out to be the lawyer.

I suspect we're more in agreement than not -- I agree that knowledge is power. I personally would just be happier if photographers showed more finesse and less stridency in defending their rights.

bang bang photo wrote:
You know -- all you guys shaking the law books in the model's general direction are absolutely right -- but I can't help but wonder -- with all the strident voices defending the intellectual property rights of the photographer here -- I wonder how many of those same screamers are using pirated versions of photoshop or photoshop plug-ins, running on a pirated version of Windows XP, while listening to pirated music downloaded from a file-sharing service? It would really make my day to know the answer to this question!

To those of you who have a legal license for all the software on your computer, and all the movies and music in your library -- I congratulate you -- continue ranting, by all means! The rest of you hypocrites who rant about property rights while listening to stolen music and editing on stolen software -- shame on you.
Paul

My copy of xp is legit, and I have a legit copy of photoshop.

That being said.. we're all sinners.  If it was a rule that we had to wait until we were 100% pure before we were allowed to raise our hand.. nothing would ever get done.  It's a good thing for the rest of the world that that only seems to be *your* rule. 

I'd be willing to bet that you've dubbed a tape, or copied a game or two in your lifetime.

bang bang photo wrote:
I think it's interesting to see all the radically different responses an issue like this receives -- I'm fascinated by the "moral" tone so many of us take -- as though there really is only one proper and definitive answer, and anybody who does it differently than we do is wrong, stupid, ruining the business, etc.

Coming out of the corporate world, I'm surprised to see so many photographers say they NEVER let anybody edit their work. I know several rather large multibillion dollar companies that stipulation would immediately disqualify you from working with.

To the best of my knowledge, an awful lot of legitimate of editorial and advertising clients specifically require the right to manipulate the photos -- with no opportunity for the photographer to approve or accept the alterations.

Coming out of this background, I find it difficult to get excited and ready to fight about a model changing my images. Yes, legally they may not have a right to do it, but I'm not sure I could summon up the sense of moral outrage I hear in this thread.

Perhaps in the art world, or the portrait photography business, it's more common for the photographer to closely control the rights to editing their work. But in the commercial world I am familiar with both as photographer and client, it's customary for clients to edit and retouch rather freely. . .

Paul

None of this applies to the discussion lol.  Commercial clients pay you for a product.. they can do with it as they wish.  Not only that, but I'm sure that their right to edit the images is stipulated in the contract, and your signing it implies consent.

No such consent was given to the model.. she simply took liberties that were not given to her.

Demarcus Freeman wrote:

My copy of xp is legit, and I have a legit copy of photoshop.

That being said.. we're all sinners.  If it was a rule that we had to wait until we were 100% pure before we were allowed to raise our hand.. nothing would ever get done.  It's a good thing for the rest of the world that that only seems to be *your* rule. 

I'd be willing to bet that you've dubbed a tape, or copied a game or two in your lifetime.

Just trying to keep things in perspective. Of course I've dubbed a tape. But then, I'm not the one jumping up and down insisting that all my property rights be honored all the time.

But you're right -- I do think that if you're going to insist that others follow the exact letter of the law, it's a pretty good thing to do so yourself. Otherwise, you run the danger of deserving the label, "hypocrite."

Personally, I think the world WOULD be a better place if more people actually followed the rules they try to set down for other people to follow. I can't agree with you that it's a good thing for people to be hypocrites.

Paul

Lapis wrote:
What about models who are also photographers, practice photoshop 20-40 hrs a week and get secret editing as well as not so secret editing rights, show the pics to the photographer, who then tells them to edit more so he can put it in his new book?

I'd say that a model who is also a photographer already knows the rules(hence the "secret" part), and is even more guilty than all the rest.  The fact that the other photographer approved later, does not excuse the fact that permission wasn't asked for first.

So there.

_Tabitha_Rose_ wrote:

the black and white one..

What was that blur??  Oh.. that was the point.. I guess you missed it.

I'm such a smart-ass today lol.  Sorry