MalameelPhotography wrote:
I am not going to do anything extreme for many reasons, but I was wondering your thoughts. 
M

Do you have a release from the actor? Then sell the picture to as many clients (as long as you don't break your initial contract with the original client)! The actor will suddenly remember who did the pictures ;-)

Dave Wright Photo wrote:
sounds like a lawsuit goldmine to me.

dont get started on the lawsuits. geesh. you guys are somethin. this is not anywhere near a lawsuit goldmine.

oldguysrule wrote:
how did the subject get the images?

Tres bonne question

Jean-Philippe Martin wrote:

Tres bonne question

Could be off the web, I have it on my website, here and a few places to show case my work.  Also, there have been some advertisnment posters from the original client.  I never gave him a digital copy.  He may have gotten a poster or something, but I do not know.  I tried searching for it on the web and I cannot find it.
M

Dave Wright Photo wrote:
sounds like a lawsuit goldmine to me.

I agree...

oldguysrule wrote:
lol i'm so glad i don't rely on MM for legal advice

I am going to sue everyone on MM for giving me wrong legal advices Is this a good idea?

Mary Pham wrote:
I agree...

OP mentioned a client paid for the shoot. Unless they breached an agreement, you can't sue them for anything. Most clients that paid for a photo don't want anybody's logo but theirs on the photo. If a use agreement specifies a credit, copyright or flaming pink flamingos on the photo - that's different.

And if the photo is used by the client that paid for the photo - it's not stolen, it may be modified and just not credited.

Jean-Philippe Martin wrote:

I am going to sue everyone on MM for giving me wrong legal advices Is this a good idea?

lol... just leave me off the complaint, Jean-Philippe

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
And if the photo is used by the client that paid for the photo - it's not stolen, it may be modified and just not credited.

People, you don't read? I am so going to sue you
The client is NOT the problem.
The client is NOT the problem.
The client is NOT the problem.
The client is NOT the problem.
The client is NOT the problem.
The problem is the PERSON IN THE PICTURE!

I suggest hiring a hacker and replacing the picture with one where a red nose has been added onto the face of the actor.... okay I am delirious time to go to bed

MalameelPhotography wrote:
Its really amazing that people do not read at least the first post and yet they are still formed and opinion, a backlash, and drafted papers for a lawsuit.
M

It's just harder to fly off the handle and make half ass comments if you know all the facts!  Don't you get that?  Do you want to take away all our fun?!

(yes, that is sarcasm.)

In this situation, what happens if the paying client (who we've established owns the right to use the image) allows the actor to use it at no fee.  Obviously the actor still is in the wrong for changing the image, via copyright infringement, but is it technically unlicensed use?

MalameelPhotography wrote:
Its really amazing that people do not read at least the first post and yet they are still formed and opinion, a backlash, and drafted papers for a lawsuit.
M

We read, we just don’t retain. Stop making your story’s so damn long

MalameelPhotography wrote:
Okay, I have an image that I shot with an actor.  This was a paid shoot and the actor is a celebrity and there was a client who was paying for the shoot.  Randomly, I thought about the actor and checked out their website for their show and there is the image, and very large without my or the clients conscent (Yes I did check, but my agreement with the client was that I kept the copyright anyway.)

Mark,

Please understand there is a great difference between ''rights or copyright'' and ''license.'' Because you created the image you automatically own copyright, no one can take that from you. They may violate your copyright, but they can't keep you from owning the rights to the image. Now, they may also violate the license or agreement and it appears this is what has happened, but your explanation is vague as to whom or what was breeched.

Who was the client? What was the original shot for? Show, what show? You are not explaining what they are violating other than not giving you credit. If someone paid you and there is no license or contract in place stipulating your credit priority, then you haven't a leg to stand on.

I am confused.

You have no lawsuit so put that thought to bed. Oldguysrule is absolutely right, this is not a time to start counting bullets and cleaning guns.

::r::

Billy Pegram wrote:
Welcome to commercial photography.  They probabley didn't want your logo conflicting with the client.  You really have to negotigate hard to get photo credit on commercial projects.  When you get to the point that it benefits the client you won't see it.  I was shooting a calendar and the client freeked when I shot a butt shot of the model with their logo on a gun holster.  He was verbally insulting...like we will never use that...that is almost perverted etc.  That shot ended up as their main ad shot and they painted it 40' tall on the side of their building. Of course I didn't get paid for their ad. If I invoice them  I would never work for them again.  Sometimes just smile.

So if I come to where you live and steal money out of your pocket - that is OK? 

Is this client worth working for if they steal your work? 

Why not call them and ask them about the additional usage?  Ask them if they thought the rights they purchased were for one-time usage, or for all rights?  Perhaps they just forgot to send you a check?  ;-)

oldguysrule wrote:

dont get started on the lawsuits. geesh. you guys are somethin. this is not anywhere near a lawsuit goldmine.

Is it possible that it might be a lawsuit copper mine, or perhaps a legalistic borax deposit, or quite possibly an actionable infestation of lice, or is it even on a par with the guano tort mines on that silly island somewhere in a large body of water where the dictator is selling off the potash and keeping the money for himself and the island will be out of potash or guano or oh wait its bat shit before the islanders know they've lost their only exportable asset and he takes off and lives happily ever after in NYC in a condo next to howard stern. That's what it is, a batshit lawsuit mine.

Carpe Imago Photography wrote:
It's just harder to fly off the handle and make half ass comments if you know all the facts!  Don't you get that?  Do you want to take away all our fun?!

(yes, that is sarcasm.)

Best comment yet!

Carpe Imago Photography wrote:
In this situation, what happens if the paying client (who we've established owns the right to use the image) allows the actor to use it at no fee.  Obviously the actor still is in the wrong for changing the image, via copyright infringement, but is it technically unlicensed use?

1) The Actor now is using the image to promote his show on his website (maybe more).  This is not a fan site but the offical show website as I have said.  The actor has no rights for this image.  They signed away all rights in a full media buyout with a release form prepared by a lawyer. 

2) I own the image (license and copyright), I license it to the original client to allow them to use if for advertising that they get through me.  Their license does not allow them to transfer it or even access to it with another advertising agency. 

3) THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH THE CLIENT and they were willing to legally support this fact (that they didn't past the image along) if I wish. 

4) You guys (Okay I will be nice... MOST OF YOU GUYS) are simply amazing.  How can you post with even trying to read the entire original post.

Oh never mind, I might as well finish this conversation with a mirror.  At least I can see my pretty face.

MalameelPhotography wrote:
The actor has no rights for this image.  They signed away all rights in a full media buyout with a release form prepared by a lawyer.

Granted, a lot of "not reading" was done in this thread, but the quotation above illustrates why it's hard to see what the situation really is.

Since a model typically has no rights to an image, it isn't clear what "signing them away" means.  "Full buyout" is language used to indicate the rights granted to a client to use an image.  It in no way takes any rights away from the model - he just gives them to the client (or you) as well.  The fact that a client has a "full buyout" does not in any way limit use of the image by the model (or anyone else).

If the client has purchased the exclusive right to use a picture (which is not the same thing as a "full buyout") then the client has a legitimate beef against the model. 

All of the above strange use of terminology by you makes it really hard to interpret what your situation really is.

But a question is still on the table:  how did he get it in the first place?  You never answered that.

TXPhotog wrote:

Granted, a lot of "not reading" was done in this thread, but the quotation above illustrates why it's hard to see what the situation really is.

But a question is still on the table:  how did he get it in the first place?  You never answered that.

arrgghhh....

MalameelPhotography wrote:
Could be off the web, I have it on my website, here and a few places to show case my work.  Also, there have been some advertisnment posters from the original client.  I never gave him a digital copy.  He may have gotten a poster or something, but I do not know.  I tried searching for it on the web and I cannot find it.
M

Like I said, I do not know how he actually did get the image.  It is on my website, and places like here.  The image was never given to him, nor licenced to him.  If he got it off the web, then he (or his team) found it and then copied it from there, or he (or his team) actually removed it from one the advertising materials that it was licenced for.

A full media buy out means, and explained in the rlease, that I have exclusive rights to the image, or any collected in our shoot, to use as I please including commercial advertising to my clients.  The actor signed that I have this right forever, and then I am licencing the image to my client.

I am not only a photographer, but I own an advertising firm which is why I have lawyers to update the release forms per project and to make sure these medias are clearly owned by my company.

If he was using the image for a fan site, I would be flattered, but using it on a commercial website sucks when I am not credited.

What did I lose?  The potential revenue or exposure from a properly licenced image would give me.  I am not in the buisness of working so somebody can profit off my work without sharing the love.