DarioImpiniPhotography wrote:

It was a business decision.  Give away a 10 cent candle and insert themselves as a great business into your psyche.  Look how effective their 10c investment was.

It was far more than 10 cents, even in Canadian funds, however...  if you wanna look at it from a business decision (which I'm sure the OP didn't) then why doesn't your statement apply to the OP's situation.

Ought To Be Shot wrote:

You really gotta start reading more closely.  I'm not the OP. 

Um yeah... this has been covered. Sorry I'm not perfect.

Ought To Be Shot wrote:

It was far more than 10 cents, even in Canadian funds, however...  if you wanna look at it from a business decision (which I'm sure the OP didn't) then why doesn't your statement apply to the OP's situation.

Because they werent buying those shots from him in the first place.  All he had of value and was likely to get of value were the shots and the ability to use them for self promotion purposes.

Curt Burgess wrote:
So exactly what moral principle are you referring to?

Ought To Be Shot wrote:
Do unto others...

I once bought a candle for my wife (she likes 'em).  As I left the store, and was heading across the parking lot to my car, I dropped and ruined it.  I was reluctant to go back inside because I knew the store had no legal reason to help me.  However, I went in and explained what happened.  I was told to go take another one.  Nice of them to do that for me, when they didn't have to legally, eh?

Nice, yes, and good for continued business. Here, the model has shown she's unwilling to stand by her contractual obligations; what continued business is practical?

I'm inclined to go with the mildly non-confrontational approach. Send a bill for services at your normal rate for the images. If they pay, they get the images, and you don't use them; if not, you keep the rights you already have.

Note: I would NOT charge the same as for a full copyright transfer or work for hire, and probably not even "all rights in perpetuity" usage rates, just standard rates--but would make bloody sure the contract specifically limited their possible usage of the images if I did that.

Otherwise, they get your services and image usage for free.

Pat Thielen wrote:
You kind of set them up that way to either replace it, or not replace it and risk losing a customer.

Nope... actually I didn't.  I explained clearly that I realized it was my fault, and if they couldn't do anything, that would be perfectly fine.  I gave them a very clear indicator that I didn't mind if they said, "To bad so sad."  And I wouldn't have held it against them.  In any case, this was just an example to support my point; don't really need to follow this thread branch.

My point is, there is another angle besides legal and business that can be considered here.  Sadly, most replies indicate there is no merit in the moral one.

Ought To Be Shot wrote:

Nope... actually I didn't.  I explained clearly that I realized it was my fault, and if they couldn't do anything, that would be perfectly fine.  I gave them a very clear indicator that I didn't mind if they said, "To bad so sad."  And I wouldn't have held it against them.  In any case, this was just an example to support my point; don't really need to follow this thread branch.

My point is, there is another angle besides legal and business that can be considered here.  Yet most replies indicate there is no merit in the moral one.

There is a moral angle to this situation, that is true, but I think some people have it backwards. Why is it "morally" right for the photographer to "do the right thing" and remove his work and not be able to use it because of an over-zealous parent? Isn't it also morally right for the models to honor the release (contract) they signed? Isn't it also morally justified for them to keep the drama of their household away from the photographer who has nothing to do with it and did nothing wrong? It seems the "morally" right thing typically involves the photographer removing the images, when the real moral thing to do would be for the models to honor the contract and deal with their mom without bringing him into it.

  It's actually similar to you bringing the candle you broke back into the store. While you didn't make any demands, nor ask anything of them, you did bring it up to them and say "look, I broke the candle." The clerks have a choice: They can either give you a new one, or they can tell you to go buy one. In a retail store, which do you think they're going to do? They're going to give you a free one so as to not risk annoying you and possibly cost them a customer. In the case of the candle, it would have been better for you to simply not involve them in your accident and simply buy a new one. In the case of the models, they could have simply told their mom that they signed a release, they liked the photos, and they saw nothing wrong with them. But they chose to involve the photographer, who then did what mom wanted and removed the photos.

  The lines of morality get blurry very quickly.

  -P-

megafunk wrote:
Put the shots back up then invite their Mommy to try your protein pick up.

Yes!!!  Lol...

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I think you allowed yourself to be bullied by a aggressive mom.  One who has
adult daughters.  In the future don't talk with mom, dad or anyone else besides
the models themselves about your work.  When she called you, you should
have been polite and told her that you were not going to talk with her about
the issue.  If she called again tell her that if she harass you that you will call
the police.  Does mom tell them who to date and what to think?  If so thats
their family and they shouldn't bring their drama to you.  At this point you've
spent time and money to get nothing but a headache.

I'd have to agree with this. As long as the daughter were of legal age dear ol mom can take a leap. Let the daughters deal with her and not waste your time.

Ought To Be Shot wrote:
My point is, there is another angle besides legal and business that can be considered here.  Yet most replies indicate there is no merit in the moral one.

Ought To Be Shot ought to get it right.

Pat Thielen wrote:
There is a moral angle to this situation, that is true, but I think some people have it backwards. ..... Isn't it also morally right for the models to honor the release (contract) they signed? Isn't it also morally justified for them to keep the drama of their household away from the photographer who has nothing to do with it and did nothing wrong? It seems the "morally" right thing typically involves the photographer removing the images, when the real moral thing to do would be for the models to honor the contract and deal with their mom without bringing him into it.

....In the case of the models, they could have simply told their mom that they signed a release, they liked the photos, and they saw nothing wrong with them. But they chose to involve the photographer, who then did what mom wanted and removed the photos.

I completely agree with Pat. To think it is morally "right" for the photographer to simply do away with the offending photos is chauvinistic and paternalistic. What is moral is for people to be responsible for their own behavior and to be or become mature adults. That means living up to your agreements and if it becomes painful to do that, then learn from that experience. The model needs to learn how to be an adult and not to try and have her mother steal the images from the photographer. They are the property of the photographer. I think it would be helpful to the Mother for the photographer to offer the photos at a price so she learns she can not bully others into submission. This alone is generous on the part of the photographer and isn't simply caving into this bullying and reinforcing inappropriate social behavior.

What I find amusing about those who advocate caving in is that I doubt that anyone would expect such a thing to happen with other agreements. Let's say you buy a car, use it, enjoy it, and then find that the wife hates it. So the wife calls the dealer and says, "Hey, you need to come get this thing and we're not going to be out anything for the use of it and the inconvience." You'ld find yourself in court. Because it's wrong. It's not moral to pull shit like that.

It makes no difference that it was TFP. The photographer still has rights and the model has still signed onto an agreement. To think otherwise is to get it backwards. And it's not the moral highground. It's simply inappropriate, chauvinistic and paternalistic and does not support the young model becoming an adult and reinforces bullying behavior on the part of the mother.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I think you allowed yourself to be bullied by a aggressive mom.  One who has adult daughters.  In the future don't talk with mom, dad or anyone else besides the models themselves about your work.  When she called you, you should
have been polite and told her that you were not going to talk with her about
the issue.  If she called again tell her that if she harass you that you will call
the police.  Does mom tell them who to date and what to think?  If so thats
their family and they shouldn't bring their drama to you.  At this point you've
spent time and money to get nothing but a headache.

FKVPhotoGraphics wrote:
I'd have to agree with this. As long as the daughter were of legal age dear ol mom can take a leap. Let the daughters deal with her and not waste your time.

Ought To Be Shot wrote:
Please read posts more closely.  I said "model's request".

Pat Thielen wrote:
So mom had nothing to do with you taking down the images? The request may have come from the models but we all know it was instigated by mom. If she doesn't like them she can pay for them. This is just another version of the "jealous boyfriend" scenario, and it shouldn't be encouraged. They signed a release, you photographed their licenses, they were happy with the shots. Mom didn't like them and you took them down. Whatever...

There is actually a broad [legal] answer to mom [and boyfriends] in terms of business law in this kind of circumstance where even, after moma [or boyfriend], the model's request, itself, not to further use the shots becomes suspect:

The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766A and B

Tortious Interference with a Business Relationship.

A person whose conduct deprives another of an economic relationship he or she might otherwise have received may be liable for tortious interference with a business relationship, often referred to as tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage. Typically, the essential elements necessary for this type of claim to occur have included:

(1) There was an established business relationship;

(2) The tortfeasor intentionally engaged in acts or conduct designed to interfere with or disrupt this relationship; and

(3) The acts of the defendant, which were designed to interfere with or disrupt this relationship, caused damage to the plaintiff.

I wouldn't worry about her suing you; she should worry about you suing her.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
There's nothing "moral" about being a chicken-hearted sap.  Basically the OP proved that he's not really a photographer, but just a GWC making us all look bad by kissing up to some silly third party [mom=Sluggo].  I would love for this crazy shrew to call me...My lawyer would be giving her a shoe leather enema as we speak.

When did photographers become such a bunch of wimps?  No wonder people don't respect us.

I'm right there with you Melvin.

Studio36

Pat Thielen wrote:
There is a moral angle to this situation, that is true, but I think some people have it backwards. Why is it "morally" right for the photographer to "do the right thing" and remove his work and not be able to use it because of an over-zealous parent? Isn't it also morally right for the models to honor the release (contract) they signed? Isn't it also morally justified for them to keep the drama of their household away from the photographer who has nothing to do with it and did nothing wrong? It seems the "morally" right thing typically involves the photographer removing the images, when the real moral thing to do would be for the models to honor the contract and deal with their mom without bringing him into it.

  It's actually similar to you bringing the candle you broke back into the store. While you didn't make any demands, nor ask anything of them, you did bring it up to them and say "look, I broke the candle." The clerks have a choice: They can either give you a new one, or they can tell you to go buy one. In a retail store, which do you think they're going to do? They're going to give you a free one so as to not risk annoying you and possibly cost them a customer. In the case of the candle, it would have been better for you to simply not involve them in your accident and simply buy a new one. In the case of the models, they could have simply told their mom that they signed a release, they liked the photos, and they saw nothing wrong with them. But they chose to involve the photographer, who then did what mom wanted and removed the photos.

  The lines of morality get blurry very quickly.

  -P-

Agreed... good point.

J Merrill Images wrote:
I don't see what everyone is so rattled about. Although the OP doesn't say so, this sounds like a TFCD shoot - I see no mention of money going to the models and no apparent intent to publish the photos for monetary gain. So, by taking them down what is he really out? A couple of hours shooting, a few hours editing? Had he paid the girls a bunch of money and/or had the shoot prevented him from making money due to lost time working with models who would have remained ready to be published, this might be a different story. But it apparently isn't.

I think the OP did both himself and the photographic community a big favor by just chalking this one up as one of those bad days that everyone of us is bound to have at one time or another. Let momma think she won - who cares? Better to move on and not get caught up in the bunch of BS that surely would have followed.

Sometimes it's just wise to pick your battles.

Very wise.  And it pays to not to be tempted to let others load your gun for you.

Melissa Lynnette wrote:
Happens all the time.  Check past photogs' posts about it.  Basically at 19 and 20 they should be able to make their own decisions, and they did, but they are also most likely still living at home off their parents' dime so that will also make them feel like they are obligated to respect their wishes.  It sucks when models don't take this into account in the first place and then have angry mothers/fathers/husbands/boyfriends/etc. getting in a photographer's face about pics he/she thought he/she was taking in good faith.  It was very nice of you to take the shots down, although many will tell you that legally you might not have had to.  In the future, avoid these models unless you plan to shoot them in a parka.  But not a sexy parka.

Melissa Lynnette wrote:
Happens all the time.  Check past photogs' posts about it.  Basically at 19 and 20 they should be able to make their own decisions, and they did, but they are also most likely still living at home off their parents' dime so that will also make them feel like they are obligated to respect their wishes.  It sucks when models don't take this into account in the first place and then have angry mothers/fathers/husbands/boyfriends/etc. getting in a photographer's face about pics he/she thought he/she was taking in good faith.  It was very nice of you to take the shots down, although many will tell you that legally you might not have had to.  In the future, avoid these models unless you plan to shoot them in a parka.  But not a sexy parka.

Nice to see another model have a sense of personal responsibility. Wish other models would take note that there are ramifications to their actions.

Like it or not, right or wrong, the phtographers get dragged into an argument that's not their own but are forced to deal with it anyway. And models get whiny when called "unprofessional"????

The OP has all legal righteousness on his side. That he's a considerate dude makes him a nice guy (or a sap, depending on what side of the fence you're on). His life, his decision.

Feel bad for ya, man ... you can only mitigate your risks just so far ... everything else is just dumb luck.

UnoMundo Photography wrote:
the dreaded Mama threat!   

wait for the dreaded BF "dont let me come over there " phonecall
and the model
"I changed my mind" phone call

haha.. almost looking forward to that one lol. He'll get the same response anyone else that's threatened me has gotten..

"Come on over anytime.. my gun is always loaded."

Funny.. they never seem to show up... 

Ought To Be Shot wrote:
There's legally right and there's morally right.

The moral thing to do is to insist that people honor their obligations. Teaching people that actions have no consequences, or at least no consequences that a screeching harridan of a mother can't get you out of, is morally wrong.

M

dale99 wrote:
I say photoshop them nude and into a compromising shot with some big, fat nude dude.  Then email that one to mama and offer to sell it to her before you post it all over the place.  Could pay for your next set of gear.

Hmmm...A new camera would be nice!  Lol 

J-waun Photography wrote:
So, I got an interesting phone call today from a mother...Let me backtrack...Last weekend I did a shoot. Two young ladies aged 19 & 20. I had been in communication with one of the girls for a few weeks about the shoot that we did. I even met her about 3 weeks before last weekend so we could get a feel for each other-typical stuff.
     We discussed that we were going to do lingerie, swimsuit, other various articles of clothing, and covered nude...everything was all good. The 2nd girl was all good with it as well.
We did the shoot, everything was great... I had even posted some of the shots on this website (notice I said I "had" posted shots). I had them sign a release saying that they gave me permission to shoot them, and that they were at least 18 yrs of age, and that I could use the photographs to post on various websited like this one. I even took a snapshot of their ID's to furtehr verity. As I edited some of the shots, I would send them to the girls through email...and they absolutey loved them. Said they wanted to get together again and do more...and that they had a 3rd friend that wanted to do some as well.
     So, back to the phone call...apparently some family members had seen some of the shots (one of the girls had put them on MySpace), and everyone was irate. 1st Mom called me and we discussed the matter saying that her daughter should not have entered into any contract, and that she wanted the shots to be taken down (she had not seen the shots yet, but was going by what other people had said about them). About 20 minutes later, the girl calls me saying that she wanted me to take the shots down, and Momma (who was evidently looking at the shots at the time) was cursing her out screaming "Look at this SH*T!!" What were you thinking!! etc...
     I am a nice guy so I did take the shots down...anybody have an experience like this before?

Been There, Done that, experianced it...my mother HATES the fact I shoot, but I am very selective with where I post pictures now...and I have to apologize to one photographer about what happend wit that situation,but luckily he was understanding....but yes, I dont tell my mother *why should I? I'm 21*

Mayanlee wrote:

Nice to see another model have a sense of personal responsibility. Wish other models would take note that there are ramifications to their actions.

Like it or not, right or wrong, the phtographers get dragged into an argument that's not their own but are forced to deal with it anyway. And models get whiny when called "unprofessional"????

The OP has all legal righteousness on his side. That he's a considerate dude makes him a nice guy (or a sap, depending on what side of the fence you're on). His life, his decision.

Feel bad for ya, man ... you can only mitigate your risks just so far ... everything else is just dumb luck.

Thanks.  I mean, I started modeling when I was still living at home and you can tell by my pics that I haven't been shooting in parkas.  My mother and my grandmother have seen my pics and while they weren't thrilled, they would never have dreamed of calling the photog and yelling at him or pressuring me to do so.  I have what you could call a jealous boyfriend, but even he doesn't get all worked up about what he knows is something I'm into.  I hate hearing about these situations because it's so stupid.  Hell, even Rev. Run let his daughter go pose for Maxim.   
Young models need to take the time to think about what they are doing.  If they want to pose half naked, then they should be able to.  They should also be able to deal with the fallout from their family and friends.  If they don't think they can handle that, then they need to figure something else out.  It's that simple.

Melissa Lynnette wrote:
Thanks.  I mean, I started modeling when I was still living at home and you can tell by my pics that I haven't been shooting in parkas.  My mother and my grandmother have seen my pics and while they weren't thrilled, they would never have dreamed of calling the photog and yelling at him or pressuring me to do so.  I have what you could call a jealous boyfriend, but even he doesn't get all worked up about what he knows is something I'm into.  I hate hearing about these situations because it's so stupid.  Hell, even Rev. Run let his daughter go pose for Maxim.   
Young models need to take the time to think about what they are doing.  If they want to pose half naked, then they should be able to.  They should also be able to deal with the fallout from their family and friends.  If they don't think they can handle that, then they need to figure something else out.  It's that simple.

Half?
What if they want to pose ALL naked??
Are the rules different then?

SLE Photography wrote:

Half?
What if they want to pose ALL naked??
Are the rules different then?

Oh, I was just referring to the original situation.    The rules don't change if they wanna be all naked.  In fact there should be less rules for nudity since there are less clothes. 

J-waun Photography wrote:
So, I got an interesting phone call today from a mother...Let me backtrack...Last weekend I did a shoot. Two young ladies aged 19 & 20. I had been in communication with one of the girls for a few weeks about the shoot that we did. I even met her about 3 weeks before last weekend so we could get a feel for each other-typical stuff.
     We discussed that we were going to do lingerie, swimsuit, other various articles of clothing, and covered nude...everything was all good. The 2nd girl was all good with it as well.
We did the shoot, everything was great... I had even posted some of the shots on this website (notice I said I "had" posted shots). I had them sign a release saying that they gave me permission to shoot them, and that they were at least 18 yrs of age, and that I could use the photographs to post on various websited like this one. I even took a snapshot of their ID's to furtehr verity. As I edited some of the shots, I would send them to the girls through email...and they absolutey loved them. Said they wanted to get together again and do more...and that they had a 3rd friend that wanted to do some as well.
     So, back to the phone call...apparently some family members had seen some of the shots (one of the girls had put them on MySpace), and everyone was irate. 1st Mom called me and we discussed the matter saying that her daughter should not have entered into any contract, and that she wanted the shots to be taken down (she had not seen the shots yet, but was going by what other people had said about them). About 20 minutes later, the girl calls me saying that she wanted me to take the shots down, and Momma (who was evidently looking at the shots at the time) was cursing her out screaming "Look at this SH*T!!" What were you thinking!! etc...
     I am a nice guy so I did take the shots down...anybody have an experience like this before?

I tend to make sure that I never shoot anything more "exposing" than shots a model already has posted. I actually had a model who had nude shots on her profile who was going to bring her mother along on the shoot to sit in "chaperone" (which wasn't likely to have any nudity, but some shots in jeans/bra). She's a costume design major; I tend to like working with people who are artists themselves......PS- I'm most likely shooting her wedding next summer.

Honestly I opened this post thinking that it was going to be on the PHOTOGRAPHER'S MOTHER giving him/her flack, as that's the only thing I've had to deal with on a few shots I've taken....LOL....that's another story.....oh, and a few people from my church didn't really like them, but agreed they had artistic merit; in everything I do, I have to justify it with artistry.....

Ryan Entwistle - Photographer
re: photography

Melissa Lynnette wrote:
Oh, I was just referring to the original situation.    The rules don't change if they wanna be all naked.  In fact there should be less rules for nudity since there are less clothes. 

No clothes=no rules ergo no clothes RULES!