TXPhotog wrote:
The confusion continues.

I notice pictures in his MM portfolio that credits copyright jointly to Polo, CK and RL (which I would take to be Ralph Lauren).  I don't understand that.

In the commercial world, photographers own the copyright, or clients do.  Almost always the photographer, with a usage license granted to the client.  Shared copyright is unheard of.

CK is one of my clients.  I know they did not get shared copyright on the job we did for them.  They licensed usage, like everyone else.

So that leads to two questions:

1.  What kind of business has shared copyrights with clients?

2.  If "Copyright Shiree/Polo" doesn't mean shared copyright, what does it mean?

3.  Are Polo, CK and RL clients?  (I notice that the copyright is 2006, which means they must be fairly recent clients.)

Edited to add:  I have Kelly Klein's number at CK, so I can call her tomorrow and get the answer if we don't get one today.

odd that you say these things, first you shoot for Ck and are not on their photog list, secondly what type of images have shared copyright? Storefronts, and please feel free to contact CK, i think you may be surprised at the outcome.


and im flattered your taking such an interest in my work, as for my last contract work? hmmm lets see currently its for the USDA, id probably contact the National Forestry service on that one, since it is ongoing.

Shiree wrote:
odd that you say these things, first you shoot for Ck and are not on their photog list, secondly what type of images have shared copyright? Storefronts, and please feel free to contact CK, i think you may be surprised at the outcome.

I didn't say I shot for CK, I said he was one of my clients.  That's very different.

No, "storefronts" do not have shared copyright, and your picture was not of a storefront.  Try again.

BTW, for those interested, the public number for Polo Ralph Lauren is (212) 318-7000.  Anyone who wishes can ask and be put through to the photo or PR departments.

Shiree wrote:
and im flattered your taking such an interest in my work, as for my last contract work? hmmm lets see currently its for the USDA, id probably contact the National Forestry service on that one, since it is ongoing.

Flattery is fine, straight answers are better.  Is Polo one of your clients?  Are the shots you credit copyright to them actual pictures commissioned and used by them? 

Same questions for CK and Ralph Lauren.

Evasion of the questions does not make you look good.

Shiree wrote:
Typically models contact me via agency etc,

One other question:

I sent a query out to San Diego to see if the agencies there had heard of you, or the clients I know.  Nobody had.  Why is that?

Which agency in San Diego can we call to verify that you frequently use agency models?

TXPhotog wrote:

I didn't say I shot for CK, I said he was one of my clients.  That's very different.

No, "storefronts" do not have shared copyright, and your picture was not of a storefront.  Try again.

BTW, for those interested, the public number for Polo Ralph Lauren is (212) 318-7000.  Anyone who wishes can ask and be put through to the photo or PR departments.

Hmmm client you dont shoot for? ok ill bite secondly, Storefronts for Privately owned businesses such as Prime Direct outlets are indeed shared copyrights, and thats because im polite, in actuality i dont have to share any copyright as long as their logo isnt imprinted on any image, which youll see it is not, shooting a label is not only legal, it doesnt require any release from marketeer, why am i explaining this anyways? seeing as you know soooo much about actually working in the industry this is common knowlege.

TXPhotog wrote:
I didn't say I shot for CK, I said he was one of my clients.  That's very different.

No, "storefronts" do not have shared copyright, and your picture was not of a storefront.  Try again.

BTW, for those interested, the public number for Polo Ralph Lauren is (212) 318-7000.  Anyone who wishes can ask and be put through to the photo or PR departments.

Shiree wrote:
Hmmm client you dont shoot for? ok ill bite secondly, Storefronts for Privately owned businesses such as Prime Direct outlets are indeed shared copyrights, and thats because im polite, in actuality i dont have to share any copyright as long as their logo isnt imprinted on any image, which youll see it is not, shooting a label is not only legal, it doesnt require any release from marketeer, why am i explaining this anyways? seeing as you know soooo much about actually working in the industry this is common knowlege.

Popcorn anyone?  This is gonna be goooood!

Shiree wrote:
Hmmm client you dont shoot for? ok ill bite secondly, Storefronts for Privately owned businesses such as Prime Direct outlets are indeed shared copyrights,

Once again, there are no storefronts in your pictures, hence no shared copyright with them.

Shiree wrote:
and thats because im polite, in actuality i dont have to share any copyright as long as their logo isnt imprinted on any image,

Having a logo on an image has nothing at all to do with copyright.  This is common knowledge for anyone who actually is in the business of licensing intellectual property.

TXPhotog wrote:
One other question:

I sent a query out to San Diego to see if the agencies there had heard of you, or the clients I know.  Nobody had.  Why is that?

Which agency in San Diego can we call to verify that you frequently use agency models?

Not too sure about San Diego, and ive only been back in Cali a cpl months, id suggest maybe Katarina Dial at IMG? and im sorry but this is boring me, and arguing with a GWC isnt my idea of fun, please do 2 things, be aware of what your speaking of, and if you wish to bash, do it to someone who would be injured by anything u can say, do more research, Im in SACRAMENTO area not san diego, i moved here 2 mos ago, i shoot mostly in my own studios which i own a cpl, ive made at living at it for 11yrs, and currently i shoot very little for the past few yrs due to my children being born. If you want some more slanderous things here try these..

I sleep with models.. no shit, i have 2 kids with one.
I am lazy and flamboyant.. no kiddin i spend way too much and do very little.
I am terrible in bed... its true your wife liked it on the couch.
I have no idea how to shoot photos.. obviously
i am here making things up because it pays my bills... hmmm yea thats different.


Use the phone, call whom you wish, and save the appology for someone who cares, but for gods sakes stop being a complete moron.

edit: and im sure youll ask, lets say one of my studios is in Georgia, its called Studio One, and yes its a really real studio has lights and all,lol.

Shiree wrote:
Not too sure about San Diego, and ive only been back in Cali a cpl months,

OK, so I'll ask agencies in Sacramento.  I know them too.

Shiree wrote:
id suggest maybe Katarina Dial at IMG?

Fine, I'll call IMG tomorrow, too.  I know people there.

Shiree wrote:
and currently i shoot very little for the past few yrs due to my children being born.

Earlier today you were telling us that you have paid work for models all the time.

Shiree wrote:
Funny thing is i ALWAYS have paid work for models, and im always hiring models, always thought that wasnt a bridge to burn.

You list pictures with famous claimed clients and a copyright date of 2006.  And now, when someone asks about you, you say you "shoot very little"?

Hello?

You did invite us to call, and I know how to do that.  I wouldn't have to if you would give straight answers to the questions I and others have asked, but you will not.

TXPhotog wrote:
Flattery is fine, straight answers are better.  Is Polo one of your clients?  Are the shots you credit copyright to them actual pictures commissioned and used by them? 

Same questions for CK and Ralph Lauren.

Scammers avoid answering questions about the work they claim to have done.  Honest men do not.

Shiree wrote:
..and im sorry but this is boring me, and arguing with a GWC isnt my idea of fun, please do 2 things, be aware of what your speaking of, and if you wish to bash...

Funny that you just called TXPhotog a GWC.  It's got to be a first.

Shiree wrote:
Not sure ive ever actually used the word tearsheet, so im guessing you made a booboo?

Ok, I am really just curious.

Yes or no.  You shot for Ralph Lauren's ad campaign/catalog/whatever.
Yes or no.  You shot for CK's ad campaign/promo etc.
Yes or no.  You shot for Versace's ad campaign/promo/ etc.

Are they your clients?

I think Iona and others just want to see some fantastic tearsheets that you did.  That's all.  Oh, and I still want to know how I could enter Canon's Award etc.

Shiree wrote:
Ummm lets see, i put up images, not tears, where are they listed as tears, as for the images being mine, well lets see, contact the models and verify, other than that what exactly are you bitching about?

Not sure ive ever actually used the word tearsheet, so im guessing you made a booboo?

No, you didn't use the word tearsheet.  You just claimed joint copyright on images with famous designers.  That could not happen unless they were your clients, and clients don't have pictures shot for fun.

So, again, are they your clients or not?  Why will you not answer the question?

Shiree wrote:
Ummm lets see, i put up images, not tears, where are they listed as tears, as for the images being mine, well lets see, contact the models and verify, other than that what exactly are you bitching about?

Not sure ive ever actually used the word tearsheet, so im guessing you made a booboo?

any dumbass can shoot an image of a model in a polo shirt and underwear, this is not proof that they have ever hired you. or proof that and so called storefront client who sells Polo has ever hired you either.

I have shot designer jewelry for a local jeweler that does not mean I worked for Stuller it means I worked for Goivanna...but I would have the actuall cataloge tearsheets as well as the pre layed out images I shot for the job...in my photogphy portfolio I would have the actual tear sheets to prove I was responsible to have gotten the job.

lll wrote:
Ok, I am really just curious.

Yes or no.  You shot for Ralph Lauren's ad campaign.
Yes or no.  You shot for CK's ad campaign.
Yes or no.  You shot for Versace's ad campaign.

I think Iona and others just want to see some fantastic tearsheets that you did.  That's all.

Now that question ill be happy to answer as it was correct. No ive yet to hold a campaign with any of those companies, yes i have shot images directly for these companies mostly for submissions or for 2nd party businesses. As for tears for those companies i currently have none to offer, have they been printed, yes, do i have copies, nope, why dont i? because my belonging are in Georgia. Id be more than happy to expedite those to me when i have time. are they from a National Mag, no, mostly local papers in adver for private businesses. Hope that helps and ty for the polite manner.


Ummm as for the personal attacks, i think ive offered enough references and info for people to check before hand?

Shiree wrote:
Ok well see there that wasnt too hard, make ur calls and take a pill, as for who are my clients for the image your speaking, most of which were submissions, some sold to The RL Outlet in Darien Ga, others have not been sold nor submitted.

So these designers did not commission shoots for you and are not your clients.  The "shared copyright" that you claimed was bullshit.

Shiree wrote:
however i do believe youll find the models in them to be working, lets see Corey Reese, Cosmo magazine 2 or 3 times since i shot him? Before i shot him.. Cosmo 0 time, so fact is i benefit models, and i sell images. not sure other than that what your point is.

There we go with name dropping again.  Corey does not claim the Polo shot as a tearsheet.  And did you shoot the Cosmo editorials, or are you just trying once again to surround yourself with "clients" that you have nothing to do with?

Shiree wrote:
No ive yet to hold a campaign with any of those companies, yes i have shot images directly for these companies mostly for submissions or for 2nd party businesses.

That is, NONE OF THOSE DESIGNERS ARE YOUR CLIENTS.

My eight year old next door neighbor could take a picture and "submit it" to CK, but that doesn't make them a client, doesn't give them "shared copyright", has nothing at all to do with "storefronts", and claiming any kind of professional association with them would be very misleading indeed.

TXPhotog wrote:

Shiree wrote:
Ok well see there that wasnt too hard, make ur calls and take a pill, as for who are my clients for the image your speaking, most of which were submissions, some sold to The RL Outlet in Darien Ga, others have not been sold nor submitted.

So these designers did not commission shoots for you and are not your clients.  The "shared copyright" that you claimed was bullshit.


There we go with name dropping again.  Corey does not claim the Polo shot as a tearsheet.  And did you shoot the Cosmo editorials, or are you just trying once again to surround yourself with "clients" that you have nothing to do with?

Tx , im unsure of exactly what u said here, but as for Corey i simply said hes a model you can verify that the images are mine and i took them, as for the Shared copyrights, Trust me in this, if i were breaking any laws, my images wouldve have been sensored, and i wouldve been in trouble, therefore i suggest you learn before you speak, My images of different logos have existed for years, and for years GWC guys have jumpes on it, and every single time this happens in the end, my images proove to be real and proper, but hey i enjoy the arument as anyone will tell ya, and ummm for a big time pro shooter why the lack of your name on your profile?

Shiree wrote:
someone with 200 grand worth of equip is at your disposal,

So far the sum total of all the "client work" that you have claimed, under questioning, to have done cannot come to more than $1,000.  Probably less.  One has to wonder how you justify $200,000 in equipment given that very low return on investment.  One also has to wonder who has paid anything remotely like your claimed day rate?

I'll guarantee you no "storefront" local outlet is paying over $8,000 for those shots, or any others that you have shown.

TXPhotog wrote:

That is, NONE OF THOSE DESIGNERS ARE YOUR CLIENTS.

My eight year old next door neighbor could take a picture and "submit it" to CK, but that doesn't make them a client, doesn't give them "shared copyright", has nothing at all to do with "storefronts", and claiming any kind of professional association with them would be very misleading indeed.

LMAO wait a sec, ive given you my refs , and you see my images, and i even gave you the clients who bought them and still you say theres things , great wheres your CK tears?? u said they are your client, put up or shut up.

Shiree wrote:
...No ive yet to hold a campaign with any of those companies, yes i have shot images directly for these companies mostly for submissions or for 2nd party businesses. As for tears for those companies i currently have none to offer, have they been printed, yes, do i have copies, nope, why dont i? because my belonging are in Georgia. Id be more than happy to expedite those to me when i have time. are they from a National Mag, no, mostly local papers in adver for private businesses. Hope that helps and ty for the polite manner.

Ok, thanks that's all I want to know.  I thought you were Steven Meisel or Mario Testino's online persona.

And which Canon competition did you enter?

Iona Lynn wrote:
Welcome to the Internet

Good morning OP

You have just stepped out of your safe little world of agency modeling, and into the big bad world of internet photography. There are no rules here; a girl who is 5’ 1” in 4” stiletto heals can get paid work from photographers, so can a girl who is bigger than a size 4. The typical agency rules don’t apply to us anymore. Sorry about that, in just a few days your in box will be filled with silly little girls with crappy web cam photos saying they love your work, yet you need to pay 150.00 an hour to shoot them. Not to make it too complicated there are several different camps of people all colliding on this site:

Agency models and photographers = work for clients and have a set of standards
Artist models and photographers = work for art and the chance to be in the galleries.
Amateur models and photographers = work to learn some of these guys and girls will move up and do some great work in the above categories.
GWP and GWC = it’s all about the b(o)(o)bies.

Welcome to our world…………………………


*hugs to the OP*
not all of us are like that only 98% of us...

That was all sorts of awesome.

Shiree wrote:
Tx , im unsure of exactly what u said here, but as for Corey i simply said hes a model you can verify that the images are mine and i took them,

I never said they weren't your images.  Just that they weren't used by, or commissioned by, the people your "shared copyright" claim would have people believe.

Shiree wrote:
as for the Shared copyrights, Trust me in this, if i were breaking any laws, my images wouldve have been sensored, and i wouldve been in trouble, therefore i suggest you learn before you speak, My images of different logos have existed for years, and for years GWC guys have jumpes on it, and every single time this happens in the end, my images proove to be real and proper,

I don't see any explanation at all of how those designers came to have a shared copyright.  None.

Simple answer is:  they don't.  You made it up.

Shiree wrote:
...ummm for a big time pro shooter why the lack of your name on your profile?

Because we all already know who TX is, especially those "in the industry".

Shiree wrote:
however i do believe youll find the models in them to be working, lets see Corey Reese, Cosmo magazine 2 or 3 times since i shot him? Before i shot him.. Cosmo 0 time, so fact is i benefit models, and i sell images. not sure other than that what your point is.

The point is that you have credits listed that are fake.

The old "I shot this model and she was in playboy" line is a pathetic apron strings type of endorsment to a photographers work.
You didn't shoot Corey for cosmo you just had him put on some clothes that you bought at the mall and then tried to use that as foaux joint copyrights.

TXPhotog wrote:

So far the sum total of all the "client work" that you have claimed, under questioning, to have done cannot come to more than $1,000.  Probably less.  One has to wonder how you justify $200,000 in equipment given that very low return on investment.  One also has to wonder who has paid anything remotely like your claimed day rate?

I'll guarantee you no "storefront" local outlet is paying over $8,000 for those shots, or any others that you have shown.

ohhh now you wish to ask about my finances? gee wiz would you like to maybe get married or something first? lol,

For starters, selling art generates me fair income, secondly, starting a computer company at a young age didnt hurt. Of course none of this is any of your business, as well as me putting in here any information on my current clients and pasy national tears, sling accusations all you wish, if you had messaged me properly with your concerns perhaps.

As for the comments on my work i think u were trying to critique, ummm have you ever looked at your port full of tits and ass and realized you arent Bruce Weber? ya might wanna.

lll wrote:

Because we all already know who TX is, especially those "in the industry".

Ya do do ya?
ask him why he retired before then or you tell me, because i already know, juts found out, but im not rude enough to post it here.

Iona Lynn wrote:

The point is that you have credits listed that are fake.

The old "I shot this model and she was in playboy" line is a pathetic apron strings type of endorsment to a photographers work.
You didn't shoot Corey for cosmo you just had him put on some clothes that you bought at the mall and then tried to use that as foaux joint copyrights.

OMG what do i have listed as fakes??  and if your going to make something up about me, at least have the common courtesy to make it good and dirty.. wait i am a pervert yea now thats one worth dicussing

Shiree wrote:
great wheres your CK tears?? u said they are your client, put up or shut up.

Hey, call Kelly and ask her.  You can ask me privately for her phone number (which I'm sure you don't have.)  That is the answer you gave us, isn't it?

Once again, I don't have a tear from it.  I wasn't the photographer.  They are just my client.  All I have to show for it is a check stub.  Which is more than you have.

TXPhotog wrote:

That's pretty impressive.  Who are your fashion clients?

Hey TX, you remember that photographer from Chicago that made so much money you don't want to know shooting Steven Spielberg? I think I might have just found his brother.