Models/photographers rights to photographs
Discussion
My 14 year old daughter recently had some pictures taken by her friend's dad who is a professional photographer, as she wanted some decent photographs to use on her Bebo page. Before the shoot, she was told that she would get all pictures taken and could chose the ones she liked. She has now been told that she can only have a couple of the pictures and cannot put any on the internet as the photographer has full rights to the pictures and can use them as he wishes, definately not what she or I agreed to. I have only seen one picture and was not impressed. It was quite adult in nature and I am concerned about what some of the others might be like and could end up used for. Neither she or I signed any type of model release form etc. Does he really have the rights to the pictures?
Her friends dad.... sounds like a liar.
Was this a favour for his daughters mate or a contracted job on verbal agreement. Either way he's not done what he promised.
I have known a few professionals do this kind of thing before as a favour, and as promised handed over all the material and did the decent thing and has no longer got a copy.
I'd just report him as a paedo and have done...
clearly not a professional by either doing something as a mate and promising one thing, and then doing another, or not covering his own back wrt to the material.
Dave
Was this a favour for his daughters mate or a contracted job on verbal agreement. Either way he's not done what he promised.
I have known a few professionals do this kind of thing before as a favour, and as promised handed over all the material and did the decent thing and has no longer got a copy.
I'd just report him as a paedo and have done...
clearly not a professional by either doing something as a mate and promising one thing, and then doing another, or not covering his own back wrt to the material.Dave
Like Andy, I usually go through agencies, especially when using children/under age in shots as there are strict rules and laws about licences for minors if they are paid to do a modelling work. Much better to let the agency sort all that out.
He doesn't sound very professional to me. If he was, he should know about this and also know that you should have signed a model release on behalf of your daughter to the use the pictures clearly stated in context. Did he pay her? Was it for a professional job? Even though he may own the copyright to the pics, with out a model release, he's on sticky ground if he wants to use them/sell them.
The current issue of Professional Photographer magazine (the one with ditch your digital SLRs on the cover), has an article about the complex business of using children as models. I'm sure you can get it on most news stands.
I hope she was chaperoned to the shoot? Most important to protect impressionable young girls from the weirdos out there.
As an aside, I have recently caught a quite interesting drama about young girls and the model business 'Drop dead Gorgeous'. Pretty girl, spotted by sleazy agent, pushy mum, jealous sister/school friends, sleazy photographer and annoyed dad. Looked pretty true to life although I only saw the middle two episodes of series one. I believe series two is now being shown on one of the lessor BBC channels.
He doesn't sound very professional to me. If he was, he should know about this and also know that you should have signed a model release on behalf of your daughter to the use the pictures clearly stated in context. Did he pay her? Was it for a professional job? Even though he may own the copyright to the pics, with out a model release, he's on sticky ground if he wants to use them/sell them.
The current issue of Professional Photographer magazine (the one with ditch your digital SLRs on the cover), has an article about the complex business of using children as models. I'm sure you can get it on most news stands.
I hope she was chaperoned to the shoot? Most important to protect impressionable young girls from the weirdos out there.
As an aside, I have recently caught a quite interesting drama about young girls and the model business 'Drop dead Gorgeous'. Pretty girl, spotted by sleazy agent, pushy mum, jealous sister/school friends, sleazy photographer and annoyed dad. Looked pretty true to life although I only saw the middle two episodes of series one. I believe series two is now being shown on one of the lessor BBC channels.
Thanks for the replies. Just to clarify, my daughter is not a model, nor does she want to be, she just wanted some nice pictures to use for her own Bebo/Myspace websites. Her freind, whose dad was the photographer and another girl all got pictures taken. She was asked to pay her share of the studio costs but he was not paid to take the pictures. She also was not paid to model. The intention was that he would take a selection of pictures and provide them all to her, with no mention of him retaining any. He made no mention of a model release form and as it was an informal arrangement with no intention for him to retain the pictures, I did not think it would be necessary. I assumed the pictures would all be respectable as his daughter, also 14 was there being photographed, but the one picture I have seen was not really age appropriate. She is fully clothed but bent forward with the shot aimed right down her top! She is upset that she is being told she has no control over her own images nor can she use them for the purposes she wanted them. I will try to find Professional Photographer to check out their article, thanks.
Bacardi said:
He doesn't sound very professional to me. If he was, he should know about this and also know that you should have signed a model release on behalf of your daughter to the use the pictures clearly stated in context. Did he pay her? Was it for a professional job? Even though he may own the copyright to the pics, with out a model release, he's on sticky ground if he wants to use them/sell them.
Bacardi is absolutely right..........A model release form should have been signed by yourself prior to the shoot. As a professional, I have taken countless shots of men, women & children solely for the purpose of publication and they are all backed up by a consenting adult.In light of the 'adult' nature of the picture you were 'allowed' to see, I would be wondering exactly what context the other pictures are in and seriously considering a phone call to the police.
Mr plod will have the guy on record if he's been up to no good in the past..........I know that it's not a very nice subject, but these guys are most certainly out there somewhere!
On the other hand, he might just be a crap photographer and is too embarassed to show anyone the mess he has made of the other pic's.........but I very much doubt it.
It's a tough one to deal with. I'd also STRONGLY suggest to the guy that it would be in his own best interest if he stuck to taking pictures of his own children in future (if you know what I mean).
Edited by Stickers on Friday 5th October 01:00
Stickers said:
It's a tough one to deal with. I'd also STRONGLY suggest to the guy that it would be in his own best interest if he stuck to taking pictures of his own children in future (if you know what I mean)
It's made less of a tough call by him doing as (it looks like) he promised, and just handing over all material, and then ridding himself of the data, as it isn't 'work', it's just snaps for mates in essence.He's basically been an arse (for reasons unknown, now wanting rights to the snaps), and by doing so has walked straight into making himself open for all kinds of scrutiny because he didn't do it as you would proper 'work'
Some people confuse me. As said earlier, he's clearly an idiot (didn't actually post that, but thats what I wrote first time before my post review
)Dave
Edited by Mr Whippy on Friday 5th October 01:37
Whilst I'm not familiar with anything specific to minors, the fact is a model release form is not required in this country for an adult model (and "model" here is in its loosest term - ie just "subject", it's irrelevant whether it's their job or whatever)
The rights are indeed retained by the photographer and they can use the photographs in any way they see fit - unless they are used, in advertising or similar, in a way that defames the model - but that's a whole different kettle of catfish (to quote cyberface)
Model releases are common because anyone wanting to sell their shots will want to maximise their market and include places like the US, where releases are required.
Again, I must stress that I don't know of anything governing shooting minors specifically, but be aware that you might not be able to do anything.
The rights are indeed retained by the photographer and they can use the photographs in any way they see fit - unless they are used, in advertising or similar, in a way that defames the model - but that's a whole different kettle of catfish (to quote cyberface)
Model releases are common because anyone wanting to sell their shots will want to maximise their market and include places like the US, where releases are required.
Again, I must stress that I don't know of anything governing shooting minors specifically, but be aware that you might not be able to do anything.
Edited by Famous Graham on Friday 5th October 01:50
Hmm, trying to break this down in my head. Firstly the model release for a minor is worth looking in to, I don't know anything about that. But I know quite a bit about being manipulative 
I'd go to see him; make a formal appointment at his place of work, wear a suit and have a very calm and businesslike discussion (this may well take an act of supreme will on your part; at best he's defrauded children, at worst...).
Obviously being 14 and trusting a friend's dad, there isn't a written contract to prove the agreement. But you say the three girls paid for the studio - how did your daughter pay for that? Direct to the studio, or to the photographer? If it was to the photographer, then they do have a contract in law, whatever he claimed he was going to use the money for. And no magistrate would ever believe that a 14 year old would hand over money to a photographer if it had been made clear to her that she wouldn't get the photos and wouldn't be able to use them for any purpose. This is a strong negotiation point. Even if she doesn't have a receipt, the third girl is a witness. This is a matter for Trading Standards (just pointing this out to him should be enough).
Secondly, I would make the point (need to choose your words carefully here) that a professional photographer has taken your daughter, a minor, without the consent of her parent/guardian and unchaperoned (another child does not count as a chaperone), to a studio and taken images. Only one has been released for viewing and that is of an adult nature, and he is claiming full rights to the rest. A responsible parent in this day and age would be failing in his duties if he did not want to understand why. I would also say that if I was not satisfied by the explanation for this conduct, I would have to pursue it through the appropriate authorities as part of my duty of care for my daughter. An investigation reported in the local press ain't going to do much for his marketing effort, is it?
I'm pretty certain that if you break down the facts to him in this way, and arm yourself with the research from Pro Photographer magazine, he'll *agree* that he was a little foolish and naive in the way he conducted the assignment.
If he doesn't, you know what to do... she's your daughter after all.
I'd go to see him; make a formal appointment at his place of work, wear a suit and have a very calm and businesslike discussion (this may well take an act of supreme will on your part; at best he's defrauded children, at worst...).
Obviously being 14 and trusting a friend's dad, there isn't a written contract to prove the agreement. But you say the three girls paid for the studio - how did your daughter pay for that? Direct to the studio, or to the photographer? If it was to the photographer, then they do have a contract in law, whatever he claimed he was going to use the money for. And no magistrate would ever believe that a 14 year old would hand over money to a photographer if it had been made clear to her that she wouldn't get the photos and wouldn't be able to use them for any purpose. This is a strong negotiation point. Even if she doesn't have a receipt, the third girl is a witness. This is a matter for Trading Standards (just pointing this out to him should be enough).
Secondly, I would make the point (need to choose your words carefully here) that a professional photographer has taken your daughter, a minor, without the consent of her parent/guardian and unchaperoned (another child does not count as a chaperone), to a studio and taken images. Only one has been released for viewing and that is of an adult nature, and he is claiming full rights to the rest. A responsible parent in this day and age would be failing in his duties if he did not want to understand why. I would also say that if I was not satisfied by the explanation for this conduct, I would have to pursue it through the appropriate authorities as part of my duty of care for my daughter. An investigation reported in the local press ain't going to do much for his marketing effort, is it?
I'm pretty certain that if you break down the facts to him in this way, and arm yourself with the research from Pro Photographer magazine, he'll *agree* that he was a little foolish and naive in the way he conducted the assignment.
If he doesn't, you know what to do... she's your daughter after all.
Rude Girl said:
Hmm, trying to break this down in my head. Firstly the model release for a minor is worth looking in to, I don't know anything about that. But I know quite a bit about being manipulative
I'd go to see him; make a formal appointment at his place of work, wear a suit and have a very calm and businesslike discussion (this may well take an act of supreme will on your part; at best he's defrauded children, at worst...).
Obviously being 14 and trusting a friend's dad, there isn't a written contract to prove the agreement. But you say the three girls paid for the studio - how did your daughter pay for that? Direct to the studio, or to the photographer? If it was to the photographer, then they do have a contract in law, whatever he claimed he was going to use the money for. And no magistrate would ever believe that a 14 year old would hand over money to a photographer if it had been made clear to her that she wouldn't get the photos and wouldn't be able to use them for any purpose. This is a strong negotiation point. Even if she doesn't have a receipt, the third girl is a witness. This is a matter for Trading Standards (just pointing this out to him should be enough).
Secondly, I would make the point (need to choose your words carefully here) that a professional photographer has taken your daughter, a minor, without the consent of her parent/guardian and unchaperoned (another child does not count as a chaperone), to a studio and taken images. Only one has been released for viewing and that is of an adult nature, and he is claiming full rights to the rest. A responsible parent in this day and age would be failing in his duties if he did not want to understand why. I would also say that if I was not satisfied by the explanation for this conduct, I would have to pursue it through the appropriate authorities as part of my duty of care for my daughter. An investigation reported in the local press ain't going to do much for his marketing effort, is it?
I'm pretty certain that if you break down the facts to him in this way, and arm yourself with the research from Pro Photographer magazine, he'll *agree* that he was a little foolish and naive in the way he conducted the assignment.
If he doesn't, you know what to do... she's your daughter after all.
Agree totally. I'd go to see him; make a formal appointment at his place of work, wear a suit and have a very calm and businesslike discussion (this may well take an act of supreme will on your part; at best he's defrauded children, at worst...).
Obviously being 14 and trusting a friend's dad, there isn't a written contract to prove the agreement. But you say the three girls paid for the studio - how did your daughter pay for that? Direct to the studio, or to the photographer? If it was to the photographer, then they do have a contract in law, whatever he claimed he was going to use the money for. And no magistrate would ever believe that a 14 year old would hand over money to a photographer if it had been made clear to her that she wouldn't get the photos and wouldn't be able to use them for any purpose. This is a strong negotiation point. Even if she doesn't have a receipt, the third girl is a witness. This is a matter for Trading Standards (just pointing this out to him should be enough).
Secondly, I would make the point (need to choose your words carefully here) that a professional photographer has taken your daughter, a minor, without the consent of her parent/guardian and unchaperoned (another child does not count as a chaperone), to a studio and taken images. Only one has been released for viewing and that is of an adult nature, and he is claiming full rights to the rest. A responsible parent in this day and age would be failing in his duties if he did not want to understand why. I would also say that if I was not satisfied by the explanation for this conduct, I would have to pursue it through the appropriate authorities as part of my duty of care for my daughter. An investigation reported in the local press ain't going to do much for his marketing effort, is it?
I'm pretty certain that if you break down the facts to him in this way, and arm yourself with the research from Pro Photographer magazine, he'll *agree* that he was a little foolish and naive in the way he conducted the assignment.
If he doesn't, you know what to do... she's your daughter after all.
Worrying. Let's hope there's nothing sinister going on.
a model release is only required if he plans to use the pictures for comercial activities and as a minor she would need a parent to co sign. there is also nothing to stop people getting photographs done at any age. as the photographer he can do anything he likes with the images in a non comercial way, however he made a verbal agreement which is still an agreement and getting the girls to pay for the studio is a bit of a joke though.
if you are worried about the images then go to the police although the law in this area is vague and it depends on your interpretaion of the word "indecent" and it applies to any person under the age of 18
if you are worried about the images then go to the police although the law in this area is vague and it depends on your interpretaion of the word "indecent" and it applies to any person under the age of 18
Edited by poah on Friday 5th October 13:14
My understanding is he retains copyright irrespective of a model release form. However it was also my understanding that if he ever wanted to publish or use the photos then a model release form is a must.
The person whe mentioned that this is only for the US may well be right, but the important thing from you initial enquiry is that he gets the keep the photos if he wishes.
The person whe mentioned that this is only for the US may well be right, but the important thing from you initial enquiry is that he gets the keep the photos if he wishes.
As a photographer with my own studio I can tell you the following.
1) Release form releases the photographer from any restrictions.
2) No release form means photographer is only able to use images for private and personal use.
3) What photographer appears to have offered is "TFP/CD" (Time for Prints/CD) i.e. Model provides their time in return for receiving prints) Most commonly used to facilitate building of portfolios on both sides. Professionals will still require a release form as they will be using their copies for commercial purposes.
4)TFP contracts vary from 'some' to 'all' images and are usually specified 'up front'.
5) The agreed number of images are passed to model for no cost to the model at all (It is TIME for prints).
6) Unusual to charge TFP models for studio expenses, but not illegal (and contradicts TIME for prints).
7) Photographer seems to have misled and may be trying to make profit from the situation.
8) The tax man may be interested in profit making operations.
Good Luck
1) Release form releases the photographer from any restrictions.
2) No release form means photographer is only able to use images for private and personal use.
3) What photographer appears to have offered is "TFP/CD" (Time for Prints/CD) i.e. Model provides their time in return for receiving prints) Most commonly used to facilitate building of portfolios on both sides. Professionals will still require a release form as they will be using their copies for commercial purposes.
4)TFP contracts vary from 'some' to 'all' images and are usually specified 'up front'.
5) The agreed number of images are passed to model for no cost to the model at all (It is TIME for prints).
6) Unusual to charge TFP models for studio expenses, but not illegal (and contradicts TIME for prints).
7) Photographer seems to have misled and may be trying to make profit from the situation.
8) The tax man may be interested in profit making operations.
Good Luck
What Quoda said.
I'd certainly make an appointment to speak with him at his premises. I'd be concerned if they were 'adult' in nature and your daughter was coerced into doing something against her will. Best get the facts right though before you make any accusations. Your daughter may be covering up her own embarassment. I'd be asking to see all the shots and if there are any significant gaps in the DAET nos I'd be asking for an explanation. The excuse of, "Err... the flash didn't fire," ain't good enough. Good luck!
I'd certainly make an appointment to speak with him at his premises. I'd be concerned if they were 'adult' in nature and your daughter was coerced into doing something against her will. Best get the facts right though before you make any accusations. Your daughter may be covering up her own embarassment. I'd be asking to see all the shots and if there are any significant gaps in the DAET nos I'd be asking for an explanation. The excuse of, "Err... the flash didn't fire," ain't good enough. Good luck!
Edited by EmmaP on Friday 5th October 14:07
Thanks for all the advice. I am going to visit him on Sunday to see the rest of the pictures. Hopefully, the style of the one I have seen was a one off. I appreciate from your replies that he has the copyright and can retain the pictures but I will see if I can persuade him it might be in his best interests to stick to the original agreement and delete his copies. I will let you know how I get on.
At risk of playing devil's advocate - you are now saying clearly that he had agreed to delete all of the images after he took them, but you didn't say this in your first post.
Did your daughter tell you that this was what was agreed before their was a problem or is this something that has perhaps come up since?
It's just that it seems a strange agreement to come to for some normal pics? They might well have agreed that she would have the prints, they might well have agreed that the girls would pay the studio time - I just wonder whether "deleting the originals" is likely to be something that came up in what was clearly a very informal agreement?
I'm not condoning what he's done, I think he's being a dick and I don't understand why he's making such a fuss about some snaps of his daughter and her friends - that would make me concerned about the nature of the rest of the pics BUT don't go blazing in all guns blazing on points that are not correct.
I doubt whether you need model release forms for adults - in the UK we don't have the right to protect our own images and we don't have any privacy laws of this nature. I think it's good practice, especially if you intend to use pics for advertising etc. and it avoids and potential inaccuracies about how images are used but I'm not sure that it's a must.
Did your daughter tell you that this was what was agreed before their was a problem or is this something that has perhaps come up since?
It's just that it seems a strange agreement to come to for some normal pics? They might well have agreed that she would have the prints, they might well have agreed that the girls would pay the studio time - I just wonder whether "deleting the originals" is likely to be something that came up in what was clearly a very informal agreement?
I'm not condoning what he's done, I think he's being a dick and I don't understand why he's making such a fuss about some snaps of his daughter and her friends - that would make me concerned about the nature of the rest of the pics BUT don't go blazing in all guns blazing on points that are not correct.
I doubt whether you need model release forms for adults - in the UK we don't have the right to protect our own images and we don't have any privacy laws of this nature. I think it's good practice, especially if you intend to use pics for advertising etc. and it avoids and potential inaccuracies about how images are used but I'm not sure that it's a must.
I doubt he would have agreed to delete the pictures after he took them. There may be some shots he would be able to use in his portfolio. Why would he spend the time doing them for no benefit to him, financially or pictures? Possibly his daughter wanted some pics done for some other purpose and 944gav's daughter and friend just tagged along. No doubt a clearer picture will emerge after 944gav has had a chat and..... knowing what friends of mine 14 year old daughters can be like.... something may well have been lost in translation.
A model release is not necessary if the pictures are used for editorial or are news worthy (otherwise we wouldn't have any pictures of celebs by the pap's), as long as the are not defamatory. So he could, in theory, stick them on a picture library like Alamy and mark them as 'editorial only'. The law can be hazy though. When I was at art school we had a lawyer come round and give lessons on law and photography. Not sure if it's still the case, but apparently you can take a picture of anyone, no problem, but if you use a flash gun it was/is an invasion of privacy... go figure.
Seems unreasonable to want her to chip in for studio costs/hire and not let her have any pics apart from a couple to, presumably, just stick on the wall at home. Especially if she had made it clear from the outset that she just wanted some pics for her Bebo account. He must be very precious about his creative abilities.
Whether the pics are age 'inappropriate' or 'art' depends on whether you have the sensibilities of Mary Whitehouse or Roman Polanski. Never the less, the description so far sounds 'uncomfortable'.
I hardly ever do model portfolio pics, TFP/TFCD, usually because the 'potential' model doesn't have a hope in hell of doing it for a living. If they don't have an 'X' factor that would add to my folio I just can't be bothered. However, earlier this year I was asked to do some pics of a friends daughter, also 14. She had an interesting look about her, so I agreed.
Absolutely no money changed hands, she brought a friend to the studio with her and both mothers attended (under strict instruction to shut up and not interfere :-). It was a fun afternoon, I was able to do some lighting tests. All the pics were supplied to the girl to do with as she pleased. I retained a copy of all the pics, a couple of which I have used in my portfolio. No model release was signed, the pics will not be sold anywhere. Everyone knows the score and everyone's happy. This is how it should be. Don't think she'll make a living form modelling but she has just done her first paid job, so earned a little pocket money.
Hope it all becomes clear and amicable... on the other hand if the photographer in question is a slimeball.... deck him
.
Good luck.
A model release is not necessary if the pictures are used for editorial or are news worthy (otherwise we wouldn't have any pictures of celebs by the pap's), as long as the are not defamatory. So he could, in theory, stick them on a picture library like Alamy and mark them as 'editorial only'. The law can be hazy though. When I was at art school we had a lawyer come round and give lessons on law and photography. Not sure if it's still the case, but apparently you can take a picture of anyone, no problem, but if you use a flash gun it was/is an invasion of privacy... go figure.
Seems unreasonable to want her to chip in for studio costs/hire and not let her have any pics apart from a couple to, presumably, just stick on the wall at home. Especially if she had made it clear from the outset that she just wanted some pics for her Bebo account. He must be very precious about his creative abilities.
Whether the pics are age 'inappropriate' or 'art' depends on whether you have the sensibilities of Mary Whitehouse or Roman Polanski. Never the less, the description so far sounds 'uncomfortable'.
I hardly ever do model portfolio pics, TFP/TFCD, usually because the 'potential' model doesn't have a hope in hell of doing it for a living. If they don't have an 'X' factor that would add to my folio I just can't be bothered. However, earlier this year I was asked to do some pics of a friends daughter, also 14. She had an interesting look about her, so I agreed.
Absolutely no money changed hands, she brought a friend to the studio with her and both mothers attended (under strict instruction to shut up and not interfere :-). It was a fun afternoon, I was able to do some lighting tests. All the pics were supplied to the girl to do with as she pleased. I retained a copy of all the pics, a couple of which I have used in my portfolio. No model release was signed, the pics will not be sold anywhere. Everyone knows the score and everyone's happy. This is how it should be. Don't think she'll make a living form modelling but she has just done her first paid job, so earned a little pocket money.
Hope it all becomes clear and amicable... on the other hand if the photographer in question is a slimeball.... deck him
.Good luck.
Thankfully, good news. I have seen the rest of the pictures and they are fine. Apparently, the one I had seen was taken when my daughter wanted to copy a pose she had seen another model do. The photographer claims not to have realised it looked the way it did and deleted it when he saw it full size, but his daughter had a copy of the images and this is where my daughter got it from. All the rest of the pictures look fine and there do not appear to be any missing from the numbers. Regarding him deleting them in my previous post, I meant anything dodgy. I have no problem with him keeping and using respectable pictures but I was not happy that any inappropriate pictures could end up being used somewhere. He was very appologetic and seemed genuine. He tells me he has no problem with her using the images as she likes. It appears that the message got somewhat mixed up coming from him, through his daughter, to mine then to me!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff