I'm being sued over a photo! - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

10/05/2005 02:10:51 PM · #1

I have a client that is a lighting company - I shoot architecture that they've been involved in.

I was asked to take a photo of the interior and exterior of a church about 40 miles from here.

Called the secretary, told her what I was doing, scheduled an appointment. She showed me the church, hung around talking with me as I took the shots inside. Went back a few days later to shoot the exterior. She asked if I would send her a web link so she could show the head guy the cool photos I took.

//democard.com/architecture/index.htm The bottom right image on the first page, and the only image on page 2 is what I'm talking about.

So I remember yesterday that I never emailed this guy. So I send a nice email about how great a building they have etc etc, and here's the link.

Today I get a call that I have to remove those photos from my site immediately, or I will be sued for profitting from images of their church. I did explain to him that I only used it as an example of what I could do for other clients, but he was livid.

Conversation ended when he yelled the next phone call would be from his lawyer, and he slammed the phone down - for the record, I was nothing but really really nice, I wanted to sell a large print here!

So there's my fun photo related story of the day. I was planning on spiffing them an 8x10, or letting them use the image for their website for free - just for being so nice to work with the day I was there - I don't think I'll offer now.

Discuss among yourselves, I've got a case to prepare for...

DemonLlama

Canon EOS-30D

10/05/2005 02:14:45 PM · #2

It's interesting that the person on the phone immediately presumed you were profiting from the images as you site says nothing about sales.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/05/2005 02:15:23 PM · #3

Doersn't look like you've been sued yet. Sounds like (IF he follows through) he'll sue you if you keep the images up on your website. So take 'em down, dude. They're far from the best ones there anyway.

I suppose it's POSSIBLE he's gonna sue your client if they use the images to promote their services, but that's their problem, not yours.

Robt.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

10/05/2005 02:22:11 PM · #4

And people wonder why people don't like churches . . .

On that note, I have never known of a church where one person could make such a decision. I know of no churches that would want the stigma attached of being litigation happy.

Unless the "head guy" was God, and then, well, you've got a whole 'nuther issue. ;)

C-Fox

Canon EOS-20D

10/05/2005 02:23:01 PM · #5

Look on the bright side the San Diego zoo charges 300.00 us for a photography tour and then doesn't let you sell any of the photos :-)

(actually it is their safari tour, but they allow no commerical use of any photos taken at their areas without permission and I didn't get very far when asking how to get permission)

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

10/05/2005 02:23:03 PM · #6

There's a tiny bit of rebel in me that wants to keep them up there just because of how unreasonable the situation is, and the fact that I think I can win.

However they aren't my favorites either -

The fact that their employee admitted me and watched me take the photos, and the exterior was shot from across the street makes me think that I'm on pretty good ground.

Message edited by author 2005-10-05 14:25:20.

jbsmithana

Nikon D300

10/05/2005 02:26:31 PM · #7

I'm no lawyer but my guess is the exterior shot is fair game. But I agree that the shots are not worth it anyway,

Message edited by author 2005-10-05 14:26:55.

Brent_Ward

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

10/05/2005 02:28:31 PM · #8

You have every right to display the images. You can even sell them for editorial WITHOUT a property release. This is where business liability insurance comes in handy. Until you get a letter from the lawyer I wouldn't do crap. But it might be a good Idea to pick up the biz insurance.

kawesttex

Apple iPhone 11 Pro

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/05/2005 02:29:24 PM · #9

The second photo appears that you are on a public street looking across at the church. Do they have their building copyrighted?

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

10/05/2005 02:30:16 PM · #10

The irony is that this man acting like a spoiled child is a churchman. If he sued you he would have a tough case since you sought and gained permission to do the shoot, but the only thing interesting in the shots are the fixtures. The architect might pay to have all evidence of his involvment destroyed.
The guy is being unreasonable, but is this really a fight you need? As the wise man said, never mud wrestle a pig, you both get dirty and the pig likes it.

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

10/05/2005 02:30:28 PM · #11

I'm a little confused so bear with my inane questioning...

You are being threatened by the person who asked you to take the interior pictures to begin with? Or are you being threatened by the church people for "profiting" from pictures of their church that were taken because of a third party request for such?

The secretary gave you permission to photograph and access to the building, yes...but in no place that I have ever worked has the secretary had the final sayso over any decisions like that...well, except at schools...the school secretary is always the one who know's what's going on. ;)

Anyway, I just am a little confused as to why the guy is mad and wants the photos removed if he asked you to take them anyway.

Exterior shots are another subject entirely.

edit...ok, now I figured it out...I'm a little slow today and there were several posts made while I was typing...carry on. ;)

Message edited by author 2005-10-05 14:33:58.

C-Fox

Canon EOS-20D

10/05/2005 02:31:32 PM · #12

hmm, you were shooting on private property so I don't think you could win. Now it is strange that the church would object since wedding photography can and do take pictures, but I was at one church that never allows pictures to be taken of the chapel area. It is one of their religious rules. None period. The picture I got of her dad walking her down was from the sunday school classroom to the doors of the church/chapel area. Some relgions don't allow non-believers in the building, and again have strict rules about photography. Others don't - at another wedding I was at (Romanian origin family church here in Canada) There were about 5 photographers all around the alter right on both sides of the groom and bride. Very very different cerimony when you can't understand the langugage and the culture is different too.

Originally posted by digitalknight:

Brent_Ward

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

10/05/2005 02:33:37 PM · #13

Originally posted by laurielblack:

Whether or not the secretary had the authority, she acted as an agent for the church. It's up to them to discipline her for it. Like I said, editorial coverage doesn't require ANY permission or copyright release.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

10/05/2005 02:34:02 PM · #14

Originally posted by laurielblack:

I shot the photos for the lighting company that supplied the lights

jbsmithana

Nikon D300

10/05/2005 02:36:58 PM · #15

Originally posted by digitalknight:

I shot the photos for the lighting company that supplied the lights

ahhh - maybe he has an issue with the lighting company or contractor and your just an inocent recipient of his anger,

Message edited by author 2005-10-05 14:40:45.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/05/2005 02:38:07 PM · #16

To be fair, churches (and all institutions/businesses) are understandably becoming paranoid about people "borrowing" their credibility, as it were. They have rules about commercial usages of images of their properties. The guy may have gone overboard, he may have been tactless, but the fact remains that his churchdoes have rules and he is tasked with seeing that they are not trespassed upon, so to speak.

That an employee of the church granted you entry and supervised you is neither here nor there; for example, your CLIENT may have received permission to make these shots (and use them) but they may still not want their church posted to the www.

It's also possible that your client never asked permission, the church's only contact was through you, the gal who let you in was overstepping her authority, etc etc...

When I was shooting architecture it was in far less litigous times, and even so we occasionally had these problems, where an institutionw as unwilling to grant access for photography and even the ARCHITECT was having trouble gaining permission. Most architects I worked for had clauses int heir contracts with clients specifying that they be allowed access for photography upon completion, and sometiems these clauses ended up being modified and/or limited (especially as regards time-frame) by the client. We did a lot of work for architects who designed government/military/reseacrh facilities, and typically we had strict limits placed on what/when we were allowed to photograph.

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-10-05 14:40:00.

C-Fox

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

10/05/2005 02:38:45 PM · #17

My understanding is (correct me if I am wrong) that the picture are for commerical use, not an editorial/news use, therefore not covered under the freedom of the press type rules. (I am canadian so my understanding of copywrite is more canadian centric)

Originally posted by MeThoS:

Originally posted by laurielblack:
I'm a little confused so bear with my inane questioning...

You are being threatened by the person who asked you to take the interior pictures to begin with? Or are you being threatened by the church people for "profiting" from pictures of their church that were taken because of a third party request for such?

The secretary gave you permission to photograph and access to the building, yes...but in no place that I have ever worked has the secretary had the final sayso over any decisions like that...well, except at schools...the school secretary is always the one who know's what's going on. ;)

Anyway, I just am a little confused as to why the guy is mad and wants the photos removed if he asked you to take them anyway.

Exterior shots are another subject entirely.

Whether or not the secretary had the authority, she acted as an agent for the church. It's up to them to discipline her for it. Like I said, editorial coverage doesn't require ANY permission or copyright release.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

10/05/2005 02:41:13 PM · #18

Personally, I'd supply the interior shots to the lighting company, delete them from my website and keep the exterior shots posted.

But, I prolly wouldn't take anything down until I heard from their lawyer and even then I might consult my lawyer first, depending on how ornery I felt that day. Might even sue that SOB back for harassment or something else.

10/05/2005 02:41:40 PM · #19

Originally posted by C-Fox:

Final product was three large prints matted and framed for clients board/meeting rooms

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

10/05/2005 02:43:35 PM · #20

So this one is really pretty easy, just remove them from my site and they go away - hopefully.

But what do I do as I continue to create these images for this client to protect me from this kind of stuff in the future? Property Release on all of the buildings I shoot? Is that enough?

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

10/05/2005 02:46:18 PM · #21

That's good for a larf. I couldn't get the name of the church. I love the predeliction some people have for suing.

I slipped on a stair at a train station when I was with some friends. I noticed the stairs were wet and slippy, so I turned to tell them, slipping and falling hard on my a$$butt. I bruised the inner side of my gluteus muscle. Hurt. Before I knew any of that, all of my friends came down and everyone asked if I was ok. One guy pipes up "Man, we gotta Sue." First thing out of his mouth.

For what it's worth, I don't think God really has much of a history of suing. Therefore, it's probably some high and mighty pompous preacher. I doubt he has the resource to go through with it considering all the money that has been spent on defending all them pedophiles. His higher up will probably tell him that the church doesn't want to spend money on another legal battle. That's after all the reason he's so mad in the first place.

If the lawyer does write, you might set up a little poll station near the church asking people if they or their children have ever been abused by the pastor. Odds are pretty good you might come across something.

Alternatively you can make a little sign up that says: Will Sue people randomly for food/money to pay for pedophiles.

Mick

Canon EOS-5D