Moral Dilemma dealing with models

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

01/18/2009 01:08:11 PM · #51

Originally posted by lifeafter2am:

I can't go back to my leasing office after a week and say, "Sorry, I found another place, let me out of my lease for free", they would laugh. Would I call them sleazy, no, it's a business, plain and simple.

Yeah, but your leasing agent isn't contracting with you for things that have *moral* overtones. The reality of the matter here is that they are having a dispute over images that contain some degree of nudity, and it's just not a winnable battle for alb in the long run. Especially since any financial return on the images if pie-in-the-sky at the moment, but looking like a sleazebag exploiter of female models is a very real possibility. That sux, I know, but that's the way it is. Walk from it.

R.

albc28

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/18/2009 01:09:56 PM · #52

Oh..that was supposed to say any implied shot that shows her face...and if it doesn't show her face I'll delete any marks that would make her recognizable (tattoos).

lifeafter2am

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/18/2009 01:15:06 PM · #53

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by lifeafter2am:
I can't go back to my leasing office after a week and say, "Sorry, I found another place, let me out of my lease for free", they would laugh. Would I call them sleazy, no, it's a business, plain and simple.

Yeah, but your leasing agent isn't contracting with you for things that have *moral* overtones. The reality of the matter here is that they are having a dispute over images that contain some degree of nudity, and it's just not a winnable battle for alb in the long run. Especially since any financial return on the images if pie-in-the-sky at the moment, but looking like a sleazebag exploiter of female models is a very real possibility. That sux, I know, but that's the way it is. Walk from it.

R.

Yeah, I can understand that. It is different to me because "implied" nudity isn't the same as actual nudity. But, I see your point as well. :)

01/18/2009 04:19:25 PM · #54

Originally posted by lifeafter2am:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by lifeafter2am:
I can't go back to my leasing office after a week and say, "Sorry, I found another place, let me out of my lease for free", they would laugh. Would I call them sleazy, no, it's a business, plain and simple.

Yeah, but your leasing agent isn't contracting with you for things that have *moral* overtones. The reality of the matter here is that they are having a dispute over images that contain some degree of nudity, and it's just not a winnable battle for alb in the long run. Especially since any financial return on the images if pie-in-the-sky at the moment, but looking like a sleazebag exploiter of female models is a very real possibility. That sux, I know, but that's the way it is. Walk from it.

R.

Yeah, I can understand that. It is different to me because "implied" nudity isn't the same as actual nudity. But, I see your point as well. :)

Morality has absolutely nothing to do with this. It is a contract issue. Were it to be arbitrated it would be decided in a court, not a church, and a girl who agreed to let someone take a picture of her ass and then demand they be deleted is shit out of luck. Especially when her defense would be 'the pictures are proof I'm lying to a prospective employer'.

Have some stones and stick to your contract. This is her problem and you are needlessly making it yours. Worst thing she can do is sue you (and lose) or badmouth you on some casting calls site where she is 1 of tens of thousands of models. The sites I participate on, any photog in your situation would already have spread the word and posted fair warning that she's a complete flake.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

01/18/2009 06:54:55 PM · #55

Why have a contract at all?

If you're so damn fearful of her smearing your reputation or spreading false accusations about your behavior, stick with landscapes and woodies.

TCGuru

Canon EOS-40D

01/18/2009 07:09:36 PM · #56

Originally posted by violinist123:

Agreed.

01/18/2009 08:02:11 PM · #57

All this backlashing kinda makes me think of the girl I took home after a party, once long ago. We had a verbal contract, so to speak, but when push came to shove (sorry, bad pun) she said "No! I don't want to do this!" So I accepted that. I know it's not the same thing, but it's in the same zip code.

I'm not real tolerant of people who justify everything based on contracts. In my world, there's a lot of room for people saying "I screwed up, I don't want to go through with this."

R.

Ivo

01/18/2009 08:32:33 PM · #58

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

And the use of an example like you've just stated is the crux of this whole debate. There are those who will go to the end of the earth to uphold a contract like it is some holy covenant that will be enforced by the "God of Justice". Well, understand that this god of justice charges a pretty steep price to uphold certain contracts. The cost will be financial, emotional, moral, familial, etc. You have to ask yourself whether or not the cost is worth the resolve. If the intention of enforcing a contract is solely to enforce it, or to bind, you will lose in every sense and still end up with nothing to show but frustration and contempt. Contracts are agreements between people and nothing more. The contract is as good as those people that entered into it. A contract will not obligate any party to uphold decency if they do not first obligate themselves to the process. It is apparent this is not the case and therefore the further he pursues this matter, the greater his cost and the more distant the resolve becomes.

As Bear said and I have stated in the past, there really is no win to this other than "leave it be" and move on. If not, you may end up with an outcome far less valued than what you originally desired.

01/18/2009 09:38:32 PM · #59

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Admirable, however the sentiment being expressed by the model is "I now have a more appealing opportunity than the one I had with you, so please let me out of it". That's not screwing up, it's selfishness, and is exactly the sort of nonsense contracts are meant to protect against.

01/18/2009 09:56:38 PM · #60

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by violinist123:

Why I don't understand is why everybody is so concerned about this woman who created this sh*tstorm in the first place.

SHE reneged, SHE is lying to her new boss/contractor, yet SHE went ahead with the shoot.

She had plenty of time to think of th ramifications of her actions before she went down this path.

Yeah, it is not the most ideal of situations, but truth be told, if she tries to make him look bad, anyone who would take the word of a model for hire without checking the story of the photographer involved isn't doing themselves any favors.

She's wrong, knows it, and is continuing to be a problem. This is the real world, and she either has to suck it up and make it right, or live with the consequences.
Personally, if it were me, I'd take it to third party legal arbitration at this point and abide by their decision so that I could never be accused of not handling it ethically.

I don't see how alb can come out of this with this woman without it somehow reflecting badly on him from a social/moral standpoint, so why not open it up to an impartial ruling?

And too bad about her luck if the new contractor finds out about it.

01/18/2009 09:59:19 PM · #61

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I'm not real tolerant of people who justify everything based on contracts. In my world, there's a lot of room for people saying "I screwed up, I don't want to go through with this."

Okay....that's all very nice and all, but is he just supposed to take on for the Gipper and walk away out all his time and money so she can lie to her new contract?

Being kind and sympathetic to her changing her mind is one thing, but she's LYING about it.

Where's the upside to that?

01/19/2009 08:05:24 AM · #62

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

No, if anything, it's more along the line of her going home with you, getting freaky between the sheets and then, crying rape 3 days later when her mom finds out.

The deed is done, the shutter clicked. She can't put the genie back in the bottle.

albc28

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/19/2009 08:40:15 AM · #63

wow..you guys have some active imginations. This went from a model getting some pictures to rape!! In the words of Bill Clinton "I did not have sexual intercourse" with that woman lol.

Anyways I don't think you can compare rape and this situation. That's really unfair. A woman doesn't plan on having sex with you for weeks, sends you email agreeing, has the sex, signs a contract agreeing that it was consensual...and then try to back out a day later...I don't think that would fly to well in court.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

01/19/2009 09:15:17 AM · #64

Originally posted by violinist123:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
All this backlashing kinda makes me think of the girl I took home after a party, once long ago. We had a verbal contract, so to speak, but when push came to shove (sorry, bad pun) she said "No! I don't want to do this!" So I accepted that. I know it's not the same thing, but it's in the same zip code.

I'm not real tolerant of people who justify everything based on contracts. In my world, there's a lot of room for people saying "I screwed up, I don't want to go through with this."

R.

Admirable, however the sentiment being expressed by the model is "I now have a more appealing opportunity than the one I had with you, so please let me out of it". That's not screwing up, it's selfishness, and is exactly the sort of nonsense contracts are meant to protect against.

Hey! Violinist...when did you have a sex change? Female impersonator now (at least according to your profile)? :-D

01/19/2009 10:12:49 AM · #65

Originally posted by glad2badad:

After so many years of marriage it finally fell off from lack of use. On the upside, I can finally understand my wife.

01/19/2009 10:29:35 AM · #66

Originally posted by violinist123:

I don't buy that out of hand. It *might* be true, but it's just as possible she honestly didn't REALIZE that posing for these pictures might torpedo her chances of signing on with a reputable agency, and when she realized that was the case she ws "Oh my God, what have I DONE?" and tried to make it right.

I don't see how she's lying to anybody in any meaningful sense; the agency's concern isn't what she did or did not do, it's more pragmatic than that. The agency doesn't want pictures like that showing up to diminish the value of their investment in her. If she can make the pictures go away, it never happened, in any practical sense. Anybody who tries to argue this from a higher moral plane is being ridiculously rigid. People screw up all the time, then try to make it right. And making it right, in this case, means getting the photos out of circulation and being a little smarter from this point forward. I mean, what ELSE can she try to do?

R.

01/19/2009 10:46:58 AM · #67

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by violinist123:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
All this backlashing kinda makes me think of the girl I took home after a party, once long ago. We had a verbal contract, so to speak, but when push came to shove (sorry, bad pun) she said "No! I don't want to do this!" So I accepted that. I know it's not the same thing, but it's in the same zip code.

I'm not real tolerant of people who justify everything based on contracts. In my world, there's a lot of room for people saying "I screwed up, I don't want to go through with this."

R.

Admirable, however the sentiment being expressed by the model is "I now have a more appealing opportunity than the one I had with you, so please let me out of it". That's not screwing up, it's selfishness, and is exactly the sort of nonsense contracts are meant to protect against.

I don't buy that out of hand. It *might* be true, but it's just as possible she honestly didn't REALIZE that posing for these pictures might torpedo her chances of signing on with a reputable agency, and when she realized that was the case she ws "Oh my God, what have I DONE?" and tried to make it right.

I don't see how she's lying to anybody in any meaningful sense; the agency's concern isn't what she did or did not do, it's more pragmatic than that. The agency doesn't want pictures like that showing up to diminish the value of their investment in her. If she can make the pictures go away, it never happened, in any practical sense. Anybody who tries to argue this from a higher moral plane is being ridiculously rigid. People screw up all the time, then try to make it right. And making it right, in this case, means getting the photos out of circulation and being a little smarter from this point forward. I mean, what ELSE can she try to do?

R.

If she's having regrets about the images, then she needs to compensate the OP for ALL of his expenses at the very minimum. I don't think it would be out of line to also ask for her to compensate the OP for the loss of potential income from those images. I think that for $1400, she's getting off cheap. The fact is that she's the one wanting to void the original contract and make it as though those images never existed. That's all well and good and I say the OP is to be commended for trying to accomodate her wishes, but you don't just back out of a contract without some consideration.

01/19/2009 10:54:19 AM · #68

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Yes, we UNDERSTAND all that. The point I (and some others) have been making is that she has shown reluctance to pony up the full amount he asked for, and GIVEN THAT THIS IS THE CASE, his options are in some ways limited, because if he pushes her for more money he begins to look like a sleazebag and this can be very damaging to him.

OF COURSE he has the "right" to ignore her and insist that the contract be honored. Of COURSE he has the "right" to set whatever price he thinks is fair for her to buy out the contract. The point here is that the price he, personally, pays for doing either of these things, for insisting on the sanctity of his contract, may be much steeper, in terms of image and reputation, than the monies he realizes by taking either course. And the REASON this is true is because there's this whole slippery, "moral" issue, this issue of "exploiting" the woman, and plenty of folks are simply not going to believe that he was being reasonable about the whole thing.

It's dangerous territory, man; better to walk from it. This is PRAGMATIC advice, not moral or legal advice. And I'm not the only one who feels this way.

R.

Message edited by author 2009-01-19 10:55:14.

01/19/2009 11:29:12 AM · #69

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

OF COURSE he has the "right" to ignore her and insist that the contract be honored. Of COURSE he has the "right" to set whatever price he thinks is fair for her to buy out the contract. The point here is that the price he, personally, pays for doing either of these things, for insisting on the sanctity of his contract, may be much steeper, in terms of image and reputation, than the monies he realizes by taking either course. And the REASON this is true is because there's this whole slippery, "moral" issue, this issue of "exploiting" the woman, and plenty of folks are simply not going to believe that he was being reasonable about the whole thing.

It's dangerous territory, man; better to walk from it. This is PRAGMATIC advice, not moral or legal advice. And I'm not the only one who feels this way.

R.

The problem I have, and why *I* am as adamant about it as I am is because I was in business for about twenty years on my own, and ran businesses for a couple of friends before that.

It's always assumed that it's perfectly okay for the businessman to "Take one for the Gipper" when someone screws up and someone has to bear the brunt of it.

That ain't right.

Screw the moralty, screw the stigma and perception of exploitation.....that's just rhetoric to cloud the issue.

She needs to do the right thing......if she doesn't, she's a scumbag, but the way that society looks at the businessman, they see it as an entity, so they don't think twice about screwing him.

No matter what, alb gets screwed.

01/19/2009 11:36:03 AM · #70

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I'd buy this argument if he'd PAID her to model, but he didn't. I'd buy this argument if she was a professional model, but it seems she wasn't, at the time. Seems like she was a wannabe model, looking for exposure, who AFTER the shoot discovered to her chagrin that an agency that wants to make her a "professional" frowns on that sort of shot.

And your response above is what a couple of us are talking about: that nothing is more important than the contract, we have to uphold the sanctity of the contract at all costs, if she wants to break the contract she should pay through the nose for it, because Commerce is God and let nothing stand in its way.

I reject that approach, Jeb.

R.

01/19/2009 11:51:14 AM · #71

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
The problem I have, and why *I* am as adamant about it as I am is because I was in business for about twenty years on my own, and ran businesses for a couple of friends before that.

It's always assumed that it's perfectly okay for the businessman to "Take one for the Gipper" when someone screws up and someone has to bear the brunt of it.

That ain't right.

Screw the moralty, screw the stigma and perception of exploitation.....that's just rhetoric to cloud the issue.

She needs to do the right thing......if she doesn't, she's a scumbag, but the way that society looks at the businessman, they see it as an entity, so they don't think twice about screwing him.

No matter what, alb gets screwed.

I'd buy this argument if he'd PAID her to model, but he didn't. I'd buy this argument if she was a professional model, but it seems she wasn't, at the time. Seems like she was a wannabe model, looking for exposure, who AFTER the shoot discovered to her chagrin that an agency that wants to make her a "professional" frowns on that sort of shot.

And your response above is what a couple of us are talking about: that nothing is more important than the contract, we have to uphold the sanctity of the contract at all costs, if she wants to break the contract she should pay through the nose for it, because Commerce is God and let nothing stand in its way.

I reject that approach, Jeb.

R.

Honestly the "couple of us" mentioned above are just projecting their morality and skewed sense of how things work in the business world onto some non-existent bunch of 'them' who will supposedly be passing judgement on the photographer. It's not pragmatic advice because it doesn't reflect the real world. Who are these 'them' being referred to? The girl's relatives? Who cares. Her friends? Who cares. Other models she knows? Who cares, they are a dime a dozen. Other photographers? They will most likely think she's in the wrong if they do this sort of work themselves. Courts? All they care about is the contract/agreement you so readily dismiss.

If the photog is going to roll over any time someone tries to break a business agreement then he/she should probably reconsider doing business at all since it's going to be an ulcer-forming, money losing venture for them as they continue to be taken advantage of. I imagine if the model got her hands on copies of the photos and managed to get them published and collected fame and fortune for doing so, sentiments about the merits of contracts and their sanctity as a tool of business would be quite different.

01/19/2009 11:56:15 AM · #72

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I was under the impression that she was paid. My mistake.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

And your response above is what a couple of us are talking about: that nothing is more important than the contract, we have to uphold the sanctity of the contract at all costs, if she wants to break the contract she should pay through the nose for it, because Commerce is God and let nothing stand in its way.

I reject that approach, Jeb.

R.

That's NOT my point at all....I don't think that Commerce is God, nor do I believe that nothing is more important than the almighty contract.

I just don't think he should just cave and say, "Fine, the heck with my time and money because you changed your mind.".

Maybe I just think that people should be more accounatble for their actions, and that yeah, maybe she made a mistake, but then she should own it as well.

I know this is a lot of extrapolation, but I see this exact kind of thing all the time......like these credit counselors who buy off the debt that people run up on their credit cards.......nobody held a gun to anyone's head and made them run up $100K in purchases....why should they get to pay off $50 and keep all the stuff? A few years back somneone got the clever idea to contact a credit card company with the idea that $0.50 on the dollar was better than nothing, so they do a re-fi for the guy, and they get a fat commission, the guy's off the hook, the company at least got SOMETHING, and now it's a burgeoning industry because people know they can get away with it.

People go bankrupt right and left to get out of paying for things.

Now everybody's crying the blues 'cause the economy's in the toilet and nobody wants to see how this sh*t happened......just like adjustable rate mortgages, and balloon car payments......sooner or later, you HAVE to pay the piper or the whole thing falls apart.....just like it did.

If more people would suck it up and deal with their mistakes, these things wouldn't keep happening.

It's also part of why there are no more Mom n' Pop businesses.....because sole proprietors have a REALLY hard time making it when people stick 'em for money they're honestly entitled to....you say that commerce is a mean nasty thing? Well, what about the poor guy down the street that has to close his doors because two people stuck him BAD and nobody'd uphold the integrity of the contract 'cause they "Made a mistake and changed their mind"?

Sorry, but contracts aren't this faceless, nasty thing you make them out to be, and not everyone who wants paid regardless of the second thought of the consumer is a bloodthirsty shark.

Maybe they're just trying to make a life, too.