Author | Thread |
|
01/17/2009 03:02:36 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Ivo: This scenario is exactly why I cannot understand the stupidity of some people when it comes to their eager willingness to disrobe in front of a camera. As far as I'm concerned, there should be a cooling off period required prior to commencement of such a shoot. Anyone who is serious about fashion modeling would be insane to allow a photographer to get nude shots without "extraordinary compensation". |
I've shot plenty of models nude with no monetary compensation (is that what you mean with the quote unquote extraordinary?) on my part. Several are working agency models. Nudes haven't hindered their modeling careers.
Originally posted by Ivo: As for your time and compensation? Look at it this way, you can charge her and make her pay for your time. Yes, that is one solution that will result in a few hundred bucks in your jeans and the implied label that you are a slime ball photographer. Yes, in her eyes and everyone she knows, that is what you will be portrayed as regardless and she will see that YOU wronged her. The other side is to destroy the images without compensation, and in the future accept this type of assignment ONLY as a paid assignment out front. Either way, for the short term, you lose. In the long term, you will define yourself as a pro with dignity, foresight and integrity. In other words, wash your hands of this and move on. Crap happens and this event can be used as one of those wonderful learning moments. |
No, I don't think it implies the slime ball label. In fact I think it's silly to capitulate without compensation to unreasonable requests. Sometimes business is just business and should be treated as such, rather than as the moral dilemma that you make it out to be.
|
|
|
01/17/2009 03:10:29 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by virtuamike: No, I don't think it implies the slime ball label. In fact I think it's silly to capitulate without compensation to unreasonable requests. Sometimes business is just business and should be treated as such, rather than as the moral dilemma that you make it out to be. |
You are obviously very astute at picking your battles. The implication of the "slime ball" label is quite often bestowed by those who really don't give a damn about contractual law let alone care about integrity. Your point?? |
|
|
01/17/2009 04:15:44 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Ivo: Originally posted by virtuamike: No, I don't think it implies the slime ball label. In fact I think it's silly to capitulate without compensation to unreasonable requests. Sometimes business is just business and should be treated as such, rather than as the moral dilemma that you make it out to be. |
You are obviously very astute at picking your battles. The implication of the "slime ball" label is quite often bestowed by those who really don't give a damn about contractual law let alone care about integrity. Your point?? |
My point is to disregard the slimeball label from your first viewpoint, partially because I have faith in some people being able to arrive at reasonable conclusions regardless of who or where they're getting their information from (optimistically liberal though pragmatically possibly naive), but mostly because I think it should viewed as a business decision rather than as a moral one. And I'd completely disregard your second viewpoint because again, that would just be a silly thing to do. I wouldn't lay it out like that.
|
|
|
01/17/2009 07:43:17 AM · #29 |
Ivo, your main point appears to be that if a client signs a contract and the photographer incurs time, effort, and expense to produce work product and then later the client wants to rescind the contract -- that the ethical thing to do is for the photographer to suck it up. Good luck in business.
If that's not the case, and the only reason you think it's OK in this instance is because of the context of the shoot and the fact that she's female, then I submit your viewpoint is sexist. She's an adult, she knew what she was doing, she signed a release/contract indicating she wanted to be paid for her performance, and later turned out to be a liar. That she agreed to make the photographer whole is to her credit; that the photographer let her buy her way out of her contract is to his credit.
The gender of the client and the context of the shoot only make it understandable why she might want to rescind; it doesn't qualify as a reason to void the contract at the peril of the other party.
|
|
|
01/17/2009 07:57:20 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by L2: Ivo, your main point appears to be that if a client signs a contract and the photographer incurs time, effort, and expense to produce work product and then later the client wants to rescind the contract -- that the ethical thing to do is for the photographer to suck it up. Good luck in business.
If that's not the case, and the only reason you think it's OK in this instance is because of the context of the shoot and the fact that she's female, then I submit your viewpoint is sexist. She's an adult, she knew what she was doing, she signed a release/contract indicating she wanted to be paid for her performance, and later turned out to be a liar. That she agreed to make the photographer whole is to her credit; that the photographer let her buy her way out of her contract is to his credit.
The gender of the client and the context of the shoot only make it understandable why she might want to rescind; it doesn't qualify as a reason to void the contract at the peril of the other party. |
I have to agree here as well.
No matter how decent and ethical you are, if someone gets a bee in their bonnet and decides they want to try and trash you, they will do their best/worst.
This is part of doing business, and capitulating without compensation is just foolish.
I was in business for 20 years, and some people are just miserable, no matter how decently you treat them, and you just have to have faith that as long as you operate ethically, your reputation will uphold that.
Nowhere does the adage "You can't please all the people all the time." rear its ugly head more than being a business owner. |
|
|
01/17/2009 09:00:53 AM · #31 |
Hey post the implied and partial nude shot and we can determine if they are too racy or not ;) |
|
|
01/17/2009 09:04:21 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by L2: Ivo, your main point appears to be that if a client signs a contract and the photographer incurs time, effort, and expense to produce work product and then later the client wants to rescind the contract -- that the ethical thing to do is for the photographer to suck it up. Good luck in business.
If that's not the case, and the only reason you think it's OK in this instance is because of the context of the shoot and the fact that she's female, then I submit your viewpoint is sexist. She's an adult, she knew what she was doing, she signed a release/contract indicating she wanted to be paid for her performance, and later turned out to be a liar. That she agreed to make the photographer whole is to her credit; that the photographer let her buy her way out of her contract is to his credit.
The gender of the client and the context of the shoot only make it understandable why she might want to rescind; it doesn't qualify as a reason to void the contract at the peril of the other party. |
Yes and no. The idea that a contract should be haphazardly rescinded is not the issue and never has been the issue. There are several factors here and yes, one of them is sexist. First, where is the contract being invoked? In the US or Canada? Is there "consideration" included if the other party has not, as yet, received benefit? Why is it essential for a 26 year old male to travel out of country to a hotel to photograph an unescorted woman? Is this common industry practice without adequate monetary compensation or shared cost? It is also necessary to note, within 24 hours, she has stated she does not want shots with nudity, or implied nudity to be used by the photographer in any form ....... yet they were admittedly taken??? Is it reasonable to assume she can control the release of this content? Regardless of the "modeling agency" excuse, she is obviously suffering some remorse and whether it is legitimate or not isn't the issue. In Canada, many contracts can be rescinded within 24 hours, the cool down period. The circumstances involved with this " contract" and the execution of this said contract are at question. That is all and nothing more. The sexist comment? Damn straight the gender issue is a concern and if you fail to see this layer, I cannot help you. These circumstance would make most men shudder if they thought about it!
It has nothing to do with my morals and values and I really wish that path is avoided as it serves a nothing more than a convenient portal for the site swarmers to muddy the issue . I learned long time ago to carefully choose your battles and this one would have seemed to be ugly had it transpired. But again, it has been resolved and this debate is nothing more than academic at best. I'd hate to be on the pointy end of the stick on this one had I been the photographer.
There we go, we're all correct and get gold stars. |
|
|
01/17/2009 05:17:33 PM · #33 |
You know what i just realized today. I just lost my winning Personality and Free Study photos for this month! DANGIT!!! I purposely shot both shots during that session. Now I have to go out and find another shot...or maybe just another model lol. |
|
|
01/17/2009 06:02:20 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Ivo: Originally posted by L2: Ivo, your main point appears to be that if a client signs a contract and the photographer incurs time, effort, and expense to produce work product and then later the client wants to rescind the contract -- that the ethical thing to do is for the photographer to suck it up. Good luck in business.
If that's not the case, and the only reason you think it's OK in this instance is because of the context of the shoot and the fact that she's female, then I submit your viewpoint is sexist. She's an adult, she knew what she was doing, she signed a release/contract indicating she wanted to be paid for her performance, and later turned out to be a liar. That she agreed to make the photographer whole is to her credit; that the photographer let her buy her way out of her contract is to his credit.
The gender of the client and the context of the shoot only make it understandable why she might want to rescind; it doesn't qualify as a reason to void the contract at the peril of the other party. |
Yes and no. The idea that a contract should be haphazardly rescinded is not the issue and never has been the issue. There are several factors here and yes, one of them is sexist. First, where is the contract being invoked? In the US or Canada? Is there "consideration" included if the other party has not, as yet, received benefit? Why is it essential for a 26 year old male to travel out of country to a hotel to photograph an unescorted woman? Is this common industry practice without adequate monetary compensation or shared cost? It is also necessary to note, within 24 hours, she has stated she does not want shots with nudity, or implied nudity to be used by the photographer in any form ....... yet they were admittedly taken??? Is it reasonable to assume she can control the release of this content? Regardless of the "modeling agency" excuse, she is obviously suffering some remorse and whether it is legitimate or not isn't the issue. In Canada, many contracts can be rescinded within 24 hours, the cool down period. The circumstances involved with this " contract" and the execution of this said contract are at question. That is all and nothing more. The sexist comment? Damn straight the gender issue is a concern and if you fail to see this layer, I cannot help you. These circumstance would make most men shudder if they thought about it!
It has nothing to do with my morals and values and I really wish that path is avoided as it serves a nothing more than a convenient portal for the site swarmers to muddy the issue . I learned long time ago to carefully choose your battles and this one would have seemed to be ugly had it transpired. But again, it has been resolved and this debate is nothing more than academic at best. I'd hate to be on the pointy end of the stick on this one had I been the photographer.
There we go, we're all correct and get gold stars. |
Oh puhleeeze...
|
|
|
01/17/2009 06:56:32 PM · #35 |
The contract was for his time and her photographs. He can give her back the photographs but how will she give him back his time? After the shoot the contract can't completely be nullified because services were already rendered. The only way to "give back" the time spent is to pay him for it at standard rates. |
|
|
01/17/2009 07:09:05 PM · #36 |
If she lied to the agency that hired her. You should send them a set of proofs. |
|
|
01/17/2009 07:42:43 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99: Oh puhleeeze... |
Holy crap, what the heck took you so long? I was getting worried we might actually agree on something. ;-) |
|
|
01/17/2009 08:08:46 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Ivo: Originally posted by Spazmo99: Oh puhleeeze... |
Holy crap, what the heck took you so long? I was getting worried we might actually agree on something. ;-) |
Maybe someday, but not today. |
|
|
01/17/2009 09:44:55 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Ivo: It has nothing to do with my morals and values and I really wish that path is avoided as it serves a nothing more than a convenient portal for the site swarmers to muddy the issue . |
It has everything to do with morals and values......hers.
SHE reneged.
SHE has an obligation to NOT be sexist and compensate him for all the reasons you list that make him a slimeball if he isn't happy with her reneging. |
|
|
01/18/2009 08:53:17 AM · #40 |
Of course that deal was a little too easy to be true. So I've gotten a reply that $1400 is too much...which I expected it to be....but she could pay me $700. Which that isn't going to work for 280 photos. So I'm now offering her just the implied and bare butt shots which would put drop the price down to $550, but also included that she will not be able to sell publication rights....realized that if i gave her full rights, she could still edit and sell the photos which would be against the reason I'm giving her all photos so cheap. Let's see how that works.
haha...she actually offered to pay half and then shoot again just without the implied shots...um...that's not going to happen. |
|
|
01/18/2009 11:46:57 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by albc28: Of course that deal was a little too easy to be true. So I've gotten a reply that $1400 is too much...which I expected it to be....but she could pay me $700. Which that isn't going to work for 280 photos. So I'm now offering her just the implied and bare butt shots which would put drop the price down to $550, but also included that she will not be able to sell publication rights....realized that if i gave her full rights, she could still edit and sell the photos which would be against the reason I'm giving her all photos so cheap. Let's see how that works.
haha...she actually offered to pay half and then shoot again just without the implied shots...um...that's not going to happen. |
hmmm... this is getting interesting.
You spent time, travel and paid for a hotel room to photograph this woman.
She spent time and travel to be photographed by you.
You have photography equipment and talent invested, she has her looks (which takes a significant amount of money to keep up) and modeling talent invested.
You both entered into this on the possibility of getting something out of it - exposure and then potential money. It's just potential money though, there no way of knowing if you or she would have actually made any money off of these shots.
You agreed to shoot, she agreed to model on that prospect.
You did shoot it, she did model it.
She for whatever reason decided she did not like the shoot and in turn you are offering in essence to turn it into a shoot for hire situation (so you are compensated something for sure). Fair enough.
But now you are saying she is not allowed to profit from the pictures she has now paid you for hire to take? That's where it's starting to sound like she is the one getting the short end of the stick. She is now paying to keep her reputation while you are getting paid to take her picture.
IMO you can have it both ways. Either you are shooting on the prospect of future revenue or you are shooting for hire (in which case the pictures would be hers).
I'm all for contracts - and would be supportive of you sticking to your contract. But you are making her an offer that doesn't seem very ethical to me (again IMHO). She provided a service too - it's just the end result of that service that's now in dispute.
On a side note you may want to specify in future contracts the "penalty" for breaking the contract. |
|
|
01/18/2009 11:56:55 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by albc28: Of course that deal was a little too easy to be true. So I've gotten a reply that $1400 is too much...which I expected it to be....but she could pay me $700. Which that isn't going to work for 280 photos. So I'm now offering her just the implied and bare butt shots which would put drop the price down to $550, but also included that she will not be able to sell publication rights....realized that if i gave her full rights, she could still edit and sell the photos which would be against the reason I'm giving her all photos so cheap. Let's see how that works.
haha...she actually offered to pay half and then shoot again just without the implied shots...um...that's not going to happen. |
I'd just send the images in question to her new agency. |
|
|
01/18/2009 12:09:03 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by albc28: Of course that deal was a little too easy to be true. So I've gotten a reply that $1400 is too much...which I expected it to be....but she could pay me $700. Which that isn't going to work for 280 photos. So I'm now offering her just the implied and bare butt shots which would put drop the price down to $550, but also included that she will not be able to sell publication rights....realized that if i gave her full rights, she could still edit and sell the photos which would be against the reason I'm giving her all photos so cheap. Let's see how that works.
haha...she actually offered to pay half and then shoot again just without the implied shots...um...that's not going to happen. |
My reaction to this is basically the same as DjFenzi's: you just crossed a line from professionalism to extortion. Well, you didn't *cross* it because this is just an idea, but if you follow through you are basically telling her "pay me money and I'll destroy the negatives", or the digital equivalent of same.
R.
|
|
|
01/18/2009 12:19:12 PM · #44 |
I understand what you guys are saying. But the difference is, she is still getting the pictures...she can use them for marketing and whatever, but she can't sell them for publication. And I can't use them at all. Would you sell full rights to a photo for $5? The reason I can sell them at $5 is because I have the belief that she plans on destroying all the photos. It'a like selling the photos to a magazine, you sell based off a usage and distribution of the photo.
What I became concerned about is that she just deceived her new agency...how do i know she won't deceive me and turn around marketing the photos to everyone she could? I have a feeling that she may realize that the shots aren't bad and she can still use them to market herself.
Message edited by author 2009-01-18 12:25:46. |
|
|
01/18/2009 12:22:27 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music: Originally posted by albc28: Of course that deal was a little too easy to be true. So I've gotten a reply that $1400 is too much...which I expected it to be....but she could pay me $700. Which that isn't going to work for 280 photos. So I'm now offering her just the implied and bare butt shots which would put drop the price down to $550, but also included that she will not be able to sell publication rights....realized that if i gave her full rights, she could still edit and sell the photos which would be against the reason I'm giving her all photos so cheap. Let's see how that works.
haha...she actually offered to pay half and then shoot again just without the implied shots...um...that's not going to happen. |
My reaction to this is basically the same as DjFenzi's: you just crossed a line from professionalism to extortion. Well, you didn't *cross* it because this is just an idea, but if you follow through you are basically telling her "pay me money and I'll destroy the negatives", or the digital equivalent of same.
R. |
So then what would you suggest? She wants those negatives destroyed because she lied to her new agency saying she never did pictures like this ... essentially saying that he can't make any money and he is just SOL. Sorry, but a contract is a contract, and if she wants out of it, she does need to compensate him, WHATEVER he thinks is fair (obviously within reason, which I think his initial offer is).
Or, keep them and do what you want with them .... she's the one who is lying and being deceptive. |
|
|
01/18/2009 12:29:28 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by albc28:
What I became concerned about is that she just deceived her new agency...how do i know she won't deceive me and turn around marketing the photos to everyone she could? I have a feeling that she may realize that the shots aren't bad and she can still use them to market herself. |
Why don't you just tell her what you should have told her to begin with - "sorry, no." |
|
|
01/18/2009 12:35:25 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by lifeafter2am:
So then what would you suggest? She wants those negatives destroyed because she lied to her new agency saying she never did pictures like this ... essentially saying that he can't make any money and he is just SOL. Sorry, but a contract is a contract, and if she wants out of it, she does need to compensate him, WHATEVER he thinks is fair (obviously within reason, which I think his initial offer is).
Or, keep them and do what you want with them .... she's the one who is lying and being deceptive. |
I'm just looking forward a little ways: I'm well aware that alb is being ethical here, and I'm worried how his actions might *appear* sometime in the future if she gets a bee in her bonnet and decides to cause him some grief. It *looks* slimy, it *looks* like extortion, and all the justification one might come up with wouldn't change that.
What would *I* do? I'd tell her I'll wipe the questionable shots, and market the rest as per the original contract. There's no reason for HER to have them, because her possession of them doesn't in any way preclude alb having kept digital copies. So she just has to trust him either way.
The way I look at it, it's a no-win situation for alb: now that he's aware the model doesn't want certain shots used, he has two choices: don't use 'em or do use 'em. If he chooses to accommodate her and NOT use 'em, he can choose to try to get her to pay for the ones she won't let him use, or he can just let it go.
If he chooses to USE the shots (he has a contract, after all) then he's definitely gonna look like an a$$h*le somewhere down the road, albeit he may make money off the usage. Never mind that he HAS a contract, he still looks bad to the MODEL, and his credibility is gonna suffer. He's making HER pay a career price for a mistake she made.
If he chooses to NOT use the images but tries to charge her for them, he looks REALLY sleazy (again, contract notwithstanding) and this is gonna hurt his credibility.
If he chooses to just 86 the shots and move on, he looks real good and he can sleep at night. I know what I'd do...
R.
|
|
|
01/18/2009 12:52:30 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music: Originally posted by lifeafter2am:
So then what would you suggest? She wants those negatives destroyed because she lied to her new agency saying she never did pictures like this ... essentially saying that he can't make any money and he is just SOL. Sorry, but a contract is a contract, and if she wants out of it, she does need to compensate him, WHATEVER he thinks is fair (obviously within reason, which I think his initial offer is).
Or, keep them and do what you want with them .... she's the one who is lying and being deceptive. |
I'm just looking forward a little ways: I'm well aware that alb is being ethical here, and I'm worried how his actions might *appear* sometime in the future if she gets a bee in her bonnet and decides to cause him some grief. It *looks* slimy, it *looks* like extortion, and all the justification one might come up with wouldn't change that.
What would *I* do? I'd tell her I'll wipe the questionable shots, and market the rest as per the original contract. There's no reason for HER to have them, because her possession of them doesn't in any way preclude alb having kept digital copies. So she just has to trust him either way.
The way I look at it, it's a no-win situation for alb: now that he's aware the model doesn't want certain shots used, he has two choices: don't use 'em or do use 'em. If he chooses to accommodate her and NOT use 'em, he can choose to try to get her to pay for the ones she won't let him use, or he can just let it go.
If he chooses to USE the shots (he has a contract, after all) then he's definitely gonna look like an a$$h*le somewhere down the road, albeit he may make money off the usage. Never mind that he HAS a contract, he still looks bad to the MODEL, and his credibility is gonna suffer. He's making HER pay a career price for a mistake she made.
If he chooses to NOT use the images but tries to charge her for them, he looks REALLY sleazy (again, contract notwithstanding) and this is gonna hurt his credibility.
If he chooses to just 86 the shots and move on, he looks real good and he can sleep at night. I know what I'd do...
R. |
I understand what you are tying to say, and I do agree TO A POINT. Call me a hard ass, but a contract is a contract, and rules are rules ..... It irritates me when people think they should get special treatment. 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. I guess I would have different feeling if he didn't go through so much effort to lay out the shoot and explain so much about what was going to be done, then spend all the money renting a room and all, only to be asked to not use them because she is lying to a new company. IMO she is already in the wrong, and he is going out of his way to help her to begin with.
But again, like I said, I can see your point, I just would deal with that crap down the road SHOULD it happen. |
|
|
01/18/2009 12:58:59 PM · #49 |
Bear is right in a way. Granted, her paying for my time would allow me to sleep great at night, I really just don't like dealing with the hassle of this. I'd rather have some of the photos and just move on. It's really not about the money. It's principal. The money won't really change that, and i'd really rather just have the shoot. I have the hotel and it can be used for other shoots while i'm here. So the cost of the room is no big deal.
I think I will tell her that I will delete the photos that she her face in any implied shot. Use it as a lesson learned and have an alternate agreement now in place on my model releases/contracts.
Message edited by author 2009-01-18 12:59:31. |
|
|
01/18/2009 01:05:06 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by albc28: Bear is right in a way. Granted, her paying for my time would allow me to sleep great at night, I really just don't like dealing with the hassle of this. I'd rather have some of the photos and just move on. It's really not about the money. It's principal. The money won't really change that, and i'd really rather just have the shoot. I have the hotel and it can be used for other shoots while i'm here. So the cost of the room is no big deal.
I think I will tell her that I will delete the photos that she her face in any implied shot. Use it as a lesson learned and have an alternate agreement now in place on my model releases/contracts. |
This makes sense...
R.
|
|