Rights of a participant in a photo shoot (vs that of the owner of the photos)
LiquidElephant
Registered Users Posts: 67 Big grins
I'm looking for some advice. A close friend did a somewhat-ill-advised photo shoot with someone she knew. Nothing raunchy, but certainly things she wouldn't want on the internet without context. I had an unpleasant feeling in my stomach that they would end up on Facebook in short order and, sure enough they appeared last Thursday.
I informed her (she's not on Facebook) and we started looking at options to get them taken down.
Ultimately, we have failed. His belligerent view is "I paid for them so they're mine to do with as I wish", rather than respecting the wishes of my friend's privacy. I told him several times to do so, but he has refused.
It's all gotten a little unpleasant, but now I'm looking for guidance: What rights, as a participant in these images, does she have?
Ultimately the copyright (I imagine) belongs with the studio that did them, with the ownership being the guy that paid. But what of my friend? I don't think she signed any release forms or documents of that nature.
I informed her (she's not on Facebook) and we started looking at options to get them taken down.
Ultimately, we have failed. His belligerent view is "I paid for them so they're mine to do with as I wish", rather than respecting the wishes of my friend's privacy. I told him several times to do so, but he has refused.
It's all gotten a little unpleasant, but now I'm looking for guidance: What rights, as a participant in these images, does she have?
Ultimately the copyright (I imagine) belongs with the studio that did them, with the ownership being the guy that paid. But what of my friend? I don't think she signed any release forms or documents of that nature.
0
Comments
Here is the problem.......one must know if the "model" signed a release......also the fact that he owns or
rented space to shoot in and she was a very willing model that was paid for services is the real problem......
You see it is not just that she could return his pay....but he invested his time and energy into the shoot......so
who makes good on what would be HIS wasted time and energy..........What was the reason she was hired?
Exactly what type of shoot was it?? Portfolio builder.....what?? You could always enlist the help of an attorney
to write a Nasty Gram and see if he then does as she wishes.....but if she, not you ...hasn't offered to give up the pay
and offer to repay for his wasted time.....I do not think there is any legal stance......yes it was shot on private property,
however it was his property (even if rented space....it ownership is his for duration of rental period)......this is different than
shooting at a private event where the photog doesn't pay the "participants" and then tries to use the images........
Plus you get a farther with people by not telling but asking........
This is also different from the photogs that take portfolio photos of someone that becomes famous and then they decide
they do not want those images to be seen as the images start hitting the raggedy tabloids..........................
Don't want to go the attorney route......then buy the original image files with an agreement that he relinquishes all rights to usage of the images and that your friend will not use in any form or fashion the images also.............the files will be destroyed.
The photo shoot was done by a studio (one of those 'show up and pay, we put makeup on you and then photograph you' jobs).
The person posting them on the internet is IN the photos with my friend.
Was the female (your friend) hired to pose with the other person??
Who hired who??
Did the other person hire the travel glamour co. to do the session as a work for hire??
There is a lot of questions to be answered by your female friend...........................
Did your friend ask why she was to be in the photos??
Did she actually think that they were not going to be posted on a website of whoever owns the photos??
Absent clear proof that the posting of the pictures have or will cause her harm (as defined in legal terms) she doesn't have cause. She was a willing and voluntary participant in the photo taking exercise and intent is not relevant.
Copyright and releases are also irrelevant as this does not breech the boundary of commercial use.
The best she can hope for is to appeal to the other party's appreciation for her concerns of discretion.
.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots