reselling images, question.

[jonnydonut]

Here's the situation. I took engagement pictures of a couple. I know the girl well but not the guy. They turned out good. I gave them a discount and since the guy is a photojournalism major he requested the raw files, and I said, "eh, why the hell not". That's not really important, but just showing my nice gestures toward them.

A lady who works in the marketing department for the city where we had our shoot came across the photos online, contacted me, loves the pictures and wants to buy some for city marketing purposes.

I was thrilled, assumed the couple would be too. The girl was, the guy however says he's not ok with me selling them if he doesn't get paid also. This is just him being silly and selfish in my opinion. None of the pictures are intimate or risque, and the city wouldn't want those anyway. They just like a good photograph of a couple in old downtown and the park.

I reminded the guy, just now in a message what I had done for them, and that I'm not going to pay him if I make the low dollar sale. I said, if he's not ok with me making money, then I can give them away, and that he can request that I not give them altogether.

Now, if he does disapprove, I'm almost certain I will not give the pictures to the city. The question is however, could I legally? All the pictures were in public locations, streets, public parks. I know you can sell pictures like that, obviously the paparazzi does it, but since I was hired by them do they have some sort of authority over my photographs? We have no contract signed. but I'm asking them to sign a release now.

please no advice like "don't ruin you reputation, respect them, have morals, have another shoot, blah, blah" I'm not going to do anything stupid. I'm looking for the answer to "is it allowed?"

[Howard Barlow]

Not without a signed release from both of them.

[BeccaJ]

they'd have to sign a release for you to be able to sell them to the city. Now that he knows that's what you're going to do, he probably wont sign it.

Find some willing models, reshoot in the same place, and sell those?! LOL

[ShaneKislack]

Why wouldn't you pay him something? That's the way it works.

Your decision to give them a discount originally was a totally separate transaction.

[toverman]

The key is to ALWAYS have a signed contract that makes it clear you own the copyrights to the images and can use them for marketing, promotion or other purposes. Another key is don't tell clients you are selling an image of them ... letting them know that the city wants to use one of them is good, but the nature of the transaction is none of their business.

Too for either of those, you need signed model releases to give/sell the image to the city.

Unless they were professional models, though, I'm not sure why you would pay your clients to use the image.

[ShaneKislack]

Originally Posted by toverman

Another key is don't tell clients you are selling an image of them ... letting them know that the city wants to use one of them is good, but the nature of the transaction is none of their business.

Unless they were professional models, though, I'm not sure why you would pay your clients to use the image.

With all due respect, I couldn't endorse this method of biz. Also, if they are good enough to serve as a model (professional or not) they are good enough to be paid.

[toverman]

I'd like to hear from someone who has actually paid clients in this situation. The photographer owns the copyright. In this case, if there had been a signed contract, it wouldn't even be an issue.

[boxofrocks]

Originally Posted by toverman

The key is to ALWAYS have a signed contract that makes it clear you own the copyrights to the images and can use them for marketing, promotion or other purposes. Another key is don't tell clients you are selling an image of them ... letting them know that the city wants to use one of them is good, but the nature of the transaction is none of their business.

Too for either of those, you need signed model releases to give/sell the image to the city.

Unless they were professional models, though, I'm not sure why you would pay your clients to use the image.

Most releases have terms in them like the following:

In consideration of ______ Dollars ($_______), and other valuable consideration, receipt of which is acknowledged, I, ______(Model's name) do hereby give ______(the Photographer),
his or her assigns, licensees, successors in interest, legal representatives, and heirs the irrevocable right to use my name (or any fictional name), picture, portrait, or photograph in all forms...

The key word here is "consideration". A contract doesn't exist unless there is consideration by both parties. In this instance, the model needs to be paid, or receive free prints, files, a discount, or something else of value to receive his/her consideration.

I think they already compensated the photographer for the original photos, so that may not count.

[ShaneKislack]

Originally Posted by toverman

I'd like to hear from someone who has actually paid clients in this situation. The photographer owns the copyright. In this case, if there had been a signed contract, it wouldn't even be an issue.

You already have heard from someone who's paid clients in this situation. At that point you are basically selling a stock image.

Yes the photographer owns the copyright...which only protects him from being copied...but doesn't allow him to do anything he wants with the pic.

[L Stegall]

Originally Posted by toverman

Another key is don't tell clients you are selling an image of them ... letting them know that the city wants to use one of them is good, but the nature of the transaction is none of their business.

No, sorry, that just opens up a whole big can o' worms for the end user of the image and the photographer. Without a doubt, that would be the one piece of promotional material that the subject sees and sues over because he/she didn't give a release. The end user, in turn, sues the photographer for selling them an image without a release. Good biz for lawyers, not so much for photographers.

[ShaneKislack]

So, I understand that there's no way you could have anticipated that someone would want to use these...so you couldn't have prepared for this.

Here's what you do. You tell the marketing person that they'll also have to pay the 'models'. Try and negotiate a fair price for both of you. If it's really low dollar, it won't be worth the headache of pulling and preparing the file..much less arguing with your valued clients. But what you pay the model shouldn't come out of your payment. It should be paid in addition.

[boxofrocks]

Originally Posted by ShaneKislack

So, I understand that there's no way you could have anticipated that someone would want to use these...so you couldn't have prepared for this.

Here's what you do. You tell the marketing person that they'll also have to pay the 'models'. Try and negotiate a fair price for both of you. If it's really low dollar, it won't be worth the headache of pulling and preparing the file..much less arguing with your valued clients. But what you pay the model shouldn't come out of your payment. It should be paid in addition.

This.

[L Stegall]

Hey, payment could be something as simple as providing the couple with additional prints, at your cost or an additional session. It doesn't have to necessarily be monetary compensation.

In the future, just get a release at the time of the session. Who knows, you might want to use the images in your own advertising and promotional pieces and that's a good way to discuss why you need it up front - just covering "yourself" for the future.

Good luck with this one! If it doesn't work out, someone suggested trying to reproduce the image using someone else.

[dminton]

If he says no, then that's it. Its over, you can't do it.

You do not have permission to distribute his likeness. No matter if there is money involved, if you give/sell the image to the city for them to use for advertising, then that is a commercial usage. If you sell/give the city that image, and he does not give you permission, he can sue YOU and the CITY for appropriation because YOU and the CITY have used his likeness to promote a product or service (the city).

He is a private citizen and is not at all subject to any of the paparazzi rules. The laws that the paparazzi take advantage of in order to do their "job" are all about expectations of privacy. Celebrities are not ordinary private citizens and are not entitled to the same expectations of privacy as Joe Sickspak. Additionally, paparazzi photos are used expressly for editorial use, not commercial usage. If someone from Bauer-Griffin or X17 took a picture of Britney Spears and sold it to Coca-Cola and they used it on a billboard
without her permission, they would and should get sued big-time.
Yes the images were made on public property in a public place, and all that, but a person is not public property. Selling or giving his image to an separate entity for the purpose of promotion without his permission is an invasion of privacy.

On another note, if this guy is a photoj major like you said, its really stupid and cocky of you to post here on TPF all that stuff about you thinking he's being silly and selfish, thinking that he's not gonna see it.

[alamoshutterbug]

Originally Posted by boxofrocks

Most releases have terms in them like the following:

In consideration of ______ Dollars ($_______), and other valuable consideration, receipt of which is acknowledged, I, ______(Model's name) do hereby give ______(the Photographer),
his or her assigns, licensees, successors in interest, legal representatives, and heirs the irrevocable right to use my name (or any fictional name), picture, portrait, or photograph in all forms...

The key word here is "consideration". A contract doesn't exist unless there is consideration by both parties. In this instance, the model needs to be paid, or receive free prints, files, a discount, or something else of value to receive his/her consideration.

I think they already compensated the photographer for the original photos, so that may not count.

You don't necessarily have to enumerate the "consideration" in the release. The model release for Getty Images is worded like this:

"For good and valuable Consideration herein acknowledged as received, and by signing this release..."

They do it this way so that there can be no quibbles over whether some particular "consideration" was fair, valuable, etc.