5 Star Hotel Pricey Photographer

Why?

In most cases I'd agree with you -- if we were talking about serious money. The all in figure (including her own web development costs) cited is $4K*.

If she can reach an acceptable resolution with the photographer, why does she need to engage one of your colleagues?

By way of analogy, if I trip and skin my knee should I call 911, head to the ER and have it treated or pick myself up, clean the injury, dress it & get on with my life?

Are there not certain legal matters where competent individuals can do it themselves and save a fee? At some point shouldn't a rational individual do a cost/benefit analysis and decide retaining a lawyer doesn't make sense?

Is that a lawyer's default answer to everything?

*all of this is based on the $4k figure given...add a zero & I'd get counsel as well... Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Several reasons. First, to figure out the bizarre contract and how it affects her rights. If she can't use the photographs, she should have a right to get her $4,000 back, plus (depending on the State, the facts, and the contract), other damages such as attorney's fees, enhanced damages under deceptive trade acts, etc. Second, the involvement of an attorney sends a signal to the opposing party that the matter is serious and encourages them to accept responsibility for their negligence. Third, an attorney may, with a bit or research, determine that the hotel has no right to stop publication of the pics in any event. I looked the gal's web site after posting and I don't see anything where a hotel's name is used. Recognizing a piece of fairly generic furniture may (or may not) not be enough to stop use of the photographs. Somebody needs to look into that.

Several reasons. First, to figure out the bizarre contract and how it affects her rights. If she can't use the photographs, she should have a right to get her $4,000 back, plus (depending on the State, the facts, and the contract), other damages such as attorney's fees, enhanced damages under deceptive trade acts, etc. Second, the involvement of an attorney sends a signal to the opposing party that the matter is serious and encourages them to accept responsibility for their negligence. Third, an attorney may, with a bit or research, determine that the hotel has no right to stop publication of the pics in any event. I looked the gal's web site after posting and I don't see anything where a hotel's name is used. Recognizing a piece of fairly generic furniture may (or may not) not be enough to stop use of the photographs. Somebody needs to look into that. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

And give us a rough idea of the fee schedule for such services????

I say this is as someone who has dealt with a bunch of contract law attorneys on a variety of matters and they dont do "a bit of research" for free* and if they are any good not cheap. I'm not saying don't call your lawyer up and have a 15 minute conversation. I'm saying this is a $2500 photo shoot...

And, will you acknowledge if she is interested in the "other damages" you mention, she is not likely to recieve $dollar one for a lengthy period of time?

*I'm working under the assumption that she does not have an existing relationship with an attorney in this area that, based upon past (or anticipated future) business will do some upfront work.

1)Ask for a reshoot
2)Ask to be reimbursed
3)Ask photog pay for someone else to reshoot
4)Tylor or the photog get the release from the hotel.

The contract seems like a common one. Photographers retain copyright, Tylor gets to use them. A contract will cover why, when, where and how Tylor gets to use them.

I think that arrangement is common in this world. I just wouldnt recommend it.

Usually, in the other world, I think it is very common for the person paying for the shoot to own all of the work product.

Admitedly, a model paying for her own shoot is a bit different. I just would only use photographers that agree that all the pictures taken (original & finished) are owned by the entity paying for the shoot.

I think that arrangement is common in this world. I just wouldnt recommend it.

Usually, in the other world, I think it is very common for the person paying for the shoot to own all of the work product. Originally Posted by newalhobbyist

I had a few shoots with a photographer who did not know the purpose of my images, just that I wanted some images to give to my lover (the va-va-voom images) and friends (the ones in the little black dress, etc...)

Even in that case, she owns my images. To my surprise, I discovered that she uses one of my images from our earliest shoot for her advertisements in a local magazine. Awww shucks. I'm flattered. Good thing I don't use that one on my site LOL. (I'm a face blurrer.)

Another time, the man who photographed me as a civvie (again, same story as above) charged me almost $1000 extra to own the rights to my images.

Funny timing as the wonderful Amanda Brooks recently referred to an article about just this topic...Let me see if I can dig it up.

Yes, timing is everything.

However, just because a photographer owns the copyright to the images should not - ethically - give her card blanche to do with whatever she chooses with those images. Most clients don't really pay too much attention to the whole copyright thing to begin with. They tend to put their trust in the photographer and are more concerned about getting good pictures. This means that if the photographer exploits a client's image(s) to her fancy she is violating the client/photographer confidentiality relationship whether written or implied.

It's really quite simple: yes, the photographer owns the copyright to the images. However, the photographer owes it to the client to get permission to publish her photos in any capacity whatsoever. I always try to get this in writing so as to prevent any confusion.

By the way, a copyright is only as good as the letters with which the word is written.

Case in point: I recently photographed a client doing nudes. She agreed long before the shoot. We signed a release in which I explained every bullet point of the document. We both signed it and she got her copy. The shots were drop dead gorgeous. Later, I asked her permission to publish some of her pictures on my site. It was at that point that she changed her mind and did not feel comfortable. Therefore, I cannot publish the images. Period. Shucks but that's the way it goes.

A good and ethical photographer should be more concerned about the long term relationship with the client than publishing a few trite photos to make herself look good.

So if a photog shoots a bowl of fruit for an advertiser (grocery store, Del Monte, Chiquita, Martha Stewart Living), doesn't the agency/magazine own those photos? So if a pineapple is shot for Del Monte and they put it on the front of every can, I assume they have compensated the photog for services rendered.

Why would a lady or for that matter if I have a head shot done, do I not own the final rights? Or it is up to each contract who owns what?

I know of a motor sports photog that allows use of his pics for personal usage by the racer, but should it go into an advertisement, etc. he requires a release (and I would assume compensation).

And yes, Meeshee, if one side's attorney barks loud enough, they win (Beck I hope Edward doesn't take offense to my analogy ). Again, Meeshee, bravo on your offer to Tylor. If I need a new head shot, I'm going to Tampa! (like Brees saying he's going to Disney World.)

It's all about the contracts SR. If you don't believe me I'm sure we could find a lawyer who would charge you $2500 to answer the question

Yes, I'm suggesting the ladies need to secure control and ownership of those rights and pictures. If I were a courtesan (I don't even play one on TV, but I do require rigorous screening of any of the ladies who wish to see me), I would definitely want ownership. Meeshee, if you don't mind commenting, what does your contract(s) contain? What if a client required to own and control their image(s)?

It's all about the contracts SR. If you don't believe me I'm sure we could find a lawyer who would charge you $2500 to answer the question Originally Posted by discreetgent

Hell, we probably wouldn't even have to look very hard.

You bring up a very good point, SR and thanks for doing that.

Here you are talking about copyright law as it relates to commercial photography, another world with which I am not too familiar.

The difference between copyright law as it relates to commercial photography and as it relates to non commercial photography is a good question for my attorney. I suspect I'll get a long winded answer. lol.

All in all, I try to be fair in honoring and respecting the wishes of my clients. Copyright or no copyright, at the end of the day, that's what counts.

Hope to see you in Tampa soon.

SR there is one photographer I know of that has a package in which the client retains all rights to the photos. Pictures are available to the client to download and once done the photos are deleted permanently by the photographer. No idea what the rates this photographer charges are but my guess is that this package is likely a more expensive one.

The difference between copyright law as it relates to commercial photography and as it relates to non commercial photography is a good question for my attorney. I suspect I'll get a long winded answer. lol Originally Posted by Meeshee

Does She/he bill by the word, the character, or by a simple quarter hour? Or D) all of the above at once.

I bet it is a lot warmer in Tampa than here in Connecticut. Especially someone who is as "warm" to Tylor.

I bet it is a lot warmer in Tampa than here in Connecticut. Especially someone who is as "warm" to Tylor. Originally Posted by SR Only

Another room?

I am racking up a ton of points with my hotel chain, aren't I.