PHOTOGRAPHERS and the control they have over you....

Before the Holidays many of you might have noticed my little Calendar Project / Bucket List. Some interesting things came to light while doing this what was supposed to be fun project. I had requested the providers submit picture(s) that did NOT have photographer’s names on them. This project was to highlight the beautiful ladies we have here on ECCIE. I also stated NO genitals being shown.

Shortly after putting up the Calendar / Bucket List in 10 different forums I get a PM from BCDSTUDIOS (BITCHY CAMERA DUDE) as I call him till I find out what the BCD actually means. "He" demanded I upload the pictures with his water mark. I simply replied that all the providers were instructed to submit pictures WITHOUT photographer’s names on them and "HE" was free to check with the providers. I got an immediate response demanding I put up the picture with the water mark before I cropped them.

I wasn't going to let this guy bully me so I close to have ECCIE staff take the two providers pictures down and let him explain to the providers why this happened. Next thing I know I start getting PM'S letting me know to look in the KS forum in my Calendar thread and the posts by BCDSTUDIOS. I did and after some back and forth the thread was closed by local MODS.

This brings us to this thread where I'd like to discuss the use of a professional photographer and the rights they might have when taking pictures.

First off ladies you can have pictures taken and not give up rights to those pictures. You are NOT required to have BIG ASS BANNERS placed across your pictures like BCDSTUDIOS does. More often than not photographers will be more discreet about their water mark placement. There are many wonderful photographers out there that are interested in make a living without demanding "rights" to the pictures they take. They are interested in serving their client’s needs not offensive water marks that draw attention to them and their business. Ladies "YOU" are paying to get nice pictures of "YOU". To promote "YOUR" business. Not a photographer.

If you sign a contract that allows the photographer the "rights" to the pictures what happens if you want all your pictures taken down? You lost those rights and the photographer can do with them as he wishes. So know what your signing and shop for a photographer that best suits your needs without giving up "YOUR" rights. "YOU" are paying them. Not the other way around.

Here is a picture BCDSTUDIOS published in the San Antonio Forum:



Here is another one of his pictures:



BCDSTUDIOS is exactly why I requested the providers submit pictures without photographer’s names on them.

Now I understand copy right infringement is wrong. And photographers and artists have rights. As they should. That's the industry. It was wrong for me to remove the water marks and I should have dropped both providers from the project. And ladies if you agree to hire a photographer and give up your rights, then that's just the way the industry works. But it doesn't need to be that way.

This thread is NOT indented to be a pissing match between BCD & myself. Let's talk about "PROVIDERS" and the use of a professional photographer the good the bad and the ugly. Let’s also talk about size of water marks as well as the "rights" that you may or may not have when using a professional photographer.

I'm sure a bit of a shit storm will follow this thread. I am a pro photographer, mostly commercial work but I do model portfolio work and of course some provider photos. I have a small BD (not my pro logo) on one corner of my images for providers and nothing on my pro images if they are PAYING ME. If i'm doing TF (time for images) work then i'll have my logo bigger but yet not intrusive.

ALL my pro work has model releases that state EXACTLY what is expected from both parties. Most providers want their name as a watermark across the image somewhere to slow down the theft of them. Now what control do providers have? Once the images are up they have no control, it's too easy to copy and put them anywhere. That's the same with any image anywhere on the interweb. Now I have never let out an image of a provider without her consent EVER! I have had many offers but never have, never will. I have a good reputation here so I wont do anything to ruin that. I understand why BCD has their logo there if the were doing trade or free images, if he was getting paid then it may be a bit much but then again it depends on the agreement he had with the provider. There is way too much room for misrepresentation and confusion.

Now what may be pissing this guy off is someone messing with his images. On that i'll have to side with him. If someone copies my work without my permission then there will be hell to pay. First for copying it and second fucking with it. But it goes back to what agreement he has with the model. If she paid for the images, gave someone permission to copy and edit then he has nothing to say. if he did the shoot for free and she agreed to have the logo there then he's right. So there you go......... BD

Calendars need taint ... ijs.

I'm sure a bit of a shit storm will follow this thread. I am a pro photographer, mostly commercial work but I do model portfolio work and of course some provider photos. I have a small BD (not my pro logo) on one corner of my images for providers and nothing on my pro images if they are PAYING ME. If i'm doing TF (time for images) work then i'll have my logo bigger but yet not intrusive.

ALL my pro work has model releases that state EXACTLY what is expected from both parties. Most providers want their name as a watermark across the image somewhere to slow down the theft of them. Now what control do providers have? Once the images are up they have no control, it's too easy to copy and put them anywhere. That's the same with any image anywhere on the interweb. Now I have never let out an image of a provider without her consent EVER! I have had many offers but never have, never will. I have a good reputation here so I wont do anything to ruin that. I understand why BCD has their logo there if the were doing trade or free images, if he was getting paid then it may be a bit much but then again it depends on the agreement he had with the provider. There is way too much room for misrepresentation and confusion.

Now what may be pissing this guy off is someone messing with his images. On that i'll have to side with him. If someone copies my work without my permission then there will be hell to pay. First for copying it and second fucking with it. But it goes back to what agreement he has with the model. If she paid for the images, gave someone permission to copy and edit then he has nothing to say. if he did the shoot for free and she agreed to have the logo there then he's right. So there you go......... BD


Originally Posted by ben dover

BD some of these guys should take note from how you do things. I didn't even notice the BD at first.

I realize cropping a picture to remove the water mark is WRONG! I realize photographers / artists have rights. I didn't change the pictures in any way other than that. They look fabulous. Well the HOT providers looked fabulous!

The Calendar was a situation where "two" providers forgot or choose to NOT follow the rules that were given to "all" the providers. Then when I started getting BS from a photographer I almost felt like I did a review on an INDY provider and some ass wipe pimp started giving me crap over the way I wrote the review. To this day I have no idea if the photographer even checked with the two providers. I certainly wasn't interested in bring them into the situation. I guess I figured the photographer would have checked with the providers, found out what the rules were and realized I wasn't making money off this. I was simply helping out his clients. That should have been the end of it. But copy right infringement was threatened sad to say so the pictures were pulled. Keep in mind if this had happened in a different venue that "I" had control over I would have demanded to be forwarded the appropriate documentation proving copy right. But ECCIE didn't deserve a shit storm over a few pictures that some photographer was crying he needed credit. He got his credit just the same crying in my threAD in Kansas and also San Antonio in Slave G'S thread. So most everyone knows he took the pictures. He even posted a few more. Can't get your name out in front of too many people, now can we? I guess all advertising is good advertising. But what the hell no one hardly reads my threads anyway.

Thanks for your post BD... got to run. I need to check on some provider named... Alliana

It's a sensitive area no matter where images are posted. Too bad your effort wasn't received better, I enjoyed it.... and it's Elliana......LOL... BD

It's a sensitive area no matter where images are posted. Too bad your effort wasn't received better, I enjoyed it.... and it's Elliana......LOL... BD Originally Posted by ben dover

Now I have two to check on... LOL Thanks BD. She looks HOT!

I started a thread in Austin looking for local photographers. Many did NOT post in the thread but I have over 12 PM me. EVERY SINGLE photographer charged between $300-$800 for a photo shoot and "ALL" rights belong to the provider. ZERO WATER MARK. And this was all inclusive. Half had web sites with amazing work. Any photographer that would like to be recognized and chime in is welcome to do so here. The objective is to educate and help all of us understand the do's and don'ts.

Texas is a whole different world as far as providers and photos. Here most girls don't update images EVER or they use crappy cell phone shots into a mirror. I get contacted every so often but when I mention I need to get paid or work a trade they stop responding. Funny... their time is worth 200 and up an hour but my time is worth nothing and i'm bringing 6-$7,000 worth of equipment to their incall... But there is not anywhere near the competition that exists in TX. I have looked at showcases there and a majority of showcases are very good.

Texas is a whole different world as far as providers and photos. Here most girls don't update images EVER or they use crappy cell phone shots into a mirror. I get contacted every so often but when I mention I need to get paid or work a trade they stop responding. Funny... their time is worth 200 and up an hour but my time is worth nothing and i'm bringing 6-$7,000 worth of equipment to their incall... But there is not anywhere near the competition that exists in TX. I have looked at showcases there and a majority of showcases are very good. Originally Posted by ben dover

I always find it amusing that the people most offended by someone negotiating pricing with them seem to be the cheapest people on earth. They don't like to pay full price for anything. BD how about a few more examples of your work including your WATER MARK. Just so potential clients have a comparison.

I always find it amusing that the people most offended by someone negotiating pricing with them seem to be the cheapest people on earth. They don't like to pay full price for anything. BD how about a few more examples of your work including your WATER MARK. Just so potential clients have a comparison.

Originally Posted by Still Looking

According to US Copyright law images taken by a photographer belong to the photographer unless he/she chooses to give up those rights. It may be your wedding or your modeling shot but unless you specified that you own or share the rights that image belongs to the photographer and his estate until it passes into public domain 75 years after the artists death. If you want ownership of the image you need to contract for that.

Now that's the law, the reality is different. Many photographers aren't keen to sue, keeping track of your images across the internet is a pain in the ass as well. Also lots of photographers aren't going to register their copyrights so damages are limited. But removing a copyright or a watermark can change that. It shows intent and should (and that's the question) someone want to pursue it could lead to treble damages.

Copyright is a dicey thing especially with the internet. Value of a photo, say in a modeling session of a provider is difficult to prove. I know a guy who used to take photos if his wife, she's beautiful and an exhibitionist, and he used to post her on an amateur picture site. He always put a copyright notice on the shots and now he spends a few hours a week emailing photo forums and the like getting them to take down her shots. It's turned into a real nightmare for them. He's not looking for money, just to stop folks posting his wife but he has used copyright law and the threat of damages, especially when his notice has been removed as leverage.

So the upshot is this, if you are the model be aware of what you sign. If you want the rights contract for them. If you don't want someone's copyright notice or watermark to appear on an image specify that. If you are a third person DO NOT remove a watermark or copyright notice. In fact before you use an image like that you should ask for documentation that right to the image have been licensed or released.

Now there are all sorts if other nuances to the law, modeling release specifics, fair use doctrine, public domain, etc. but this really isn't the place to go into it. Some photographers are going to be easygoing, some are going to be hardasses and most will be somewhere in between but remember that these images are how they put food on the table.

Now I have two to check on... LOL Thanks BD. She looks HOT!

I started a thread in Austin looking for local photographers. Many did NOT post in the thread but I have over 12 PM me. EVERY SINGLE photographer charged between $300-$800 for a photo shoot and "ALL" rights belong to the provider. ZERO WATER MARK. And this was all inclusive. Half had web sites with amazing work. Any photographer that would like to be recognized and chime in is welcome to do so here. The objective is to educate and help all of us understand the do's and don'ts. Originally Posted by Still Looking

just because you can't see the watermark doesn't mean it's not there, a lot of those photos have digital watermarks, which makes it easy to find where they are being used online.

just because you can't see the watermark doesn't mean it's not there, a lot of those photos have digital watermarks, which makes it easy to find where they are being used online. Originally Posted by dreamvacationdates

yup! dream pig

just because you can't see the watermark doesn't mean it's not there, a lot of those photos have digital watermarks, which makes it easy to find where they are being used online. Originally Posted by dreamvacationdates

I am a photographer that owns a LLC and runs 3 different photography companies. I have a degree in studio photography from the Arts Institute. One of the classes in the course covered all the legal aspects of photography. The number one thing to remember is, that unless explicitly stated in the contract, all image rights from the second of the image creation belongs to the photographer. It can only be used as described in the contract and any other use is illegal, period.

The photographer has every right to demand the pictures be taken down or to require the original images be used that include his watermark. There's nothing wrong with this practice, and if the model agreed to follow those guidelines from the beginning then she must honor the contract.

I am not saying this is how I operate, I'm just saying he is within his rights.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

If it flys, floats or fucks its best to rent....anything else I spend my money on I own.


Why would any girl making a living in a cash and carry business have a pic taken of herself with a banner splashed across top of it screaming this is where Mr. LE can find a contract that I signed with my RW information on it?





I like the way you think OSD.

The best cautionary tale about knowing what you sign and what your rights are is Vanessa Williams, dethroned Miss America 1984.

She did a racy lesbian photoshoot,the photographer retained the rights to the photos and sold them later for big bucks to Penthouse. Penthouse published them and she was dethroned and went on to become the most successful and popular Miss America in history.

On a related note. The Penthouse issue with Vanessa's photos is illegal to own in its entirety. Does any one know why? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?

It's illegal because it's considered Child Pornography because the centerfold that month was under age. Do you know who the centerfold was?

A 17 year old Traci Lords!

And now you know The Rest of the Story!

If it flys, floats or fucks its best to rent....anything else I spend my money on I own.

Why would any girl making a living in a cash and carry business have a pic taken of herself with a banner splashed across top of it screaming this is where Mr. LE can find a contract that I signed with my RW information on it?

I like the way you think OSD. Originally Posted by thisguy23

Interesting perspective. WOW!