Models, Photographers and Copyrights… San Antonio, I want YOUR OPINION…;)

So what I am hearing, and correct me if I'm mistaken, SL, but what I'm hearing is that, a quality subject can make a marginal photographer's work look good but there's no getting away from a creep, because creeps always wind-up making an appearance somewhere along the way.
I think that's the gist of it. Am I close, SL?

Hope you had a great Christmas!
.

.

Originally Posted by SofaKingFun

That and no good deed goes unpunished!

Bcdstudios, there is nothing offensive at all about your watermark or placement. This gent just likes to ruffle feathers and cause stinks where none exist.

I agree that he shouldn't have touched your photo, period. As someone who knows a little about graphic design, changing the size and placement or even removing it all together is quite simple if you have the originals. You do fine work, so don't let his criticisms get to you. Xo

@BCD - Your watermark is placed where it is not a big problem. If I were to have my preference it could be a little smaller which would make it less obvious. I think it would still be seen if it was smaller but I am not an expert on this and it is not my business so this is just an opinion. I do think you do good work.

Yeah. This guy has a documented history about placement and content on pictures on this site

Hello San Antonio (Love your River walk BTW!), below are my thoughts to Still Lookings comments on his calendar post:

First off I NEVER asked or "demanded" the OP (Still Looking) to remove the images, I simply asked him to do ONE of three things:

1. Reupload the original uncropped images showing the watermarks.
2. Give proper credit to my photo business in a followup reply to the post.
3. Ask a Mod to update the cropped images with the uncropped photos originally submited by ladies.

Checked my PM'S & email and don't see this option!? (High Lighted in RED)

We (SL and I) chatted through PM first, and I never asked, demanded or requested a Mod take the images down. I never even contacted a Mod to inquire about the possibility of doing so. That was OP's decision which really only hurts the ladies in the end. I have NO problem with my clients (the ladies) choice to submit any images I create to ANY online competition, magazine or use in marketing for her business.

Well that a lie. You had a problem with these pictures? My first response was that the providers were requested to submit pictures without PHOTOGRAPHERS names on them. I respectfully asked you to check with the providers. Your immediate response was that you demanded credit for the pictures and they were you copy righted pictures. You offered to send me the same pictures with the large water mark. I elected to just remove the pictures because of you copy right claim.

Your posts in the Kansas forum in my threAD:
BTW I approved and thought the calendar was a great idea for the ladies selected before the calendar post was made by SL. TyraXXX asked me to retouch her images specifically for that purpose and NEVER mentioned to me NOT to have my watermark on there specifically per SL request.

You approved? Who in the wide world of sports do you think you are? What gives "you" the right to approve or disapprove of my threAD?

My policy is simple: My (provider) clients can use their images I create to market their business in anyway they see fit. They can post them, share them, advertise them on websites, upload to their online model galleries. I have even shot adult content in the past that they can sell photos or videos on their website for VIP clients / paid memberships. Do I get a % or cut of that? NO. All I ask in return is if they are asked who does their photography they mention my business. Can a provider crop or edit the photos? Sure they can I'm not gonna spend my valuable time searching the internet for edited photos by my clients. Its just a professional courtesy we discuss prior to the shoot and 90% of past clients have had NO problems leaving my "discreet" studio watermark there. Thank you to my past clients who have honored this request!

Another lie as you sure picked up on these did you not? Did you check with the providers to see if in fact I requested no PHOTOGRAPHERS names on pictures? Had you done so you would have found out I did. That didn't concern you. All you cared about is your gigantic banner being slapped across the pictures... giving "you" credit as you put it.

IF the client wishes to purchase the copyright outright (where the photog has NO rights to said images) normally that can be 3-5x the Usage Rate.

WOW! Do all your clients know this? I think I'll check with a few other photographers and see if that’s their policy including SKF'S photographer.


Thats why I am in business and do my craft. That includes his (SL) online calendar, which I specifically retouched the (offending) photo of TyraXXX as she requested for the original calendar post.  I only have a problem when someone (Still Looking: who's not my client!) deliberately crops off my watermark or changes my Copyrighted images to use for their own purpose but doesn't allow credit where credit is do.

BULL SHIT! Out of one side of your mouth you work with your clients out of the other side you DEMAND 3 to 5 times as much for the rights to the pictures or you will demand credit as you so eloquently put it.

I even offered to email him the uncropped original images if he provided me his email address. I did notice that he left Mrs. September: Victoria Jolie watermark (Santillo) on the bottom right side of the image, but decided to crop off mine?? I thought he said NO watermarks, humm? SL reasoning to this forum comment was it wasn't as BIG as mine and he found it less offensive. He never asked or gave me the choice to make a smaller watermark on my images he originally posted. If he HAD requested that I may have done so - VS - SL removing the images from the original calendar post. Say what? Yes, I am that flexible to special client requests!!!!


You’re not flexible your just a little cry baby who was pissed you couldn't get credit for your pictures. As I previously explained the IMAGECOAST covered most of the discrete photographers name and sadly I was unable to crop that picture in the format it was sent. Had I been able to do so, I would have done so.

So now you bitched in Kansas and here in San Antonio. We all know I cropped the pictures. We all know you took them. So is that it? Or will you be going to all 10 of the forums where the calendar was posted sharing your sad tale?
SL never contacted me prior to posting my images to ask if he could crop or manipulate the image to remove my watermark. Maybe if he had done so I would have been OK with it and allowed him to do so. He should ask and not assume what he is doing is right? Heck he knew who I was and had the ability to contact me about it, I never knew who he was prior to the first PM I sent him. He could have just emailed me from my website as Im normally pretty flexible when it comes to promoting ladies who use my photography services.



OMG! REALLY? If I would have contacted you it would of been ok? Ok now I see the caliber of person I'm dealing with. What a joke. I knew you? Exactly how arrogant are you? I have no idea who you are until I got your PM requesting the water mark be put back! Why in the hell would I contact you? Your relationship is with the providers not me. They should have told you I expected NO PHOTOGRAPHERS names on the pictures. If I email or proof will you just go away?

And you have been a board member almost as long as me. Lets not play stupid as to what the rules are.

Another one of your ridiculous posts in my Kansas threAD:
I'll be happy to post their entire PM string so people can make up their own minds as to what I asked and how it was handled on the other side with OP. Assuming its not a code violation to post PM discussions in open forums?

Their? Hummmmm are you also "their" agent? Code violation? WTF? The only code violation is that you took a little project around the holidays and put up a big stink because you think your special. You talk out of both sides of your mouth and most certainly are a hypocrite.

Here are both images he posted, that I asked to be credited for you all to decide if they are "distracting, offensive" or not to the viewer. He is entitled to his opinion if the BCD Studios watermark is offensive or not AND I'm entitled to believe if global warming is real or not! (LOL) It's ALL a matter of personal opinion and personal tastes etc. To each his own.

Global warming may or may not be real? You don't deal with facts do you? Do you just make this shit up as you go?





Hope that clears up the other side to the story, as there are always two sides to everything. I am a professional photographer who offers professional photography services - Still Photos and HD Videos. I always listen and work closely with all my clients to find mutual understandings for the providers marketing use + needs. I have had NO complaints about my services from my clients and am happy to answer all questions about usage rights with the images we create. If they aren't using them then my time and talents are wasted. I'm not creating images just to sit on my hard drive for me to look at in the privacy of my studio. I am here to share beautiful images of stunning women and bring joy to the world.

So long as you get credit or get paid 3-5 TIMES the "normal" rate.... right?

:P With that I say - Peace be to all!

Originally Posted by bcdstudios

The only thing more offensive than your large BANNER is a large banner or pictures I've seen where every inch is protected by an agled repeated water wark. I'll have much more time for you BCD when I'm back from vacation. I can't wait!

As the Admin who pulled those two pics off of numerous threads around the site, I probably would have handled this a bit differently SL.

When the ladies sent you pics, with the watermarks included, it probably would have been better to re-request different pics from them, again specifying ones without the copyright/watermark. If they were unable or unwilling to do so, you probably should have dropped those ladies from the project and chose different ones; ones that could/would comply with the original request/guidelines I can see where the studio would be upset that their info would be removed, just as I understand (and share) your dislike of the distracting info on pics. But I don't think cropping the info was the right course of action, just dropping the pic and lady altogether would be better.

In your part of the world there is no shortage of beautiful ladies to choose from!

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Your right Chica. Even if the "providers" would have cropped the pictures this still could have happened. I was certainly caught by surprise when I recieved the large water marked pictures after I specificly requested there to be none. This was supose to be fun not a pissing watch between a photographer / agent or what ever he / she thincks they are and myself.

Your absolutely beautiful and have no problem competing with anyone. You have so much more to offer. Seduction, mystique, eroticism and a personality second to none! I'm mischievous, so I like the Red Ridinghood story pictures!

From a legal perspective, you violated the copyright when you removed the watermark and posted (i.e., published) the photos in your compilation calendar under your own name. It appears to be an honest lay person mistake that was handled appropriately.

No biggie.

And monetary gain has nothing to do with violation of a copyright. The most common form of copyright violation is photocopying something from a published work for your own use or casual distribution. Originally Posted by LilMynx69

Depending on the agreement, many photographs will allow photographs to be used in certain ways. Some give up all rights, some retain enough rights to control any and all use. You can't make a blanket statement about professional photographs and how they can be used.

However, if a photo is captioned or watermarked, it's usually safe to assume said photographer has limited its use to only contain the watermark. This is because they have almost always offered the ability to purchase said photo without the watermark and with less restrictive limits on usage. (I'll add...for an additional cost, of course)

I ALMOST FORGOT...

slave G...you look amazing!!! Originally Posted by LilMynx69

It is usual and customary for a photographer to release the copyright is exchange for a fee, as BCD stated.

Legally, removing a copyright mark from a photo is STEALING and misappropriating another person's property for your our gain (monetary, notoriety, reputation, etc.). Legally, it's just plain wrong.

Your quoting yourself and saying the same thing for the "third" time?

What a shame. Artists and photographers all over the world have to deal with this. Some artists put a personal emblem embedded deep in the picture to combat the practice of shaving off a nameplate or signature.

The photographer deserves to have his emblem on the picture. It's his work, and saying it must be removed is unreasonable and puts the calender creator in the same category with those agencies and corporate interests who would exploit an artist's work. Not very good company.

Sure, this isn't for profit and is just for fun, but making such a rule is creating an unnecessary obstacle to getting the best final product. BCD is offering the photos, highly skilled and professional work, for free and only asks that his unobtrusive label be on it. It's ungrateful to complain about it.

The photographs...the effort to stay fit and great looking. The attention to detail. You are a true professional. SA is lucky to have you.

Slave... you are more desirable than many newbies here, so don't even think that. Second, photographers, like many artists are very protective of their work. Even still life or landscapes can be protected. I know sounds stupid, but put an Ansel Adams pic on the cover of this calendar with you photoshopped on it and the Adams family will be knocking on your door. When you have pics made, you should get in writing that you are the owner and that no royalties will be paid for any monies made on such pics.

You and your pictures are unbelievable...

The Calendar & BCD..what this really boils down to is this. I asked providers to participate in a project. I requested they submit pictures by November 28th. I requested that the pictures have NO PHOTOGRAPHERS names on them and to keep the project a SECRET.

My original contact from you shortly after the posting of the Calendar requested the "original" water marked pictures be uploaded claiming copy right infringement. My one and only response was for you to verify with the providers that photographer’s names were not allowed. Immediately you responded once again claiming "copy right infringement"". At no point did you offer to reduce the size of your banner or allow the pictures to stay up without getting credit. At no point did you offer to allow a follow up post to give you credit as being acceptable. But hell you didn't need me for that you could have both providers do that or do it yourself.

You took a fun project and demanded "credit" and when the pictures were removed started grasping at straws trying to make me look like a bad guy. We both have the same PM'S and emails so don't act like you have some secret BS, you do not. I hope this was all worth it and you got the recognition you were looking for out of this.

I hope this threAD acts as a warning to other providers that you can hire photographers and have total control of "YOUR" pictures. And certainly NOT at 3-5 times the normal rate. There are many photographers that will simply take pictures at a predetermined price and NOT demand "credit" or "ownership". Another important fact to consider is if you decide to remove all your pictures, do you really want someone that can post or sell them whenever they feel like it as "they" have ownership? Scary thought. Lesson learned here is to know what you’re getting into and read the fine print before signing any contract.

Yeah.

I hope you learned something SL.