Clarify What Your Photography Client is Buying: Prints vs Digital License

“Shooting the Dress” by Garry Knight from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Professional portrait photographers generally need at least two contracts when working with a client: one for the sitting and one for the deliverables. For the latter, make sure the client is crystal clear about what they are, and equally important, what they are not buying. Having clarity on the front end will prevents problems on the back end.

Assume Clients Don’t Understand Copyright

Part of your job as a professional photographer is to educate your client about the basics of copyright and how it applies to images you’ve been hired to create. Many people assume that they are allowed to take a print, scan it, and share online or via email.

In my pre-lawyer life, that’s what I thought. I spent plenty of time in the computer lab during my undergrad scanning photos. There was even a bulletin board dedicated to the photos that people left in the machine.

This is still an issue for Joe Average people. Here’s a real question that recently came across my screen: I hired a photographer to take family pictures. I want to share them online and with extended family. The photographer says I can’t do that. Why?

I suspect this person bought prints and not a digital license, or they have a license but it doesn’t include an allowance to distribute the images.

As a risk-adverse lawyer, I would put specific verbiage in the contract that states what the client can and can’t do with the photos, including that only the digital version the photographer provides can be used to share the images with family and friends, probably in bold print.

This serves two purposes:

  1. It protects your copyright, and
  2. It maintains the quality of your work.

It’s also a good idea to include the information about your socials so they can tag you. (Good clients give credit their photographer when posting images online, even if they’re not required to.)

What the Client gets with Prints

When a client buys prints, they are buying the tangible object – the picture on whatever medium it was printed. They are buying the thing. They are not getting the copyright right or any copyright rights (unless that’s part of the contract they signed).

The limits of what someone can do with a print are similar to what they can do if they bought a book. They can display it, sell it, give it away, destroy it, etc. What they can’t do is make copies of it.

Scanning a print is making a copy. So is taking a photo of the photo.

I’ve seen people do this at amusement parks. They don’t want to buy the photo the park took of them on the rollercoaster, so they take a photo of the screen where the image is displayed – so they take photo of the photo. When I’ve seen this happen, the teenage clerk usually says, “We’re not supposed to let people do that.” Now you know why. 

What the Client gets with a Digital License

What a client can do with a digital license depends on the limits within the license itself.

Whoever owns a copyright has the exclusive right to control if and how the work is copied, distributed, displayed, performed, and what derivative works can be made from it. If I were writing a license for a photographer, I’d address all five of these rights – including “perform,” even though that’s not a verb we typically use in regards to photographs, but I’d rather be thorough.

Most of the time, the photography licenses I draft are for a non-exclusive, perpetual, worldwide license. It also addresses whether the licensee is allowed to use the images for commercial use. Sometimes the photographer requests additional provisions, like one that says the licensee isn’t allowed to alter the images, which may include cropping.

Following the license provision, I often add a sentence that states all other uses of the images must be approved by the photographer in advance.

Solution: All Print Packages Include a Digital License

One way to address this issue to require clients to purchase a digital license when they’re purchasing prints. The client won’t have to scan any images if they already have digital versions.

When you first meet with a client to discuss their needs, ask them about what they want to do with the final images, including how they want to show them to others. If you hear a client talking about how they can’t wait to share the photo with family/friends – clarify what they mean and make sure purchase a package that suits their needs.

Lights Camera LawsuitTM

There’s always a need for quality legal information for photographers. That’s why I created an online course called Lights Camera Lawsuit: The Legal Side of Professional Photography to address photographers’ most important questions. I want you to feel secure in your business, confident in the way you operate day-to-day, knowing that you’ve set yourself up to get paid what your worth without incident.

At $497, the course contains nearly six hours of legal information you can immediately apply to your business. That’s less than what I charge for two hours of legal work for clients!  

Please subscribe for more information and to make sure you don’t miss out on any special offers or discounts.

How to Respond When Someone Steals Your Photo

Running with the Seagulls by Ed Schipul from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Photographers need to be mindful of the possibility that some people may use their photos without permission. People will pull images to use on their website and social media posts. Additionally, there are people who think they have rights to a photo merely because they’re in it. I’ve even heard of hair and makeup artists who take photos from the shoots they have worked on to use them in their portfolio.

This issue is compounded by the fact that there is inaccurate information about photo use on the internet. Some sources assert that you can use any photo you find on the internet as long as you give an attribution and a link to the original. They think they’re giving you free publicity, but what they may be doing is committing copyright infringement and telling you about it.

Start with the End in Mind

When I work with clients who believe their copyright has been violated, one of the first question I ask is,

How do you want this to end?

Knowing what the client wants as a result of my work tells me what avenue for recourse they’re interested in pursuing.

To maximize the likelihood of achieving your desired outcome, it’s best to decide before your photos are stolen how you want to respond to the alleged infringer so you can be prepared in advance for when it happens.

Always Respond When Someone Uses Your Photo Without Permission

You don’t set the precedent that people can use your photos without a license. If you let others use your work and then you want to assert your rights against another infringer, the infringer could point to your past behavior and argue that since you’ve allowed others to use your images without repercussions, that this new infringer should be treated the same.

(This is why you hear about companies sending strongly worded cease and desist letters to minor infringers. They have an obligation to protect their intellectual property.)

There are five ways you can respond when someone steals your photo:

Option #1: Grant Permission

If you’re ok with someone’s use of your image, you can grant them permission after the fact. It can be something simple like

Hi there. I noticed you’re using my photo for XYZ. I’m ok with uses like this, but in the future, you need to ask my permission in advance. I grant you permission for this use.

Option #2: Cease and Desist Letter

This is a letter from you (or your lawyer) to the suspected infringer that informs them of the copyright rights they violated, directs them to remove the image by a specified date, and tells them what you’ll do if they don’t comply. Be ready to follow through on whatever you threaten/promise in your letter, or you’ll lose credibility.

These are sometimes referred to as the “nastygram,” especially when it’s written by a lawyer and the client’s goal is to put the fear of god in the person so they comply. There is no rule that says you can’t send a letter that says,

I love that you love my photo, but you need to remove it by . . .

Option #3: DMCA Takedown Notice

DMCA stands for Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This option is only available in situations where your photo and the infringement of it are both on the internet. Instead of sending a cease and desist letter to the person who stole your photo, you send a takedown notice to the company that hosts the website where the infringement is occurring. Some social media platforms have a form on their site for submitting a takedown notice with designated spaces for all the information you’re required to include in a DMCA takedown.

Option #4: Send a Bill and a License

There is at least one photo licensing company that is notorious for doing this, but any photographer can send (or have their lawyer send) a letter to the suspected infringer that says,

By using my photo, you’ve agreed to my licensing terms. Here’s a copy of the license and your bill!

If you want to use this option, it’s ideal if you have your licensing terms or at least information about licensing on your website.

Option #5: Sue for Copyright Infringement

This option requires the most work in advance compared to the other options because you must register the photo’s copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office in order to be eligible to sue for infringement. There are time constraints in which you have to register you work in to be eligible for statutory damages, including attorneys’ fees. Additionally, your photo has to be stolen by someone who can afford to pay the damages, otherwise you may never collect (and you’ll likely have to pay for your attorney yourself).

If registered your photo too late, you can still sue, but you can only get your actual damages, and you have to pay your attorneys’ fees. Most of the time, in this situation, it’s not worth it to sue because you’ll spend more on your attorney than what you’d get in damages from the court.

What’s the Right Option to Protect Your Photography?

You have to make that decision yourself. Decide in advance how you want to respond when someone steals your photo and plan accordingly.

Your strategy for responding to suspected copyright infringement can include more than one of these options – such as sending a cease and desist letter yourself and if that doesn’t work, then have your attorney send one. Some people are more motivated to comply when they see the law firm’s letterhead.

Regardless of your strategy, it’s best to speak with your attorney in advance and consult them when dealing with someone who’s using your photos without permission. There have been many times that I’ve written the cease and desist letter for my client to send that included the sentence,

I hope we can resolve this without having to get lawyers involved.

Lights Camera Lawsuit

There’s always a need for quality legal information for photographers. That’s why I created an online course called Lights Camera Lawsuit: The Legal Side of Professional Photography to address photographers’ most important questions. I want you to feel secure in your business, confident in the way you operate day-to-day, knowing that you’ve set yourself up to get paid what your worth without incident.

At $497, the course contains nearly six hours of legal information you can immediately apply to your business. That’s less than what I charge for two hours of legal work for clients!  

Please subscribe for more information and to make sure you don’t miss out on any special offers or discounts.

Can I Shoot Here? Photography Rules at Public Events

https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnrabbit/8660242398
“The Lights of Simian Mobile Disco” by John Rabbit from Flickr
(Creative Commons License)

Public events present fantastic opportunities for photographers to take captivating photos, but before you pull out your camera, you need to understand some of the legal do’s and don’ts of shooting in public.  

What is “Public?”

What is public versus private is a challenging question for some people to comprehend. There is a difference between being “in public” and being on “public property.” Many places where the public is invited to be, such as shopping malls, convention centers, fairgrounds, and stadiums are in public because you’re in a place where many members of the general public can see you, but you’re still on private property, and can be asked to leave if you’re breaking the rules.  

Even when events are on public property, like street fairs and events at public parks, these areas are like private property for the purpose of the event. The organizers likely obtained an event permit from the city, part of which gave them permission to enforce stricter rules regarding photography than what you would have to follow if you were merely walking down a public street.

Their Event. Their Rules.

When you want to shoot at an event, try to find the photography rules. When you enter the event, look for notices. Many times, the organizers post a notice that says by entering the premises, you agree that the event organizers can take your picture and use the images for any purpose. These notices do not apply to you unless you are a photographer hired for this purpose.

Here’s where you can look for information about whether you can legally take photos at an event.

  • If the event is on private property, look for a list of rules on the wall. Many shopping malls and stores have rules that prohibit shooting photos or video on the premises.
  • If you are attending a sporting event or concert, check the back of your ticket. If there is fine print, that is likely a contract between you and the event or venue, which may include terms about taking photos.
  • Check the website for the event or venue to see if they are specific rules regarding photography at the event. Many times, this is in the frequently asked questions (FAQ) section. If the event is out in the open, like at a park or fairground, I would not expect there to be rules that prohibit photography, but I have seen “No Photography” signs on vendor booths at art festivals where artists were selling original works.

Rules of Thumb for Shooting Photography in Public

Here are some general rules when taking photos at public events.

1. Don’t be creepy. Don’t stare at people, follow them around, or act like a stalker. I’ve heard about this type of behavior at cosplay events, including a few years ago at Phoenix Comicon where someone shot video of women without their consent, and posted a compilation where the purpose was to objectify them. (The video has since been removed.) Now, it’s more common to see rules at these events that include a zero tolerance policy for this type of behavior.

2. Ask permission if you can take someone’s photo. This is particularly true if you’re taking photos of someone else’s child.

3. Be ready for questions from security, ushers, and/or event attendees. If you are using a high-end camera when most people are using their smart phones, you may raise suspicions. This is especially true if you or the person you’re shooting are doing anything abnormal.

As a former gymnast, I like to do handstands. When my friends and I went to an Arizona Diamondbacks baseball game, I decided to do in the stands. We did it right before we left: I kicked a handstand, my friend took the picture, and we immediately walked up the stairs to leave. As expected, an usher stopped us as we reached the top. I was ready for him to say we needed to leave, but thankfully he was curious to know what we were doing.

Handstand at the Baseball Game, June 2010

4. Remember, if you don’t have a model release, you likely can’t use the images that contain identifiable persons for commercial purposes, including marketing yourself, without the risk of being accused of violating the person’s right of publicity. (Check your state’s law to see what the rules about publicity rights are before you take photos of others, especially strangers.)

5. When you are taking photos on public property – not at a private event, know the applicable laws. You may encounter people who make false statements about the law, and you have to correct them.

For example, Improv AZ has organized the No Pants Light Rail in Phoenix every year since 2009. It takes place on the public light rail system with the general public, and we have official photographers who ride with us, sans pants, to document it. One year, we encountered light rail security who tried to tell one of our photographers that he couldn’t bring his camera on board, because it would be a violation of the law. We stood in the door of the light rail car – one foot in the car, one foot on the platform – which forced the door to stay open, so our photographer wouldn’t get left behind. We explained the law to the security guard and asked him to call his supervisor, who confirmed that everything we were saying was true, and we continued with the Ride.

The best way I can encompass the rules for shooting photographs at public events is Be Aware, Be Thoughtful, and Make Good Decisions.

Lights Camera Lawsuit

There’s always a need for quality legal information for photographers. That’s why I created an online course called Lights Camera Lawsuit: The Legal Side of Professional Photography to address photographers’ most important questions. I want you to feel secure in your business, confident in the way you operate day-to-day, knowing that you’ve set yourself up to get paid what your worth without incident.

At $497, the course contains nearly six hours of legal information you can immediately apply to your business. That’s less than what I charge for two hours of legal work for clients!  

Please subscribe for more information and to make sure you don’t miss out on any special offers or discounts.

When a Client Threatens to Leave a Bad Review

https://www.flickr.com/photos/yazuu/3053549142
Angry Guy by Adrian Tombu from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Here’s the scenario: A client hired you for a photography job, which you did, and you provided the deliverables on time. The client is unhappy with their photos, threatens to leave a bad online review if you don’t give them their money back.

What do you do?

You’re a Photographer, Not a Miracle Worker

Your client has put you in a difficult position. You have to work with what you’re given from the client. You don’t want to be insensitive, but you can only do so much. It may be impossible to give the client images that match what they envisioned in their head.

Many times, part of being an entrepreneur involves educating and managing the client’s expectations. Based on the client’s complaint, it may be prudent to review the images and see if there’s anything you can do, perhaps suggest additional edits than what they hired you to do or explain that this is best you could do given the constraints of the situation.

Ask Yourself the Difficult Question

Ask yourself the difficult question: Did you screw up? Do you owe this person additional edits, a re-shoot, or some type of compensation? If so, admit it.

As Peter Shankman says, “There is no greater lover than a former hater.” If you make a mistake, admit it, and make up for it, that person may become your biggest cheerleader.

Go Back to the Contract

When dealing with an upset client, having a well-written contract can help you resolve the matter and remind the client about what you both agreed to at the outset of your working relationship.

If the client is upset because you didn’t provide an image of certain pose, show them the provision that says there are no guarantees that they’ll get every pose or image they hoped for.

If the client wants to see all the images you took during the shoot, show them the provision that says you’ll only be showing them the best images and that they won’t see every image you take.

If the client says they shouldn’t have to pay because they’re unhappy, remind them that they hired you for your time and skills. Payment is expected if you fulfilled your obligations under the contract.

Hopefully, you have a photography contract that anticipated common complaints and addressed them accordingly.

You Can Always Cave to their Demand

Whether you give this person their money back is a business decision, not a legal one. You may decide that the best course of action, regardless of whether you think it’s warranted, is to give this person their money back and move on. That’s your call.

I recommend you decide in advance, just for yourself, the circumstances under which you’ll give a refund. Many photography contracts state that there are no refunds or that they are given only in rare specified situations.

If They Leave a Bad Review

If the client follows through on their threat and leaves a bad review, respond to it in a polite and respectful manner. You can say you’re sorry they’re upset and invite them to contact you directly to discuss it. (Many times, how you respond to a bad review isn’t about the upset client, but rather it’s an opportunity to demonstrate to anyone who reads it that you take client concerns seriously.)

In a perfect world, you’ll have enough positive reviews that one bad one won’t tank your average. But if you’re just starting out, one negative review could have a substantial impact on your score. You may want to invite happy customers to leave reviews about their experience to bring your average back up.

Lights Camera Lawsuit

There’s always a need for quality legal information for photographers. That’s why I created an online course called Lights Camera Lawsuit: The Legal Side of Professional Photography to address photographers’ most important questions. I want you to feel secure in your business, confident in the way you operate day-to-day, knowing that you’ve set yourself up to get paid what your worth without incident.

The course goes live on March 16, 2020 and is $497. That’s less than what I charge for two hours of work and you’ll be getting over ten hours of legal information.  

Please subscribe to make sure you don’t miss out on other fantastic offers and opportunities to interact with me.

What Makes an Effective Photography Contract Template

“Photographers” by Mark Fischer from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

One of the most common questions I get from photographers is, “Where can I get a good (free) contract template online?” I’m sorry to say that I have yet to come across such a resource that I’d feel comfortable recommending to anyone, but I can tell you what I look for when I review these documents.

Contract = Relationship Management Document

The best way I can define a contract is it’s a relationship management document. Its purpose is to put everyone involved on the same page about their responsibilities and how you will address certain problems if they occur. Contracts manage expectations and allow you to hold each other accountable to the promises you made.

When I write a contract for a client, I try to walk through the interaction between the people involved during the relationship created by the contract and consider potential problems that might occur.  

Here’s something to note about contracts: Whichever side writes the contract, does so based on their best interests. The drafter is looking out for their interests, not yours. I write the same type of contract quite differently depending on which side is my client.

Photography Contract Review

When a client asks me to review a photography contract template, these are some of the provisions I expect to see in a quality contract:

Parties and Scope: A contract should be clear about the who, what, where, and when between the parties. A third party should be able to read the contract and understand who is party to the contract and what their responsibilities are.  

Consideration: “Consideration” is legal term meaning an exchange between the parties – what is each side giving and getting. In photography contracts, it’s usually trade for photos (TFP) or payment for images.

Deliverables: I would expect a photography contract to clearly state what the model/client is getting from the photographer as well as any limits on what the model/client can do with the images.

Copyright Notice: The contract should state who will own the copyright in the images – the photographer or the model/client. If the model/client is getting the copyright, I’d expect them to have to pay more than if they were just getting the images and a license to use them in certain ways.

Model Release: If you want to use the images for marketing purposes or to make money off the images in other ways, you will probably need a model release.

Problems and Worst-Case Scenarios: How are you going to deal with common issues like cancellations, no-shows, refund requests, and late payments? Those all should be addressed in your contract. What about rare but bad problems, like the files from the shoot are stolen, corrupted, or otherwise destroyed before you can make a back-up copy? You may want to address the worst-case scenarios in your contract too – usually in the “force majeure” section.

Dispute Resolution: If there is a problem between the parties, how will you resolve it – mediation? Arbitration? Litigation? Some other way? In what county and state will this occur? Which state law applies? In some states, you must specify that the non-prevailing party has to pay for the prevailing party’s attorney’s fees, otherwise the court won’t likely require this.

Boilerplate Terms:  There are some provisions that I include in nearly every contract I write, like waiver, severability, modification, and entire agreement. These are the provisions that can have a substantial impact on your relationship with the other party but are often left out when a lay person tries to write their own contract.

No One Size Fits All

A contract template is a starting point for a contract with a model/client. There may be times when you need to revise it to fit the needs of a project. Additionally, you will likely need different templates for portrait work and event photography because the issues the contract needs to address are different.

There’s nothing wrong with using a contract from the internet as a place to get ideas for contract terms and how to phrase provisions, but I’ve never seen a contract template that someone got for free online that I would approve as written.

Lights Camera Lawsuit

There’s always a need for quality legal information for photographers. That’s why I created an online course called Lights Camera Lawsuit: The Legal Side of Professional Photography to address photographers’ most important questions. I want you to feel secure in your business, confident in the way you operate day-to-day, knowing that you’ve set yourself up to get paid what your worth without incident.

At $497, the course contains nearly six hours of legal information you can immediately apply to your business. That’s less than what I charge for two hours of legal work for clients!  

Please subscribe for more information and to make sure you don’t miss out on any special offers or discounts.

Model Release and Regret

“Subway Ballet” by J Stimp from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Recently, I received an email from a photographer (not my client) who had a question about the validity of model releases. As I understood the situation, he hired a model (over age 18) to do a photoshoot at his studio. The model was photographed nude for at least part of the shoot. The model signed a model release and was paid for her modeling services.

After the photoshoot, the photographer censored some of the images to comply with Facebook’s rules and posted them online.  The model saw the images and was upset. The photographer asked me if the model had any authority to force him to take the images down.

The Rules of Model Releases
Model releases are standard in the photography world. In most cases, the photographer owns the copyright in their work from the moment the photo is created, not the person in the photo, and the model owns the right to publicize their own image.

The model release transfers the model’s right to publicity in those images to the photographer, which allows the photographer to use the images per the terms of the release. Usually, when I write a model release or a model release template, the model gives the photographer permission to use the images in any way and for any purpose, without restriction.

In general, once the model release is signed, the model’s given up their rights. If the model later regrets signing it, there may be nothing they can do to “unring that bell” unless the photographer is willing to negotiate another agreement – such as a copyright assignment where the model purchases the copyright rights in the images from the photographer.

Think Before You Sign
If you are a model, read the model release carefully. Never sign the release without reading and understanding it. Many of them allow for unfettered use by the photographer, including the right to license the images to others. Treat the images as if they are going to end up all over the internet, on billboards, on products or marketing campaigns you hate. Chances are, that’s not going to happen, but it could.

I write not just as a lawyer, but also a model myself. On a number of occasions, I have written and signed my own model release. Models may give up substantial rights when signing these documents, so it’s not a decision to make lightly.

What Could Invalidate a Model Release
Even if the model release was written by a lawyer and appears to valid on its face, there are situations where a model release might be invalid due to the circumstances surrounding the shoot:

  • The model was minor (Depending on your state, minors may not be able to sign contracts or they can withdraw their consent upon reaching the age of majority.)
  • The model was an adult but lacked the capacity to enter into a legally binding contract. (These people usually have an appointed guardian to sign for them.)
  • The model was intoxicated. (In general, intoxicated people can’t enter into valid contracts.)
  • The model was forced to sign the contract under duress. (You can’t get a valid contract if you use threats or force to get someone to sign it.)

There can also be instances where the photo in question was taken outside the scope of the model release and so the model release does not apply.

I get questions every day about photography, image rights, and copyright. If you are a photographer or model (or aspiring to be one), it’s imperative that you understand these issues. Many disputes can be avoided with well-written contracts and accurate information. I’m constantly doing work in this area, so if you want to keep up with what I’m doing or if you need help, you can contact me directly or check out the other posts and videos I’ve done on the legal side of photography. You can also get access to more exclusive content that is available only to people on my mailing list, by subscribing here.

Lights Camera Lawsuit

There’s always a need for quality legal information for photographers. That’s why I created an online course called Lights Camera Lawsuit: The Legal Side of Professional Photography to address photographers’ most important questions. I want you to feel secure in your business, confident in the way you operate day-to-day, knowing that you’ve set yourself up to get paid what your worth without incident.

At $497, the course contains nearly six hours of legal information you can immediately apply to your business. That’s less than what I charge for two hours of legal work for clients!  

Please subscribe for more information and to make sure you don’t miss out on any special offers or discounts.

Legal Issues with Open Photoshoots

Parkwood Photography Studios, used with permission

Last week, I went to an open photoshoot/happy hour at Parkwood Studios. (They have a gorgeous space!) It’s a free monthly event for photographers and models of all skill levels and experience. There was an area set up with lights where anyone could model and shoot photos. The purpose is to give everyone an introductory experience working with a model in a studio environment. There was not a model release or TFP agreement for this event.

I went to this to network and to model. As a lawyer, I knew what I was getting into in regards to copyright and image rights. Of course, my analytical brain couldn’t stop strategizing what I’d do to integrate legal protection and information without disturbing the spirit of the event.

Who’s At Risk, Who’s Protected
There are three groups who should be interested in protecting themselves at an open shoot: the models, the photographers, and the studio. If I represented a studio that hosted an open shoot, I’d recommend having a release that states the studio is not responsible for anyone’s behavior. If there’s a dispute between a model and a photographer, that’s an issue to be resolved between the two of them.

One of my images from the open shoot. I look like a action hero.

Model Release and Copyright Notice
Even in the photography/modeling industry, a lot of people do not understand copyright and image rights. In an open photo shoot, the model and photographer exchange their time, talents, and the opportunity to practice their respective crafts. Unless stated otherwise in a written agreement, whomever took the photo owns the copyright.

The expectation at these events is that photographers and models exchange contact information so the photographer can share images with them, and that the models are allowed to put the images in their portfolios or share on social media. I suspect the studio would also want a license to the use any images taken at the event that they receive or that are posted to their social media to promote future events or the studio.

No Guarantees
The one of the complaint I heard from past events is models saying a photographers who took photos of them never sent any images. While that is poor form, the only way I can think to legally work around this is to have a “no guarantee” clause. There’s no guarantee the photographer will send the model photos and there’s no guarantee the photographer will get the shot they want.

Code of Conduct
Since this is an event for all experience levels – including fledglings – I recommend having a code of conduct that applies to everyone and the studio’s equipment. This would include basic things like “Always ask permission before touching a model,” “Don’t touch the lights or any equipment that’s not set up for use at this shoot,” “Give constructive feedback,” and “Be respectful – we’re all here to learn and have fun.” A lot of these are common sense, but it’s good to state the obvious for people for whom it might be their first time shooting in this type of environment.

For studios like Parkwood that host regular events, I suggest creating reusable poster-sized copies of the rules and release and put it on the door leading to the photoshoot area with a notice that says by entering the room, you agree to these expectations. For anyone who wants to shoot photos or model, put a clipboard with a dated copy of the agreement and a signature page where everyone must agree to the rules before they’re allowed to participate. This serves multiple purposes:

  • It gives photographers and models experience with reading and signing these agreements.
  • It creates expectations and helps avoid conflict for all involved.

I get questions every day about photography, image rights, and copyright. For anyone who works as a photographer or model, it’s imperative that you understand these topics. Many disputes can be avoided with well-written contracts and accurate information. I’m constantly doing work in this area, so if you want to keep up with what I’m doing or if you need help, you can contact me directly or connect with me on TwitterFacebookYouTube, or LinkedIn. You can also get access to more exclusive content that is available only to people on my mailing list, by subscribing here.

Lights Camera Lawsuit

There’s always a need for quality legal information for photographers. That’s why I created an online course called Lights Camera Lawsuit: The Legal Side of Professional Photography to address photographers’ most important questions. I want you to feel secure in your business, confident in the way you operate day-to-day, knowing that you’ve set yourself up to get paid what your worth without incident.

At $497, the course contains nearly six hours of legal information you can immediately apply to your business. That’s less than what I charge for two hours of legal work for clients!  

Please subscribe for more information and to make sure you don’t miss out on any special offers or discounts.

Getty Images Skirts $1B Lawsuit

Victory by Quinn Dombrowski from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Victory by Quinn Dombrowski from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Earlier this year, Getty Images was sued for $1 billion (yes, that’s billion) by photographer Carol Highsmith.

Getty Images had sent Highsmith a letter and a bill, claiming that she was using one of their images without buying the requisite license. (Getty’s known for doing this.) It turns out Getty sent her a bill for using an image that she had taken herself. In fact, Getty was selling licenses for thousands of her images. Highsmith responded by suing Getty for $1 billion for violating her rights under the Federal Copyright Act and state level laws related to licensing.

Highsmith donated over eighteen thousand images to the Library of Congress and made available to others to copy and display for free starting in 1988. Her claims were based on the fact that Getty used her work without attribution and added their own watermark. In my previous post about this case, you can see the math that shows that $1B is a reasonable amount to request for damages given the number of photos in question.

I previously wrote that this will be a fun case to watch, assuming it goes to trial and doesn’t end a settlement with a non-disclosure agreement. But alas, it wasn’t meant to be.

The Court granted Getty and the other Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the federal claims, leaving on the state-level claims in the case. The Parties apparently came to an agreement amongst themselves, with a non-disclosure provision, and stipulated to having the remaining claims dismissed with prejudice (meaning Highsmith can’t file this lawsuit again for these claims). The dismissal also directs each side to be responsible for their own attorneys’ fees and costs.

Judge Rakoff wrote that he will release a memorandum explaining his ruling “in due course.” I expect it will be an interesting read.

I feel for Highsmith. Not only did she feel like her rights were violated, but the Court disagreed with her and told her she had to pay her attorneys’ fees. That’s the risk a person runs when they pursue a lawsuit – the Court could say you’re wrong, and you had to pay possibly thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to get that answer.

So what does this mean for future cases that are similar to this? It’s hard to say, though it appears that the fact that Highsmith made her work available for public use impacted her argument that she had rights in the images in question. I don’t expect this to effect artists who retain their copyright rights and make their work available for free through Creative Commons and similar means. (Thank you to all the artists who do this. I am forever grateful for your generosity.)

There are a lot of issues that come into play surrounding photography, image rights, and copyright. If you want to chat more about these topics, you can contact me directly or connect with me on TwitterFacebookYouTube, or LinkedIn. You can also get access to more exclusive content that is available only to people on my mailing list, by subscribing here.

Someone Posted a Photo of Me Online Without Consent

Photographer by Robert Cooke from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Photographer by Robert Cooke from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

People come to this site almost every day with questions about whether someone can post their picture on the internet without obtaining consent. Some people even ask if it’s a crime or whether they can sue.

Sue for what? Which of your rights have been violated?

Of course, each situation must be evaluated on its merits. It’s possible that a person is concerned with an intimate photo, a photograph that was taken in a bathroom, or circumstances where they are being harassed. I’m not saying that there aren’t situations where a person’s rights may have been violated; however, the frequency with which I get these questions makes me wonder whether most of these people have a legitimate legal concern or merely hurt feelings.

No Expectation of Privacy in Public
Remember, in the U.S., there is no expectation of privacy in anything you do in public (exceptions of course for places like bathrooms, confessionals, etc.). So, if someone snaps a photo of you that is less than flattering, and they post it on the internet, as long as they are not violating your rights, there’s nothing you can do about it.

Maybe they took a photo of you not putting your shopping cart away, walking around with your skirt tucked into your underwear, or texting while driving. I think there are much more important things to talk about in general and definitely that are worth of documenting permanently online; however, it’s not illegal. Just like it is not illegal to be stupid, it is not illegal to post stupid things online. The internet is full of stupid.

So What Do You Do?
Well, if you truly believe that you’ve been the victim of a crime or that your rights have been violated, contact the police or buy an hour with a lawyer to review your situation. You may be in a situation where your legal rights have not been violated but the posting itself and violates the terms that apply to the site where it was published. In that case, reporting the image to the website administrators may be sufficient to get it removed.

If it is purely a situation where you are merely angry or upset, and the person won’t remove the image when asked, let it go. If you’re embarrassed by your behavior, don’t do it again. If you’re in a situation where the image shows up if someone Googles your name, you can try to bury it by manipulating the search algorithm. Hopefully it’s not a situation where you screwed up so badly that the image or situation is going to dominate the search results for years to come.

On the Flip Side
If you’re thinking about snapping a picture of someone, check your motives. If you’ve taken a picture and you have the impulse to share it online, double and triple check your motives. What are the benefits of sharing this image? Are you being vindictive? If the situation were reversed, would you want an image of you in a similar situation posted? What if the person in the picture was your parent or significant other – would you post it then?

The person in the photo isn’t the only one at risk of losing face. Do you want to be the jerk who not only took this photo, but also shared it? You could harm yourself as well as the other person.

What is socially inappropriate and what is illegal are often two drastically different standards. My rule of thumb for this situations is the same: Think before you act. Think before you post. If you want to talk more about internet privacy or social media law, you can contact me directly or connect with me on TwitterFacebookYouTube, or LinkedIn. You can also get access to more exclusive content that is available only to people on my mailing list, by subscribing here.

Turnabout is Fair Play – Getty Sued for $1B for Copyright Violations

The Trees are Laughing at Us by daspunkt from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

The Trees are Laughing at Us by daspunkt from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Getty Images is known for sending letters to people suspected of using their images without purchasing a license. These demand letters essentially say, “By using our image, you’ve agreed to pay for a license. Pay $XXX by this date or we will sue you.”

They may have started the trend of other photographers sending similar demand letters when people use their images without permission. (I’ve sent these type of letters and counseled clients who have received them – usually from pulling images from a Google Image search without verifying that they had permission to use it.)

Getty sent such a letter to documentary photographer Carol Highsmith, claiming that she was violating their terms for using an image. Here’s the catch – it was a photograph that Highsmith took herself and previously shared with the Library of Congress to allow free use of her work by the general public. Highsmith has shared tens of thousands of images with the public through the Library of Congress since 1988.

Highsmith learned that Getty is claiming copyright rights to thousands of her images work and demanding payment for licenses, often without attribution to her, and adding “false watermarks” to the images. She filed a $1,000,000,000 (that’s $1B with a “B”) copyright infringement lawsuit against these agencies for the “gross misuse” of 18,755 of her photographs.

That’s a lot of photographs.
I hope they have good insurance.

But $1B?! Really?!
Actually, yes. In this case, suing for $1B makes perfect sense.

A party who adds or removes a watermark from a photo to avoid detection for copyright infringement can be fined up to $25,000 per image in addition to other financial damages for copyright infringement.
$25,000/image x 18,755 images = $468,875,000

And if a party is found to have violated this law in the last three years – which Getty has – the complaining party can ask for triple the damages.
$468,875,000 x 3 = $1,406,625,000

Looking at this, it’s easy to see how easy it is for Highsmith to reasonably request over $1B in damages. She’s also requested a permanent injunction to prohibit future use of images by Getty and the other Defendants and attorneys’ fees.

You can read the full complaint filed by Highsmith against Getty in New York Federal Court here.
So far, Getty claims they will defend themselves “vigorously.”

This could be a fun case to watch. If this case doesn’t go to trial (and most cases don’t), I hope the settlement isn’t kept completely secret behind a non-disclosure agreement. One of the recommendations I make to anyone who is a professional creative is determine in advance how you want to respond when your work is used without your permission and plan accordingly. For many people, it’s not if their work is stolen, but when.

There are a lot of issues that come into play surrounding photography, image rights, and copyright. If you want to chat more about these topics, you can contact me directly or connect with me on TwitterFacebookYouTube, or LinkedIn. You can also get access to more exclusive content that is available only to people on my mailing list, by subscribing here.

EDIT: The previous version of this post stated that Highsmith released her work to public domain. My apologies. Highsmith retains the copyright in her work, but allows others to freely use it through the Library of Congress.