Being charged for photographs that were supposed to be free

[SAHM72]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Minnesota

In February I spent slightly over two hours doing some modeling for a local photographer - time in exchange for photos. There were two portions to the photo shoot: the first half was glamor and the second half was boudoir. Before I agreed to the second half of the shoot I asked the photographer how she would use the photographs. She assured me that she would not post them on her website or Facebook page without my permission and that only the two of us would see them. This was all verbal. There was no contract involved and she did not ask me to sign a model release form. A few weeks later I received several retouched & resized (scaled down) copies of the photos along with a print release form in a zipped file.

At the end of March I received an email from the photographer, asking for permission to use one of the boudoir photos on her website. She said that is was "perfectly all right" if I was not comfortable with it, but that she wouldn't know if she didn't ask. I thought about it for quite a while, finally responding to her about a week ago telling her, no, I did not want her using it on her website. On Wednesday I had a very choppy, poorly edited private message from her via Facebook reminding me that she owned the copyright to the photos and that I was only to use them for personal printing/sharing (which I am well aware of). She also said - basically - that the boudoir photos were "completely useless" to her and thanked me for the "limited modeling". I also noticed that she had 'unfriended' me and removed nearly all of the glamor photographs that she had taken of me from her Facebook albums and her website. The very next day I had a PayPal invoice from her requesting $480 and some change in payment for the boudoir portion of the photo shoot.

I modeled for her, at her request, and fulfilled my portion of our agreement in good faith. It seems wrong to me that she can suddenly insist that I pay her for the photographs that were supposed to be compensation for my time. I would like to know if she has any legal standing in this? And would I be within my rights to refuse to pay her?

Additional history (in case it makes any difference):

I modeled for her previously, in the spring of 2012, with the same arrangement: time for photos. I did sign a model release for that session. Everything went fine.

I hired her to take my oldest child's senior pictures in the summer of 2012 and paid her in full for them. Again, everything went fine.

 

[justalayman]

I modeled for her, at her request, and fulfilled my portion of our agreement in good faith. It seems wrong to me that she can suddenly insist that I pay her for the photographs that were supposed to be compensation for my time. I would like to know if she has any legal standing in this? And would I be within my rights to refuse to pay her?

so, (as is always asked): what did she say when you asked about the bill and your understanding that what you received was in exchange for services rendered? I suspect she will have some basis for the demand. That will go a long way in making any determination as to whether her demand is valid.

 

[racer72]

You can do one of two things. What I would do is ignore her and have no further contact unless you are served with a lawsuit. The other option is to ask for a copy of the contract you signed agreeing to the fee arrangement. If you don't hear back, use option 1.

 

[chucky123]

I have been in the photographers situation before. Without your signature on the release, the photos are worthless and you wasted her time. You should sign a release or pay her or expect to be bad mouthed to all the other photographers in your area and never get modeling work again. Photographers are well connected so you can be sure this photographer is telling everyone.

No professional photographer is just going to take your pictures just for fun. This is their job and if they can't use them in their portfolios/projects AND they aren't getting paid you just wasted their time shooting the photos and any editing they did when they were expecting some benefit.

I did a bikini shoot once with a model and at the end she said she changed her mind. She didn't want the pictures to end up in a magazine or online or anywhere. Ok, whatever. I said either let me use them according to our agreement (which she had already signed) or pay me back the money I paid you, plus $10 an hour for my assistant, $20 an hour for me, and $100 for prop/equipment rental. Sorry but if I can't use the pictures for what I need then I need to be paid.

 

[quincy]

I have been in the photographers situation before. Without your signature on the release, the photos are worthless and you wasted her time. You should sign a release or pay her or expect to be bad mouthed to all the other photographers in your area and never get modeling work again. Photographers are well connected so you can be sure this photographer is telling everyone.

No professional photographer is just going to take your pictures just for fun. This is their job and if they can't use them in their portfolios/projects AND they aren't getting paid you just wasted their time shooting the photos and any editing they did when they were expecting some benefit.

I did a bikini shoot once with a model and at the end she said she changed her mind. She didn't want the pictures to end up in a magazine or online or anywhere. Ok, whatever. I said either let me use them according to our agreement (which she had already signed) or pay me back the money I paid you, plus $10 an hour for my assistant, $20 an hour for me, and $100 for prop/equipment rental. Sorry but if I can't use the pictures for what I need then I need to be paid.

The key difference between your situation and the situation SAHM describes seems to be that you had a signed agreement with your model, chucky123. Without a signed agreement, SAHM72's photographer will have a hard time collecting the $480+ she is requesting.

I agree that SAHM may find that paying the photographer for the photos, whether the original oral agreement included an arrangement for payment or not, could be to SAHM's benefit. Photographers could be reluctant to work with her as a model in the future and, if modeling is something SAHM depends on for income, she could find her modeling jobs disappear.

As it stands and without an agreement between them releasing (limited) publicity rights to the photographer or (limited) copyrights to SAHM, the photos are of no real use in any economic sense to either the photographer or to SAHM.

 

[justalayman]

Qunicy,

Op stated she received a print release. Does that not grant a license for op to make prints of (presumably) the files she received with it.

 

[quincy]

Qunicy,

Op stated she received a print release. Does that not grant a license for op to make prints of (presumably) the files she received with it.

It would help to know exactly how the release was worded, but it appears from what SAHM wrote that the release only allowed her to make copies of the prints she received for her own personal use. This type of release would generally not allow for the public display or sale of the photos.

In other words, SAHM cannot profit off the pictures, just like the photographer is unable to profit from the photos without a publicity rights release from SAHM allowing for economic uses of the photos.

The solutions to the dispute appear to be for SAHM to allow the photographer to use the photos by providing a written release in exchange for some sort of compensation, or for SAHM to pay the photographer for the photos that were taken - either of these to avoid any potential legal action (although oral agreements are notoriously hard to support).

 

[justalayman]

quincy;3165741]It would help to know exactly how the release was worded, but it appears from what SAHM wrote that the release only allowed her to make copies of the prints she received for her own personal use. This type of release would generally not allow for the public display or sale of the photos.

Exactly what I believe SAHM stated as she did not wish to commercialize the photos but retain them for personal use.

In re-reading the original post, it hints at something:

. On Wednesday I had a very choppy, poorly edited private message from her via Facebook reminding me that she owned the copyright to the photos and that I was only to use them for personal printing/sharing (which I am well aware of).

that was immediately after the request by the photog to use the photos for something and immediately before OP received a bill. While it might be something I am reading into the statements, I wonder if OP did use the photo's in some way the photog believed was not allowed by their agreement.

Maybe OP needs to ask the photog why s/he sent a bill.

 

[quincy]

Exactly what I believe SAHM stated as she did not wish to commercialize the photos but retain them for personal use.

In re-reading the original post, it hints at something:





that was immediately after the request by the photog to use the photos for something and immediately before OP received a bill. While it might be something I am reading into the statements, I wonder if OP did use the photo's in some way the photog believed was not allowed by their agreement.

Maybe OP needs to ask the photog why s/he sent a bill.

If SAHM displayed the photos taken of her on Facebook (or elsewhere), that could very well violate the limited license provided her by the photographer to reproduce the photos for personal use. The display online would not be for "personal" use only.

If that is the case, SAHM could be found infringing on the copyrights in the photos and will either need to compensate the photographer for the use of the copyrighted photos, or prepare for a potential infringement suit, which could result in the photographer being awarded $750 to $30,000 per photo used.

SAHM may be smart to speak with an attorney in her area for a review of all facts. If copyright infringement is involved, settling with the photographer now for the $480 demanded may be the most sensible (and perhaps cheapest) action for SAHM to take.