P
photographer
Guest
i own a photograhpy studio and a client want to sue me for the negatives...that i usually don't sell...i have offered to make copies at 29 cents a copy and she decliened can she sue me amd recieve these negative
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
I AM ALWAYS LIABLE
Senior Member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by photographer:
i own a photograhpy studio and a client want to sue me for the negatives...that i usually don't sell...i have offered to make copies at 29 cents a copy and she decliened can she sue me amd recieve these negative<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My response:
. . . and your contract that you had her sign says what? No contract? You lose.
IAAL
------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."
i own a photograhpy studio and a client want to sue me for the negatives...that i usually don't sell...i have offered to make copies at 29 cents a copy and she decliened can she sue me amd recieve these negative<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My response:
. . . and your contract that you had her sign says what? No contract? You lose.
IAAL
------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."
P
photographer
Guest
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE:
My response:
. . . and your contract that you had her sign says what? No contract? You lose.
IAAL
???????we had no written contract only a verbal one
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
[This message has been edited by photographer (edited June 29, 2000).]
My response:
. . . and your contract that you had her sign says what? No contract? You lose.
IAAL
???????we had no written contract only a verbal one
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
[This message has been edited by photographer (edited June 29, 2000).]
T
Tracey
Guest
What was the verbal contract? What have you done with customers in the past? What's standard in the photography industry? (I think wedding & class photographers own the negatives & sell prints. What about model photogs?) Does it matter if the studio is in Sears or on Main Street? If you took the pictures, you may or may not own the copyrights, depending on whether it was a work for hire.
Perhaps you should spend a few hours & draft a basic written contract, eh? You might be able to borrow some samples from your colleagues.
------------------
This is not legal advice and you are not my client. Double check everything with your own attorney and your state's laws.
[This message has been edited by Tracey (edited June 29, 2000).]
Perhaps you should spend a few hours & draft a basic written contract, eh? You might be able to borrow some samples from your colleagues.
------------------
This is not legal advice and you are not my client. Double check everything with your own attorney and your state's laws.
[This message has been edited by Tracey (edited June 29, 2000).]
P
photographer
Guest
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tracey:
What was the verbal contract? What have you done with customers in the past? What's standard in the photography industry? (I think wedding & class photographers own the negatives & sell prints. What about model photogs?) Does it matter if the studio is in Sears or on Main Street? If you took the pictures, you may or may not own the copyrights, depending on whether it was a work for hire.
Perhaps you should spend a few hours & draft a basic written contract, eh? You might be able to borrow some samples from your colleagues.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i am a wedding and senior portrait photographer ....i have not had this problem before ...i have a written contract now but that was my first wedding i offered to sell the negatives at $10 each for 120 negatives...they did not think that that was reasonable however that is the going rate for photographers in this area...keep in mind that i offered to copy then for 29 cents per 4X6 copy
the verbal contract was that all she go was the finished product and that i kept the negatives and the rights to use the photographs in my studio
What was the verbal contract? What have you done with customers in the past? What's standard in the photography industry? (I think wedding & class photographers own the negatives & sell prints. What about model photogs?) Does it matter if the studio is in Sears or on Main Street? If you took the pictures, you may or may not own the copyrights, depending on whether it was a work for hire.
Perhaps you should spend a few hours & draft a basic written contract, eh? You might be able to borrow some samples from your colleagues.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i am a wedding and senior portrait photographer ....i have not had this problem before ...i have a written contract now but that was my first wedding i offered to sell the negatives at $10 each for 120 negatives...they did not think that that was reasonable however that is the going rate for photographers in this area...keep in mind that i offered to copy then for 29 cents per 4X6 copy
the verbal contract was that all she go was the finished product and that i kept the negatives and the rights to use the photographs in my studio
I AM ALWAYS LIABLE
Senior Member
My response:
The question then becomes, why would you want to keep the negatives? Surely, the only person interested is the model, and the model is about ready to sue you.
Let me explain why I believe you're going to lose any potential lawsuit.
1. There was no written contract specifying rights of the parties. Because any contract is verbal (except for the receipt you gave her for her payment), this part will be a "he said / she said" and the court will not indulge this.
2. The customer is not a "public figure" or is not "newsworthy." The customer is a private citizen.
3. Without a written and signed authorization, you cannot display her likeness in your shop, or anywhere because you'd run afoul of privacy laws, and laws against use of someone's likeness for use in advertising (which is why you'd want to display the picture in your shop).
4. You have no common law copyright because you have never displayed the photos on your own, or for the purpose of copyright. If you did attempt that, see number 3 above.
5. Her argument would be that the deal did, in fact, include negatives "because they are only of me, and he acknowledged the fact that he can't use them for himself."
6. The negatives are not otherwise "artistic" in nature. They are of private citizens, and have no altruistic, or intrinsic interest except to the subject model. They are typical wedding pictures; nothing special.
7. The negatives would merely be collecting dust in your drawer because you can't use them in any commercial capacity.
8. She has paid a price to you, and since you cannot use the photos or negs for any commercial purpose without authorizations, the implication and the greater weight would be that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, all benefits flowing from the taking of the photos, and ownership rights thereto because of payment to you, vest in the subject model of the photos.
9. I have scoured the Internet, and lo and behold, it appears that innumerable photographers do, in fact, include negatives in the purchase price, turning possession, custody and control of any such negatives over to the customer. She could use this as proof of "custom and practice."
Give her the negatives, and chock it up to experience. Now that you have a written contract that includes this subject, you shouldn't have ownership problems in the future.
IAAL.
------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."
The question then becomes, why would you want to keep the negatives? Surely, the only person interested is the model, and the model is about ready to sue you.
Let me explain why I believe you're going to lose any potential lawsuit.
1. There was no written contract specifying rights of the parties. Because any contract is verbal (except for the receipt you gave her for her payment), this part will be a "he said / she said" and the court will not indulge this.
2. The customer is not a "public figure" or is not "newsworthy." The customer is a private citizen.
3. Without a written and signed authorization, you cannot display her likeness in your shop, or anywhere because you'd run afoul of privacy laws, and laws against use of someone's likeness for use in advertising (which is why you'd want to display the picture in your shop).
4. You have no common law copyright because you have never displayed the photos on your own, or for the purpose of copyright. If you did attempt that, see number 3 above.
5. Her argument would be that the deal did, in fact, include negatives "because they are only of me, and he acknowledged the fact that he can't use them for himself."
6. The negatives are not otherwise "artistic" in nature. They are of private citizens, and have no altruistic, or intrinsic interest except to the subject model. They are typical wedding pictures; nothing special.
7. The negatives would merely be collecting dust in your drawer because you can't use them in any commercial capacity.
8. She has paid a price to you, and since you cannot use the photos or negs for any commercial purpose without authorizations, the implication and the greater weight would be that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, all benefits flowing from the taking of the photos, and ownership rights thereto because of payment to you, vest in the subject model of the photos.
9. I have scoured the Internet, and lo and behold, it appears that innumerable photographers do, in fact, include negatives in the purchase price, turning possession, custody and control of any such negatives over to the customer. She could use this as proof of "custom and practice."
Give her the negatives, and chock it up to experience. Now that you have a written contract that includes this subject, you shouldn't have ownership problems in the future.
IAAL.
------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."
P
photographer
Guest
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE:
My response:
The question then becomes, why would you want to keep the negatives? Surely, the only person interested is the model, and the model is about ready to sue you.
Let me explain why I believe you're going to lose any potential lawsuit.
1. There was no written contract specifying rights of the parties. Because any contract is verbal (except for the receipt you gave her for her payment), this part will be a "he said / she said" and the court will not indulge this.
2. The customer is not a "public figure" or is not "newsworthy." The customer is a private citizen.
3. Without a written and signed authorization, you cannot display her likeness in your shop, or anywhere because you'd run afoul of privacy laws, and laws against use of someone's likeness for use in advertising (which is why you'd want to display the picture in your shop).
4. You have no common law copyright because you have never displayed the photos on your own, or for the purpose of copyright. If you did attempt that, see number 3 above.
5. Her argument would be that the deal did, in fact, include negatives "because they are only of me, and he acknowledged the fact that he can't use them for himself."
6. The negatives are not otherwise "artistic" in nature. They are of private citizens, and have no altruistic, or intrinsic interest except to the subject model. They are typical wedding pictures; nothing special.
7. The negatives would merely be collecting dust in your drawer because you can't use them in any commercial capacity.
8. She has paid a price to you, and since you cannot use the photos or negs for any commercial purpose without authorizations, the implication and the greater weight would be that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, all benefits flowing from the taking of the photos, and ownership rights thereto because of payment to you, vest in the subject model of the photos.
9. I have scoured the Internet, and lo and behold, it appears that innumerable photographers do, in fact, include negatives in the purchase price, turning possession, custody and control of any such negatives over to the customer. She could use this as proof of "custom and practice."
Give her the negatives, and chock it up to experience. Now that you have a written contract that includes this subject, you shouldn't have ownership problems in the future.
IAAL.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i offered to sell the negatives at $10 each for 120 negatives...she declined ....is that not reasonable ...i will not just give them to her ....they are not of a model but of a wedding
My response:
The question then becomes, why would you want to keep the negatives? Surely, the only person interested is the model, and the model is about ready to sue you.
Let me explain why I believe you're going to lose any potential lawsuit.
1. There was no written contract specifying rights of the parties. Because any contract is verbal (except for the receipt you gave her for her payment), this part will be a "he said / she said" and the court will not indulge this.
2. The customer is not a "public figure" or is not "newsworthy." The customer is a private citizen.
3. Without a written and signed authorization, you cannot display her likeness in your shop, or anywhere because you'd run afoul of privacy laws, and laws against use of someone's likeness for use in advertising (which is why you'd want to display the picture in your shop).
4. You have no common law copyright because you have never displayed the photos on your own, or for the purpose of copyright. If you did attempt that, see number 3 above.
5. Her argument would be that the deal did, in fact, include negatives "because they are only of me, and he acknowledged the fact that he can't use them for himself."
6. The negatives are not otherwise "artistic" in nature. They are of private citizens, and have no altruistic, or intrinsic interest except to the subject model. They are typical wedding pictures; nothing special.
7. The negatives would merely be collecting dust in your drawer because you can't use them in any commercial capacity.
8. She has paid a price to you, and since you cannot use the photos or negs for any commercial purpose without authorizations, the implication and the greater weight would be that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, all benefits flowing from the taking of the photos, and ownership rights thereto because of payment to you, vest in the subject model of the photos.
9. I have scoured the Internet, and lo and behold, it appears that innumerable photographers do, in fact, include negatives in the purchase price, turning possession, custody and control of any such negatives over to the customer. She could use this as proof of "custom and practice."
Give her the negatives, and chock it up to experience. Now that you have a written contract that includes this subject, you shouldn't have ownership problems in the future.
IAAL.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i offered to sell the negatives at $10 each for 120 negatives...she declined ....is that not reasonable ...i will not just give them to her ....they are not of a model but of a wedding
I AM ALWAYS LIABLE
Senior Member
My response:
Okay. You're being blind, and purposefully so. To YOU, she is a model. She's not a relative is she? Without a written contract, the weight of the evidence is in her favor; thus, the negatives are NOT yours, and you have no right to sell them. She will claim that part of the "deal" was that she would get the negatives. I know you didn't hire her, but that is not what it takes to be a model. You, yourself, said that you might want to use the photos in your shop; and that would act as a "model" of your work. You'll find out in court. For some, that's what it takes. You've got to reread what I said to you. Otherwise, not only will you lose in court, but this whole fiasco will wind up costing you more than the negatives are worth, and without her, they are WORTHLESS. I'm sure you're a wonderful photographer; but as a business person . . .
Do what you want.
IAAL
------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."
[This message has been edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE (edited June 29, 2000).]
Okay. You're being blind, and purposefully so. To YOU, she is a model. She's not a relative is she? Without a written contract, the weight of the evidence is in her favor; thus, the negatives are NOT yours, and you have no right to sell them. She will claim that part of the "deal" was that she would get the negatives. I know you didn't hire her, but that is not what it takes to be a model. You, yourself, said that you might want to use the photos in your shop; and that would act as a "model" of your work. You'll find out in court. For some, that's what it takes. You've got to reread what I said to you. Otherwise, not only will you lose in court, but this whole fiasco will wind up costing you more than the negatives are worth, and without her, they are WORTHLESS. I'm sure you're a wonderful photographer; but as a business person . . .
Do what you want.
IAAL
------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."
[This message has been edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE (edited June 29, 2000).]
After reading this thread, I agree with you in that this photographer has little if any legal ground to stand on. In any event, he has already shown that the negatives are worth $1200.00 to him (120 negatives at $10 each). He is destined to spend far more than that in legal fees, lost PR and aggravation.
Some people refuse to read the writing on the wall.... even when you bang their head against it!
------------------
Steve Halket
Judgment Recovery of Houston
[email protected]
Some people refuse to read the writing on the wall.... even when you bang their head against it!
------------------
Steve Halket
Judgment Recovery of Houston
[email protected]
R
RonB
Guest
photographer,
I had a bride last year that wanted EVERY photo I took at the wedding. I mean the everything, groups that I always take 2-3 shots of in case of blinks ect. As the photographer I take it apon myself to edit my work and show the better pics of the bride, family ect. I usually shoot 250-300 pics and deliver 100-150, depending on the wedding party, family. She wanted even the rejects. I told her that wasn't the way I worked, and it was on the contract that she'd get 100-150 pics. Anyways, I could see I wasn't going to make her happy, and I wasn't going to go back and print rejects so we agreed on 50 bucks for all the negatives .. It was worth the "loss" for me ..
RonB
I had a bride last year that wanted EVERY photo I took at the wedding. I mean the everything, groups that I always take 2-3 shots of in case of blinks ect. As the photographer I take it apon myself to edit my work and show the better pics of the bride, family ect. I usually shoot 250-300 pics and deliver 100-150, depending on the wedding party, family. She wanted even the rejects. I told her that wasn't the way I worked, and it was on the contract that she'd get 100-150 pics. Anyways, I could see I wasn't going to make her happy, and I wasn't going to go back and print rejects so we agreed on 50 bucks for all the negatives .. It was worth the "loss" for me ..
RonB
I
illuminotme
Guest
I always thought the the copyright ownership of an (older film) image could be secured by producing the negative from whence it came. I guess the important thing is if you had the model (family or whatever) sign a "release" before you started the shoot.
If you did not...well then..now you know!
If you did not...well then..now you know!
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">