How would you handle this? Your client is a former lawyer and... [Archive]

View Full Version : How would you handle this? Your client is a former lawyer and...

zembu

18th of June 2007 (Mon), 22:13

...he refuses to sign your Terms and Conditions?

Client: Major International Clothing Line
Shoot Time: 5 hours
Rate: $350 (I sold myself short. First mistake, I know!!! I'm still learning A LOT.
Especially with the generous advice from fellow photographers on the forums.
Sorry in advance for potentially sounding or appearing naïve. :confused:)

The Shoot:
Last Wednesday I did a shoot for a major clothing line. The shoot itself went great. It was for their female branch of clothes. It involved four models and they also gave me an assistant photographer. However, I did not present my contract (terms and conditions) until the end of the shoot (second mistake, I know!!!) Partially because the "signer" did not show up until the end of the shoot anyways. Not to place any blame on him. I now know I should have faxed it in advance (something I learned today while reading the forums.)

The Conflict:
The "signer" was the the head-honcho so to speak. And when it came time for him to sign my contract things quickly became awkward. He studied my contract with the most scrutinizing eyes I had ever seen on a client. He looked at me, then looked back at the contract again. Studied it a little more. Then looked back at me and finally said, "You know. I used to be a lawyer and I'm not going to sign this." I kindly asked him, "Why so? What part of my contract bothers you??" He pointed to the line that read:

--
PLEASE NOTE THAT FOR ALL SESSIONS *MY COMPANY NAME* RETAINS COPYRIGHT OF ALL IMAGES TAKEN AND RESERVES THE RIGHT FOR USAGE IN PROMOTION, COMPETITION, AND EXHIBITIONS.
--

It was that one line that threw him off. Does he even have the right to question that? My understanding was that I own copyright to my images, regardless. Commercial shoot or not. Because he then said this, "We don't sign these kind of things! How do I know you're not going to use these images for porn, or a pro-gun site?!" Granted I was a little offended, he had a point and I can understand where he is coming from in terms of a business standpoint. So I simply suggested that we could revise that one line to assure him I would not do so. He still refused. I then suggested that we could eliminate the "usage in competition and exhibition" part too, and that I would only use certain images for self promotion on my company site.

...Still, "No."

Conclusion: He took my contract and said that he would revise it to better protect him as well as me. Hmmmmmmm? I don't know about that. That's great he used to be a former lawyer and all, but I never asked for a revision in my contract. It's worked fine for me the last 2 years. It's been 5 days and still no word. I haven't even been paid yet. My contract states that all payments be made at the end of the shoot. Yet I got nothing. They simply said I would be included in their next payroll/payday etc. and that I would have to wait for payments. Is this total BS, or common practice when doing a commercial shoot as a freelance photographer?

???

I've already put up their private Online Proofing Gallery too and they're probably going to expect the included 20 Hi-Res images relatively soon. I still have no contract for this shoot, and again, no pay. It feels as though I am being WAY too nice, by far, my worst habit as a businessman.

So what are your thoughts? How would you handle this? What would you do at this point?
Any feedback is highly appreciated.

P.S. For the visually curious, my company website is linked in my sig.

liza

18th of June 2007 (Mon), 22:25

You should have had this negotiation completed before the shoot. Since you didn't you can either work out a licensing arrangement, or sell your copyright, or simply walk away. It's your call.

sspellman

18th of June 2007 (Mon), 23:10

danpass

18th of June 2007 (Mon), 23:23

zembu

18th of June 2007 (Mon), 23:27

You should have had this negotiation completed before the shoot. Since you didn't you can either work out a licensing arrangement, or sell your copyright, or simply walk away. It's your call.

Yup. I learned the hard way. :o

What is a licensing arrangement?
And I'd hate to walk away. I'd be letting down a lot of people,
not to mention throwing away huge potential for the future.

Thanks so much for the feedback.

zembu

18th of June 2007 (Mon), 23:31

Zembu-

Im sure you now realize the huge mistake you made not agreeing to all the terms of the shoot before it started. At this point, you haveto start the price/rights negotiation all over again. You might start with "The price quoted was dependant on me being able to showcase my work with you to gain other business. If I can't do that, then the cost will go up by $350" or whatever.

Good Luck-
Scott

Oh my gosh yeah. But I just want to clarify, it wasn't me that disagreed with my terms, it was the client. But I get what you're saying. Should have taken care of it prior. True true true.

I really like the "Price Quoted was Dependant On..." approach.

Because honestly, I want to showcase my work,
much more so than having $350 in my pocket.

Thanks.

canonphotog

18th of June 2007 (Mon), 23:31

tcphoto1

18th of June 2007 (Mon), 23:42

Always get it in writing before you schedule a shoot. Have the terms spelled out with usage, payment and number of shots. It's been two years and you don't know what licensing is? Run, do not walk to a bookstore and by "Pricing Photography". Do not deliver high resolution files until you have a signed agreement and check in hand. You have given the Client the upper hand and they will most likely use it to their advantage, not yours.

zembu

18th of June 2007 (Mon), 23:49

I second the advice to just sell the copyright .... but at triple the price of the shoot; $350 + $1050 = $1400.

Do you still have all the hi-rez images in your control? There isn't much they can do with your online stuff. My limited understanding of law is that you automatically retain copyright so it isn't as though they can simply take what is online without repurcussions.

A little off-topic but .... it is offensive that he equates porn and pro-gun. Guess he forgets that the 2ndA protects all the others.

eta: He is an attorney and understands copyright. He may yet be reasonable, moreso if he was the one who built that company up.

.

I do indeed still have HiRes in my control. Only problem is, I've already said I would hand over 20 of them at no additional cost + reproduction rights.

Are reproduction rights the same as copyright? My understanding was "no." I certainely hope it's not the same thing, because then maybe I could put you and Liza's advice into action (selling copyright.) $1400 sounds a lot better than $350. But would that then completely terminate my right to put the images on my site?

And I TOTALLY agree with you about his unecessary reference to porn and gun sites.
To be honest, I was really offended, not just a little.

:neutral: Fun stuff.

Curtis N

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 00:00

SOE digital

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 00:05

Don't cave in mate.
Play hardball, but fair.

zembu

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 00:07

I wouldn't put anything up in that online proofing gallery other than a statement that images will be available after the contract has been signed and the shoot has been paid for.

Former lawyer or not, shouldn't be trying to walk all over you.

Thank you.

I'm thinking maybe it's not too late to change what it says on the online gallery afterall. Especially taking into consideration that nothing has been agreed to in writing yet either. This entire time, common sense has been screaming at me to not hand over anything HiRes until written agreements are completely said and done, along with that pay.

Always get it in writing before you schedule a shoot. Have the terms spelled out with usage, payment and number of shots. It's been two years and you don't know what licensing is? Run, do not walk to a bookstore and by "Pricing Photography". Do not deliver high resolution files until you have a signed agreement and check in hand. You have given the Client the upper hand and they will most likely use it to their advantage, not yours.

Absolutely. He already is.

And no, I do not know what a licensing arrangement is. Apologies.
I wasn't joking when I said, "Sorry in advance for potentially sounding or appearing naïve." :confused:
But I'm willing to look stupid on here, if it means learning a thing or two lol.
Your advice makes perfect sense, thank you.

I will surely buy that book, thanks! It's actually the second time I've seen it referenced today.

blackshadow

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 00:12

liza

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 00:14

A licensing arrangement is a fee you negotiate for their use of the photographs for a finite length of time. You retain copyright, but they get unlimited use of them for a specified length of time.

zembu

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 00:27

Since the language is pretty standard, and you did the job for a low price, I think you can pay hardball here. If he doesn't sign, he doesn't get any pictures and has to hire someone else. And if he wants a pro, he'll pay more and still need to sign a standard agreement.

But I'm a hard-nosed, stubborn SOB. I figure, if he wants to play hardball with me, he'll have to pay the consequences. I honestly don't know if that would be in your best interest. But it seems like an old-fashioned lawyer trick to me, and when he realizes you won't back down, he might reconsider.

Haha. Love the hard-nosed, stubborn SOB part.
I'm learning real quick the dog-eat-dogness of some clients out there.

All in due time, I too will have the confidence to say/do such. I've just really got to learn the legal ropes first, before I can stand tall enough to do so. At this point, one thing is for sure, no HiRes until contract + pay is completed. That seems to be the no-brainer part in this situation and it just plain makes sense.

Thanks for your 2 cents. I feel a little richer now.

Don't cave in mate.
Play hardball, but fair.

Thank you. :)
Fair play is always a good game in my book.

zembu

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 00:41

What Curtis said.

Just because the client is a former lawyer doesn't mean his knowledge of copyright law is worth a pinch of salt. Sounds like he is trying to do a bit of chest beating by throwing in the lawyer reference.

I suggest a polite but curt email along these lines:

Dear xxxx,

While waiting for you to redraft my standard contract I have had time to reflect on the situation and have decided that you either sign my standard contract for the price agreed before the photo shoot, buy full copyright of the images in question for $xxx or you find another photographer to do the shoot for you.

Until the matter has been settled I am removing the images from my online gallery until I hear back from you and do not grant any usage rights to you at this stage.

Regards, zembu

Well said.

And yes, it does seem he threw the lawyer reference in there just for the mere intimidation factor. I really like the sample email though. Thank you. It will definitely help me write my own if and when it comes down to that point.

All I know is that I want this to end peacefully.

A licensing arrangement is a fee you negotiate for their use of the photographs for a finite length of time. You retain copyright, but they get unlimited use of them for a specified length of time.

Perfect. Thank you.

I think I would be most happy with this solution.
It does the least amount of alteration to the
original agreement. Thanks again Liza.

And thank you again to everyone else.
I seriously love the forums.

IndyJeff

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 00:52

blackshadow

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 00:56

Remember the client is just as much to blame for the confusion over the contract as you are.

Seefutlung

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 01:09

zembu

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 01:47

You want some good advice? Hire an attorney of your own. You had a verbable contract to shoot these 4 models, now were they doing this for free? Probably not and chances are this guy will lie thru his teeth and say that you came up with this agreement after the fact and it was unacceptable. He is out $XXXX amount of dollars for model and assistant fees and still have no images.
Get an attorney and hope that you don't go in the hole paying for your defense if this guy sues you.

This is similar to what a good friend of mine said. That I had a contract, yet he refused to sign it in fear that I would misuse the images I took during the shoot. My friend basically said that why should I beckon to his wishes, if he can't even sign a simple agreement?

Wouldn't hiring an attorney cost an arm and a leg though? It definitely crossed my mind initially, but not realistically simply due to the fees that would follow. Legal assistance just feels a tad extreme for the current situation. But if I had the money to spare, I'd definitely consider it.

As far as the models; they were paid with free merchandise, mainly a couple tees. And the assistant photographer is a full-time employee of theirs that happened to own a decent SLR. I really appreciate your insight though, it's a different approach, but that's exactly why I'm here. I'm open to all suggestions, as this has never happened to me before.

Remember the client is just as much to blame for the confusion over the contract as you are.

True that.

This was the first time I intro'd the contract at the end of the shoot, versus prior.
At the same time however, he was no where in site prior to the shoot.

SwimBikeRun

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 02:01

This was the first time I intro'd the contract at the end of the shoot, versus prior.
At the same time however, he was no where in site prior to the shoot.

Gotta play hardball then "No contract, no shots, sorry kids!" Unless there was an actual chance to have something signed along the negotiations.

I´d just walk away from the whole thing. But if this guy is a SOB he´s going to sue then for expense, at least. And of course the reputation fallout might be a bit on the negative side. Hm, lesson learned either way. I hope you can straighten that mess out.

zembu

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 02:10

Dude- I'd just toss up the low rez with Copyright written all over the images ... then wait for his move ... don't worry about you keeping up your end of the agreement ... as of now there isn't any agreement. The guy may be a man of his word and may come back with a better agreement ... or he may try to screw you ... you don't know ... so don't do anything premature ... just wait for his move. Remember it's not the money ... so you are in a very strong position to negotiate ... just don't let to him that you don't need the money. After he returns the contract ... you hire an attorney to review his revised terms and conditions ... meanwhile google and do a lot of reading on copyright and such ... try "photoattorney.com". Keep all the good advice from other posters in you back pocket or up your sleeve ... and play those cards at the appropriate time.

Good Luck,
Gary

Nice to hear that. The "don't worry about your end of the agreement..." part. Because it's true, nothing has been signed, nor mutually agreed. And that fact alone gives me great peace of mind. My gut instinct is saying that he's not out to get me, but then my "what-if" side is saying not to take any chances. I'd like to write to him and kindly present him with the new terms that will be based on his choice of action (or lack there of.) if I do not get the revised contract very soon. (1-2 days.) But at the same time, something tells me to just wait it out before adding fuel to the fire.

Legal review before signage almost seems like a must. Definitely thought of that. Thank you so much for your feedback, as well as the "photoattorney" link. Shall check it out.

Gotta play hardball then "No contract, no shots, sorry kids!" Unless there was an actual chance to have something signed along the negotiations.

I´d just walk away from the whole thing. But if this guy is a SOB he´s going to sue then for expense, at least. And of course the reputation fallout might be a bit on the negative side. Hm, lesson learned either way. I hope you can straighten that mess out.

If only I had read a thread similar to this before the shoot.
Things would have been oh-so-different.

Yeah, I don't think I'll be walking away, unless something were to go horribly wrong. Even then probably not.
I have faith that all will fall into place for the better, at least in the long run. As Gary mentioned,
I need to play my cards right, at the appropriate time.

Thanks!

Nanscombe

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 03:16

danpass

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 07:48

Croasdail

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 08:54

Man, I am surprised by all these responses. What the client is stumbling over is not anything rare in the least... at all. I shoot for a college division 1 sports league, a lot of their promo stuff. While I still get to keep copyright of the images, my standard contract with them has this huge addendum that list acceptable usage. Many customers that have a corporate or public image they want to protect will want to restrict the usage to acceptable placements that are in keeping with the image they have created. You think Nike lets the photographers run off with images and doesn't have serious controls over how even the unused images are displayed. When you start doing corporate work, there will be addendums. It's just a fact of life and while actually shooting images is a very small part of being a pro photographer.

What I will agree to though is don't show them anything... nothing.... until the contract is signed. Don't give them any reason to walk from this project. Just be patient and things will work out.

Actionphotog

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 09:15

I'm surprized that you have that in your contract for a Commerical/Business shoot!!
For family portraits or any studio work yes own the copyrights.
But for a Commercial/Business type work the client usally owns everything. Thats why you charge more!
The only thing you really have in your contract is a statement that you will use the images they select for tear sheet and/or your website for your client list.
Revise your Contract(s) 1) for owning copyright i.e. studio work and 1 for Commercial/Business type work, where they own everything you shoot (and you charge more)

Pauls9

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 09:29

If I may pick up on another point:I haven't even been paid yet. My contract states that all payments be made at the end of the shoot. Yet I got nothing. They simply said I would be included in their next payroll/payday etc. and that I would have to wait for payments. Is this total BS, or common practice when doing a commercial shoot as a freelance photographer?I don't know how this usually works in the photography industry, but most companies (at least in the UK) expect a form authorising payment to be passed to the accounts staff, after the event. Accounts will send out a cheque or a bank transfer after a further 30 to 90 days (depending on the firm's policy). Exceptions to this require high-level authorisation. This keeps their bank balance up, thus earning more interest (or incurring fewer charges).

TeeJay

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 09:43

Judging by the "Trademarks & Copyrights" page on their web-site, they know all about enforcing Copyright infringment and what it's worth.

I think you should simply supply low-res copies of photo's taken, as it could be proven, by implication, that you as a photographer were there to take and supply photo's.

However, without a signed contract you have nothing that stipulates you should hand the hi-res versions over - at least until you have received payment.

I would also, though, have been very careful NOT to mention the brand by name, and certainly not discuss what employees have or haven't said about their employers "traits". I've googled their name to see if this page has come up yet, it doesn't, so it may actualy be worth getting a mod to remove this thread before it gets you into trouble with your client.

Just my thoughts - good luck ! I hope all goes well.

TJ

Curtis N

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 09:46

Many customers that have a corporate or public image they want to protect will want to restrict the usage to acceptable placements that are in keeping with the image they have created.True. But they pay more $$$ for that kind of control.

Southswede

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 11:42

"I'm sorry you feel that way sir. I'll just gather my things, delete the images and be gone." Delete images and move on......

zembu

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 12:15

Hi Zembu,

I'm not in a position to advise you as to what to do but ...

I don't know if you have already done so, but it would probably be a good idea to ensure that you've registered your images with the Copyright Office at http://www.copyright.gov/ as well.

If your images are then used, or reproduced, for a purpose outside what is eventually agreed, or if they are used without an agreement, you will have have the full weight of the law behind you if you should decide to claim damages.

Regards
Nigel

Good point. I have not yet submitted images from this particular shoot for copyright registration, but was indeed planning on doing so. I should really get on the ball if I do that, as I know it can be a lengthy process to complete registration. Thanks Nigel.

Man, I am surprised by all these responses. What the client is stumbling over is not anything rare in the least... at all. I shoot for a college division 1 sports league, a lot of their promo stuff. While I still get to keep copyright of the images, my standard contract with them has this huge addendum that list acceptable usage. Many customers that have a corporate or public image they want to protect will want to restrict the usage to acceptable placements that are in keeping with the image they have created. You think Nike lets the photographers run off with images and doesn't have serious controls over how even the unused images are displayed. When you start doing corporate work, there will be addendums. It's just a fact of life and while actually shooting images is a very small part of being a pro photographer.

What I will agree to though is don't show them anything... nothing.... until the contract is signed. Don't give them any reason to walk from this project. Just be patient and things will work out.

Definitely being patient, to say the least haha.

But yes, your points are very valid. As I mentioned in my initial post, I can understand where he is coming from in terms of business standpoint. Which is exactly why I was willing to compromise on the spot and revise the contract face to face to better clarify my intent of usage of the images I took for them. I have no problem with that, it makes perfect sense.

Yet he refused to compromise. And insisted he take my contract and do it himself.

:neutral:

I'm surprized that you have that in your contract for a Commerical/Business shoot!!
For family portraits or any studio work yes own the copyrights.
But for a Commercial/Business type work the client usally owns everything. Thats why you charge more!
The only thing you really have in your contract is a statement that you will use the images they select for tear sheet and/or your website for your client list.
Revise your Contract(s) 1) for owning copyright i.e. studio work and 1 for Commercial/Business type work, where they own everything you shoot (and you charge more)

I was waiting for someone to say something like this.

Interesting. So basically what you're saying is:
If it's a commercial shoot, you charge A LOT and always hand over copyright?

Are there acceptions to this, or strictly protocol for the most part?
Admittedly so, this is news to me. I really appreciate your input.
Thanks Graeme.

If I may pick up on another point:I don't know how this usually works in the photography industry, but most companies (at least in the UK) expect a form authorising payment to be passed to the accounts staff, after the event. Accounts will send out a cheque or a bank transfer after a further 30 to 90 days (depending on the firm's policy). Exceptions to this require high-level authorisation. This keeps their bank balance up, thus earning more interest (or incurring fewer charges).

I remember reading this in another thread, which is exactly why I asked. I'm just so used to being compensated as soon as my finger presses that shutter button for the final shot. I figured a rate as miniscule as $350 could have easily been taken care of on the spot, without going through a process of payment authorization, transfers, interest earnings, etc. Aparrently I'm wrong, because everything you've just listed above, is a similar echo to what I've been told by the client. Thank you.

Judging by the "Trademarks & Copyrights" page on their web-site, they know all about enforcing Copyright infringment and what it's worth.

I think you should simply supply low-res copies of photo's taken, as it could be proven, by implication, that you as a photographer were there to take and supply photo's.

However, without a signed contract you have nothing that stipulates you should hand the hi-res versions over - at least until you have received payment.

I would also, though, have been very careful NOT to mention the brand by name, and certainly not discuss what employees have or haven't said about their employers "traits". I've googled their name to see if this page has come up yet, it doesn't, so it may actualy be worth getting a mod to remove this thread before it gets you into trouble with your client.

Just my thoughts - good luck ! I hope all goes well.

TJ

WOW. I definitely did not know that you should not mention brand names!!!
Thanks for the heads up on that. I removed any reference to direct brand names and/or links.
Do you still think I should have this thread removed by a mod? You've gotten me extremely paranoid now.
Better yet, is there a moderator out there that could answer that?
By all means!!! Take this down if it puts me at risk!!!

My intent was to seek advice, not add fuel to the fire.

Oh boy. Again, fun stuff. :|

But thank you for your chime of feedback, very appreciated. Disregarding any obligation to hand over HiRes with out any payment, nor contract seems to be the common consensus among photographers here. Thanks again TJ.

"I'm sorry you feel that way sir. I'll just gather my things, delete the images and be gone." Delete images and move on......

And then I got jumped.

Just kidding. No, but seriously, deletion & a walk-away was the initial reaction that played through my mind once he refused to straighten things out then and there.

Southswede

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 13:14

And then I got jumped.

Just kidding. No, but seriously, deletion & a walk-away was the initial reaction that played through my mind once he refused to straighten things out then and there.

Sorry. My intention was NOT to jump on you. You provided a service and a very good price. This was done without a contract. Now you want him to sign a contract. Like you said, a mistake. I don't think it's a big one. Or one that cannot be resolved. He now decides he doesn'r want to sign anything. Cool. Then he tried to intimidate you with I was a lawyer thing. Consider this: why is he still not a lawyer. Hmmm.....

That's why I said walk away. Who will blink first? I think, because of the price, you have him over a barrel......

zembu

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 13:27

Sorry. My intention was NOT to jump on you. You provided a service and a very good price. This was done without a contract. Now you want him to sign a contract. Like you said, a mistake. I don't think it's a big one. Or one that cannot be resolved. He now decides he doesn'r want to sign anything. Cool. Then he tried to intimidate you with I was a lawyer thing. Consider this: why is he still not a lawyer. Hmmm.....

That's why I said walk away. Who will blink first? I think, because of the price, you have him over a barrel......

Hahaha, I almost asked him why he switched to the clothing industry too.

But hey no worries, when I said, "And then I got jumped," I just meant that the models, assistant photographer, and everyone else from the Co. that came to watch would have "jumped" me (as in beat me up) if I had walked away after all the time and effort they had put into the shoot.

Sorry for the confusion on the slang lol.

Croasdail

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 13:51

Seefutlung

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 14:20

Consider this: why is he still not a lawyer. Hmmm......

Probably because he wants to make more money than a lawyer. Attorney's and MDs don't make as much money as an owner of a manufacturer concern. Most attorney's and MDs in private can only make as much as they themselves can bill ... although they bill at a very high hourly rate ... there are only so many hours in the day (usually they make enough disposalable income to invest in property, stocks, et cetera and that is where they really make the bucks.)

As a simplified view of a manufacturing concern, in this case clothing, you make money with seamsters, the more people you have sewing ... the more money you make (under the assumption that all your product is sold.) You wanna make more money ... hire another seamstress.

So inferring that he is a crummy lawyer ... may or may not be true ... he may have just a desire to make money faster than an attorney in private practice.

G

zembu

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 14:35

I never refer to my clients other then in indirect terms. It isn't often all that hard to figure it out though. At the same time, I am posting a lot less images just because I want to protect my business relationships and be able to continue to be able to do the stuff I like to do. It's just a good idea to be vague when you can.

Smart call.

I see humble ambiguity can go a long way.
I also see what you're saying about limiting public display of client work.

However, I'm still quite young, age and business wise.
Thus without any visual proof of my abilities, it tends to be difficult to
convince potential clients that I am capable of doing a certain job.

Jon, The Elder

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 14:43

But I'm a hard-nosed, stubborn SOB. I figure, if he wants to play hardball with me, he'll have to pay the consequences. I honestly don't know if that would be in your best interest. But it seems like an old-fashioned lawyer trick to me, and when he realizes you won't back down, he might reconsider.

I agree completely with Curtis (a rare thing indeed).

What you do and how you do it, will affect you from this point on. $350.00 is a cheap price for a "business Seminar".

You got this clown by the short-hairs, try a little tug and see what happens.

Southswede

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 14:47

Hahaha, I almost asked him why he switched to the clothing industry too.

But hey no worries, when I said, "And then I got jumped," I just meant that the models, assistant photographer, and everyone else from the Co. that came to watch would have "jumped" me (as in beat me up) if I had walked away after all the time and effort they had put into the shoot.

Sorry for the confusion on the slang lol.

By walking away, you would have placed him in a difficult position, with his people. I suspected as much, based on your initial post.

Then again, sicne he wants to change your contract, who is to say you cannot increase your fee accordingly? ;)

Dorado

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 14:54

He signs the T&C's or no images plain and simple. You can negotiate to take that line out if you like, but then $$ goes up.

Next time do this well in advance.

zembu

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 14:56

I agree completely with Curtis (a rare thing indeed).

What you do and how you do it, will affect you from this point on. $350.00 is a cheap price for a "business Seminar".

You got this clown by the short-hairs, try a little tug and see what happens.

Some of these posts just keep getting funnier. :lol:

All jokes aside, yes, I can definitely feel that this is
a significant turning point in the situation. As is though,
I'm going to wait for his revision, have it reviewed by a legal
professional, then take appropriate action from there.

I just feel that jumping the gun and going Incredible Hulk mode,
will only further worsen the current status of the situation.

By walking away, you would have placed him in a difficult position, with his people. I suspected as much, based on your initial post.

Then again, sicne he wants to change your contract, who is to say you cannot increase your fee accordingly? ;)

So true.

It was one of those situations where everything happened so fast.
Now that I've had some time to rethink the situation, and more importantly,
hear the opinions of so many other photographers, there's so much I would
have done differently.

But you're right, it's a prime time to notch up the rate.

He signs the T&C's or no images plain and simple. You can negotiate to take that line out if you like, but then $$ goes up.

Next time do this well in advance.

Yup.

Chances are he will take that line out and limit my usage of the images to such and such site/portfolio.
At least that's what I was told through the grapevine.

Time will tell. Thanks for input!

lingham

19th of June 2007 (Tue), 15:18

in regards to deletion if no mention of your website name is mentioned and no mention of the client googling wont bring up anything at all..

segasaturn

20th of June 2007 (Wed), 00:14

How big are you? You should challenge him to a street fight. Winner takes all!

danpass

20th of June 2007 (Wed), 00:22

How big are you? You should challenge him to a street fight. Winner takes all!

Rock, Paper, Scissors is much more decisive fooh! :eyes

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c222/danpass/smilies/icon_smile_cool.gif

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c222/danpass/smilies/1a7af3ea.gif

Nanscombe

20th of June 2007 (Wed), 02:30

Hi Zembu,

So this guy is concerned about your future use of these images. Other points to consider may be:

A) You are probably selling Usage rights, not necessarily the Copyright.

B) Make sure you specify the EXACT usage he may put the images to, in case he later decides that he wants to put them on a Website, in Magazines, perhaps even on a Calendar or such like. Make sure he knows that he will need to re-negotiate.

C) You may not be able to use the photos without a model release, unless you have one of course.

D) Competitions may try a rights grab, giving themselves the option to use them for any purpose they want without further benefit to yourself. Read the entry rules carefully and judge whether there is any benefit in entering?

E) He will need to pay extra for exclusive usage rights.

If this guy didn't sign AFTER the session then he probably wouldn't have signed up front, so his turning up late doesn't have much to do with it really. However, you would have saved yourself some time.

Regards
Nigel

NetDep

20th of June 2007 (Wed), 10:48

Certainly no attorney here -- but fair is fair. Since there is no agreement on either end -- the negotiations were held *after* the shoot in which the specified work/payment had ALREADY occurred and now you both want to change horses midstream this seems to be an exercise in futility which is so often seen in these forums. Poor business practices do not translate to huge profit -- you mentioned something that caught my eye -- you may do work (and may want to) for this client in the future. Do you really think he will want anything to do with you if this is the way he/they are treated?? As is my feeling (and would be my practice if this were me) -- be honorable -- scratch the clause, release the pics and learn from it -- graciously admit it was a learning experience and be very specfic next time. Many people are telling you what to do now -- now is too late -- neither of you have to agree to anything since neither if you agreed to anything prior to the shoot which is what the contract was based on...the essence of a contract...offer - consideration - acceptance. It is now a position of "I have your pictures and now I want X." Hardly fair since, in some part, the fault is yours that you did not get the agreement before and went ahead and did the shoot. If this is a major client -- he will be done with you -- get someone to reshoot -- and never allow you to darken his door again -- as well as gladly telling any of his colleagues about the unsavory experience. I am not a pro photog -- but really -- some things are just human nature. Learn from it -- and do better next time. Happy snapping!!

zembu

20th of June 2007 (Wed), 15:22

in regards to deletion if no mention of your website name is mentioned and no mention of the client googling wont bring up anything at all..

Right. I did what I could by editing the given posts. Also gave Google a good sweep. I'm just a little concerned about the nature of the discussion. Thanks.

How big are you? You should challenge him to a street fight. Winner takes all!

Lover, not a fighter. :)
But I can play a mean game of table tennis. :lol:

Rock, Paper, Scissors is much more decisive fooh! :eyes

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c222/danpass/smilies/icon_smile_cool.gif

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c222/danpass/smilies/1a7af3ea.gif

Nice lol.

Hi Zembu,

So this guy is concerned about your future use of these images. Other points to consider may be:

A) You are probably selling Usage rights, not necessarily the Copyright.

B) Make sure you specify the EXACT usage he may put the images to, in case he later decides that he wants to put them on a Website, in Magazines, perhaps even on a Calendar or such like. Make sure he knows that he will need to re-negotiate.

C) You may not be able to use the photos without a model release, unless you have one of course.

D) Competitions may try a rights grab, giving themselves the option to use them for any purpose they want without further benefit to yourself. Read the entry rules carefully and judge whether there is any benefit in entering?

E) He will need to pay extra for exclusive usage rights.

If this guy didn't sign AFTER the session then he probably wouldn't have signed up front, so his turning up late doesn't have much to do with it really. However, you would have saved yourself some time.

Regards
Nigel

Hey thanks Nigel.

Really good points you bring up. I've taken note on all of them. And yes, I only agreed
to grant usage rights, never the full copyright. My friend, which was the one that hired
me for the job, was well aware of this in advance. The entire shoot, I was under the
impression that my friend would be the one signing. It wasn't until towards the end
of the shoot that I learned otherwise.

But anyway.

Also very true what you said about him probably not signing it up front anyways.
That would have been interesting. As you said it could have sped things up
substantially, or they would have simply hired another photographer.
Which probably would have been better now that I think about it.

Thanks again. :)

Certainly no attorney here -- but fair is fair. Since there is no agreement on either end -- the negotiations were held *after* the shoot in which the specified work/payment had ALREADY occurred and now you both want to change horses midstream this seems to be an exercise in futility which is so often seen in these forums. Poor business practices do not translate to huge profit -- you mentioned something that caught my eye -- you may do work (and may want to) for this client in the future. Do you really think he will want anything to do with you if this is the way he/they are treated?? As is my feeling (and would be my practice if this were me) -- be honorable -- scratch the clause, release the pics and learn from it -- graciously admit it was a learning experience and be very specfic next time. Many people are telling you what to do now -- now is too late -- neither of you have to agree to anything since neither if you agreed to anything prior to the shoot which is what the contract was based on...the essence of a contract...offer - consideration - acceptance. It is now a position of "I have your pictures and now I want X." Hardly fair since, in some part, the fault is yours that you did not get the agreement before and went ahead and did the shoot. If this is a major client -- he will be done with you -- get someone to reshoot -- and never allow you to darken his door again -- as well as gladly telling any of his colleagues about the unsavory experience. I am not a pro photog -- but really -- some things are just human nature. Learn from it -- and do better next time. Happy snapping!!

Thanks for your input.

I agree with you, but only to an extent. Specified payment did not occur, nor has it. Also, I did not "change horses midstream". I presented a contract that repeated everything that was verbally agreed upon the day before with the person that hired me for the shoot. Granted I presented the written version too late, I take full blame for that mistake. At this point however, I'm the one that's been patiently sitting around, waiting for a reply about my "revised contract". I haven't argued with the client once in any way, shape, or form since he presented me with his revision-idea. I've been 100% cooperative. I even made their private online proofing gallery for crying out loud. I have not actually implemented any of the pro-active suggestions made here on the forums that would alter the receival of the expected images either, I hope that is also clear. I wouldn't be surprised if the last paragraph in this reply ends up actually being the outcome of this particular shoot.

I've been giving this a lot of thought and to be honest, I'm not sure if commercial work is my cup of tea anyway. My work prior to this shoot has only consisted of weddings, portraits, couples, and am-models (TFP). This shoot was my first real commercial shoot. The benefit of being in my early 20's and 10 classes away from a BA in graphic design (yes graphic design; ask later lol), is that I still have time to test the waters. And test the waters I have.

If it comes down to just giving them the images and moving on with my life, so be it. Of course I'll be kicking myself in the arse everytime I see my work on that new billboard or magazine spread, but in the end, I'm all about perseverance and forward-thinking. Graciously admitted; I have learned. As far as everyone else's contribution to this thread, the advice may not be applicable now, but that is certainely no reason to disregard it.

Thank you again for taking the time to contribute your thoughts.

Seefutlung

20th of June 2007 (Wed), 15:50

" ... I've been giving this a lot of thought and to be honest, I'm not sure if commercial work is my cup of tea anyway. My work prior to this shoot has only consisted of weddings, portraits, couples, and am-models (TFP). This shoot was my first real commercial shoot. The benefit of being in my early 20's and 10 classes away from a BA in graphic design (yes graphic design; ask later lol), is that I still have time to test the waters. And test the waters I have.

If it comes down to just giving them the images and moving on with my life, so be it. Of course I'll be kicking myself in the arse everytime I see my work on that new billboard or magazine spread, but in the end, I'm all about perseverance and forward-thinking. Graciously admitted; I have learned. As far as everyone else's contribution to this thread, the advice may not be applicable now, but that is certainely no reason to disregard it. Thank you again for taking the time to contribute your thoughts."

My take again. This guy is playing with you. Most attorneys are very pragmatic ... criminal lawyers don't ask if you're guilty or innocent but rather what can they get you on. After all this time and the owner still hasn't contacted you makes me think that you played into his game. Get a photog to shoot what he needs. Review the images ... if he like them then sign the contract ... if he doesn't then try a different photog at no cost to him because there isn't any agreement. Intimidate the photog into not suing because he's a "lawyer".

Remove all photos from the public. Send him a bill for your time only. Tell him that rights to use the images will be negotiated under a different portfolio.

Actually ... you are better off seeing a attorney ... he'll set up a proper exit strategy which will help you in court if it ever comes to that.

About using his name/name of company on the internet or anywhere else ... I think it's okay, just as long as you are factual and separate fact from opinion. Yeah, he can sue you (but then again he can sue you for anything) .. but what counts its that you'll win in court. To early to get nasty ... but if it does ... just remind him that he has a whole lot more to lose than you.

PS- Don't give up on commercial because of one jerk.

Gary

tcphoto1

20th of June 2007 (Wed), 16:02

I would simply wait for his response. You shot the job, put up the gallery online and waiting to hear from the Client. He'll call and order the high resolution files and tell you that he cannot sign the contract. I'd follow with... I'll need to have a signed agreement before authorizing the use of the images. Then ask pointed questions like, exactly how will you use the images? How long would you like to use them? and so on. Then build an Estimate for say, $1200. for unlimited use of the images for a period of two years. No Advertising or Third Party use without further compensation.

Do not mention Copyright since it is most likely out of his budget. If he does mention it, tell him that you are licensing the use of the images and the fee is based upon usage. He hired you to create custom images, you did so. But, you did not have a work for hire agreement. Besides, no money has changed hands and you SHOULD get it in writing.

Tomi Hawk

20th of June 2007 (Wed), 16:08

If I may pick up on another point:I don't know how this usually works in the photography industry, but most companies (at least in the UK) expect a form authorising payment to be passed to the accounts staff, after the event. Accounts will send out a cheque or a bank transfer after a further 30 to 90 days (depending on the firm's policy). Exceptions to this require high-level authorisation. This keeps their bank balance up, thus earning more interest (or incurring fewer charges).
Precisley ... it's the only way that I've ever known of .. when working with Ad Agencies ..
I've never been paid on the spot .. period! Atleast 30 days .. sometimes alot longer!
I submit an invoice once the shoot is done .. and hardly ever hear back from them until I'm paid ..
I've no contract at all either .. notta .. zip .. zilch .. the only contract I've ever made up
is for my Brides .. period ..

I wouldnt give this guy a thing .. x-lawyer or not .. ball is in his court .. he has to come to you.
I wouldnt even get ahold of him ..

3Turner

20th of June 2007 (Wed), 16:49

Man this is one hairy situation. I read through the entire thread and saw everyones differing opinion on what you should do about waiting for the contract revision.

Frankly, one question comes to mind that I did not see mentioned above.

What happened to the pictures that the assistant took? Did you take that card also to process? I ask this because what if he is just going to use those shots and is just going to leave you hanging, what would you do then?

I am of the opinion of NOT putting the hi-res up on the site and ask for more money if the contract does not help you more. Oh yeah, ask for a legal opinion BEFORE signing the revised contract!!

zembu

21st of June 2007 (Thu), 13:41

My take again. This guy is playing with you. Most attorneys are very pragmatic ... criminal lawyers don't ask if you're guilty or innocent but rather what can they get you on. After all this time and the owner still hasn't contacted you makes me think that you played into his game. Get a photog to shoot what he needs. Review the images ... if he like them then sign the contract ... if he doesn't then try a different photog at no cost to him because there isn't any agreement. Intimidate the photog into not suing because he's a "lawyer".

Remove all photos from the public. Send him a bill for your time only. Tell him that rights to use the images will be negotiated under a different portfolio.

Actually ... you are better off seeing a attorney ... he'll set up a proper exit strategy which will help you in court if it ever comes to that.

About using his name/name of company on the internet or anywhere else ... I think it's okay, just as long as you are factual and separate fact from opinion. Yeah, he can sue you (but then again he can sue you for anything) .. but what counts its that you'll win in court. To early to get nasty ... but if it does ... just remind him that he has a whole lot more to lose than you.

PS- Don't give up on commercial because of one jerk.

Gary

Your support is, and has been much appreciated. Thanks Gary.
It's funny you mention the hidden agenda scenario.

"Like it, sign it."
"Doesn't like it, hires next photog'."
"Intimidate regardless."

Because the same exact thought popped into my head. The whole ordeal is becoming so mentally exhausting and I'm sure people are tired of seeing this topic getting bumped on the daily. So I've just decided to wait it out. The private gallery expires relatively soon, I'll just let it time out. Honestly, it doesn't seem like they're going to go through with my work. I'd almost prefer it that way at this point. I've got other shoots coming up and really don't want to play their sitting-duck game any longer. It's nothing more than a distraction at this point.

And you're right, I shouldn't let him abbreviate my outlook on commercial.
Still considering it. Again though, thank you for your support.
It's helped a lot.

I would simply wait for his response. You shot the job, put up the gallery online and waiting to hear from the Client. He'll call and order the high resolution files and tell you that he cannot sign the contract. I'd follow with... I'll need to have a signed agreement before authorizing the use of the images. Then ask pointed questions like, exactly how will you use the images? How long would you like to use them? and so on. Then build an Estimate for say, $1200. for unlimited use of the images for a period of two years. No Advertising or Third Party use without further compensation.

Do not mention Copyright since it is most likely out of his budget. If he does mention it, tell him that you are licensing the use of the images and the fee is based upon usage. He hired you to create custom images, you did so. But, you did not have a work for hire agreement. Besides, no money has changed hands and you SHOULD get it in writing.

Very true. I've been nothing but cooperative since this whole ordeal began.
Seriously though, I will be surprised if they still request the HiRes. I almost
feel avoided at this point. Because I was asked a "technical" question about
my photos in an email from them the other day, I responded very quickly
and kindly, yet I've heard nothing in response since then. Something
tells me it's because I also asked if any progress has been made w/
my contract.

Thank you though. :)

Precisley ... it's the only way that I've ever known of .. when working with Ad Agencies ..
I've never been paid on the spot .. period! Atleast 30 days .. sometimes alot longer!
I submit an invoice once the shoot is done .. and hardly ever hear back from them until I'm paid ..
I've no contract at all either .. notta .. zip .. zilch .. the only contract I've ever made up
is for my Brides .. period ..

I wouldnt give this guy a thing .. x-lawyer or not .. ball is in his court .. he has to come to you.
I wouldnt even get ahold of him ..

I see. Thanks for your input.

Man this is one hairy situation. I read through the entire thread and saw everyones differing opinion on what you should do about waiting for the contract revision.

Frankly, one question comes to mind that I did not see mentioned above.

What happened to the pictures that the assistant took? Did you take that card also to process? I ask this because what if he is just going to use those shots and is just going to leave you hanging, what would you do then?

I am of the opinion of NOT putting the hi-res up on the site and ask for more money if the contract does not help you more. Oh yeah, ask for a legal opinion BEFORE signing the revised contract!!

Hairier than a hostel shower drain, yes.

I did not take the assistant photographer's card for processing. He was completely under their rule (employee of theirs) and I really had no power, nor say in how his photos would be used. This may be to my benefit however. Because honestly, I'm very ready to move on from this. And I would actually be happy if they used his work instead. It's taken too long to get the answers that should have been revealed to me many moons ago (revised contract).

If I do end up receiving the revised contract, it will surely get reviewed by an attorney first. Thanks for your opinion!

zembu

21st of June 2007 (Thu), 13:46

I'm sure some of you are getting sick of seeing this thread get bumped on the daily.
So as of now, I'm going to just wait it out and not provoke the situation.

However, feel free to contribute any additional thoughts.
I may not get back to you in a reply, but I will surely read it.

THANKS again to EVERYONE that has contributed to this.

- zembu

:)

poloman

21st of June 2007 (Thu), 15:20

This guy is just plain rotten! Just because you think you can get away with being a bully and saving a few bucks, does not make it ethical. If you cave, he owns you for the rest of the time you do business with him. If you stonewall him, then you have the upper hand. I have done a lot of work for clothing manufacturers. Believe me, sooner or later he is going to run into a deadline and he knows it. Post the notice in your proofing site and do not call him. He knows how to reach you. Clients like this will not do you any good. Seek those that can get excited about doing the project together and agree to terms ahead. Just keep your eyes forward on the future!:)

Jon, The Elder

21st of June 2007 (Thu), 15:37

Zembu - you've spent a fortune in time and stress over this thing. The guy is a dipwad. Anyone in their right mind would walk away and write it off to experience. There is a logical time to cut your losses and get on with life. Swallow your pride and hurt feelings....go find 2 more to replace him.

3Turner

21st of June 2007 (Thu), 19:36

...Because honestly, I'm very ready to move on from this. And I would actually be happy if they used his work instead. It's taken too long to get the answers that should have been revealed to me many moons ago (revised contract).

Good to see that you are having a brighter outlook on the whole situation. And you are very correct about it taking too long to get any kind of answer...believe me, its not worth the wait. Good luck to you.

Mike R

21st of June 2007 (Thu), 22:43

Is he really a "former attorney" ? Maybe he is just looking to get something for nothing or just wants time to have a real attorney look it over.

Nikolaos

22nd of June 2007 (Fri), 12:07

How could the extra photographer be considered an "assistant" when he was not there for your benefit? To me, this is very suspect since you were hired for your experience. The extra photographer "can monkey see, monkey do" by your side and just give those images to the company and you're at a loss.

I just think that this all sounds very shady on their part. Yes it's a learning experience for you but if the company uses the "assistant's" photos, you should be paid for your shoot.

Nikos

sfaust

24th of June 2007 (Sun), 16:40

Here are my thoughts on the situation.

Yea, it should have been signed prior to the shoot. However, its good that you discussed the terms prior and wasn't argued at that time. But verbal agreements are always left to interpretation and can be argued in court for endless hours at $350+ per hour! Ouch!

Register the images immediately. Within 24hrs. Make it a priority since you want the full weight of the law behind you should things go sour.

IMO, this client isn't coming back to you anyway. And if they did, it would be at the rate you quoted this for this job, which is way way too low. You don't want future work at that rate. You can't survive doing corporate work at $50 an hour. Its hard at $150 an hour. There is a reason commercial photographers charge what they do, and they still complain its hard to make a simple salary work. Anyway, different topic.

My point is, mistakes were made, and its probably best to close the situation as best you can, and consider the client loss a learning experience. Changes of them accepting your next job as a rate you can survive on is small.

I'd stick to your guns regarding your copyright. Explain to them that commercial photographer is based on reproduction rights, and not a copyright buyout. A copyright buyout in commercial photography is very expensive, and generally not worth it for the clients. hence, the reason most corporate clients go with usage rights.

Compile a list of materials for the client to aid them in their research in this matter. There are good guides, such as this one from ASMP that reinforces buy outs as rare in commercial photography (http://www.asmp.org/commerce/assignment.php). There are many others on sites such as PDN, Editorial Photographers, APA, and so on. A quick search on copyright, licensing, and buy outs should turn up more. ASMP also has a few on working with architectural photographers, and they discuss licensing as well, and even multiple clients sharing the licensing costs to save some money (ie, builder, architect, interior designers, etc).

I would present the fact that his concerns can be addressed without having to spend a considerable amount for a copyright buyout, and that you pretty much addressed the issue by limiting your use to your own self promotion, competition, and exhibits. Thus, you already agreed you won't sell it to a porn site, promote guns, viagra, or anything else. If it helps, offer to amend the terms and list those explicitly, and that would diffuse his argument for a buyout.

I would also mention in writing, that since an agreement isn't reached and payment not received, no rights are granted at the present time. That will help cover you if they just never get back to you, and you find the low res images on their web site. It will go a long way to prove willful infringement, which brings in more substantial damage awards should it ever end up in court. I'd soften the language, but make sure its included somewhere in your correspondence.

At the time being, I'd just wait it out and see what they come up with for their document. Then I'd go through it with a fine tooth comb, and review it and submit it back to them for their approval. But stick to your guns on copyright, licensing, and don't let them bully you if you feel that is their intention. There is a way to address all their concerns without having to resort to a copyright transfer, with the exception of them not wanting you to have it, plain and simple.

I feel it will work out acceptably for both of you unless they are just one of those clients that you can never please. And those are the ones you want to cut loose as past as possible!

Good luck, keep us informed.

sfaust

24th of June 2007 (Sun), 16:41

But for a Commercial/Business type work the client usally owns everything. That's why you charge more!
The only thing you really have in your contract is a statement that you will use the images they select for tear sheet and/or your website for your client list.
Revise your Contract(s) 1) for owning copyright i.e. studio work and 1 for Commercial/Business type work, where they own everything you shoot (and you charge more)

This is NOT true of commercial or advertising work, at least not in the US.

Commercial and advertising photographers retain ownership of the copyright for the images. They license usage rights to the companies in return for the large fees. When a photographer creates a image for a Nike ad, Nike might buy exclusive usage rights to the image for worldwide use for a specific period of time. Typically a year. They may pay $100K for the usage. If the campaign goes well, and they want to re license the images, they may pay the photographer another $50K for an additional year. When they are done with their licensing, there may be a period of time the photographer can't use the image, say 1 to 3 years. They may not be able to use the image within the sports industry. Or similar restrictions. But after that, the photographer can submit the images to stock, sell it, lease it, etc. They still own the copyright.

Corporate/commercial is similar. Rights are licensed to the client for a specific amount of time. They do not own the copyright. Photographers retain copyright and are allowed to license the images for other uses.
There usually are some stipulations when it comes to a manufacturers products, employees, or similar 'property'. But then again, there is little value in licensing an image of a XYZ widget in the first place to third parties. This benefits both sides.

I shoot corporate and commercial work daily. Its my job, my business. I've never yet given up copyright to any of my images, nor have I been asked to do so. When a new client that has used photographers in the past approaches me, they almost always ask what usage rights are included when asking for a quote. They have been around the block, and know whats standard. The only companies that ask me for a buyout or copyright are those that have never used a commercial photographer before, or those that are looking for bargains with new photographers that don't understand the business yet.

th3r0m

24th of June 2007 (Sun), 19:27

This is NOT true of commercial or advertising work, at least not in the US.

Commercial and advertising photographers retain ownership of the copyright for the images. They license usage rights to the companies in return for the large fees. When a photographer creates a image for a Nike ad, Nike might buy exclusive usage rights to the image for worldwide use for a specific period of time. Typically a year. They may pay $100K for the usage. If the campaign goes well, and they want to re license the images, they may pay the photographer another $50K for an additional year. When they are done with their licensing, there may be a period of time the photographer can't use the image, say 1 to 3 years. They may not be able to use the image within the sports industry. Or similar restrictions. But after that, the photographer can submit the images to stock, sell it, lease it, etc. They still own the copyright.

Corporate/commercial is similar. Rights are licensed to the client for a specific amount of time. They do not own the copyright. Photographers retain copyright and are allowed to license the images for other uses.
There usually are some stipulations when it comes to a manufacturers products, employees, or similar 'property'. But then again, there is little value in licensing an image of a XYZ widget in the first place to third parties. This benefits both sides.

I shoot corporate and commercial work daily. Its my job, my business. I've never yet given up copyright to any of my images, nor have I been asked to do so. When a new client that has used photographers in the past approaches me, they almost always ask what usage rights are included when asking for a quote. They have been around the block, and know whats standard. The only companies that ask me for a buyout or copyright are those that have never used a commercial photographer before, or those that are looking for bargains with new photographers that don't understand the business yet.

This is good to know, as I was confused at this as well. Thank you for setting the record straight :)

bieber

24th of June 2007 (Sun), 23:14

The OP's problem, it seems, is that the story's villain knows that he's not dealing with a professional photographer. With a quote that low, he's already not going to be taking you seriously. Add in the fact that you didn't sign a contract before the shoot, and he knows that you're someone he can play. If you want to do commercial, you've got to make sure that you know how the business side works beforehand, or else you're just going to get jerked around to no end by clients who do know how the business end works.

zembu

19th of July 2007 (Thu), 14:33

***UPDATE***

A number of people have asked me to post a follow-up as to what happened.
P.S. I really want to thank Stephen Faust [Post #58] for your info.
Your response was very useful.

--
Recap: I completed a commercial shoot for an international clothing line for $350. When I presented the contract, the client refused to sign. I compromise, on the spot, with a written contract amendment to resolve his concerns (about my contract.) The client, a former lawyer, still refuses to sign my contract and insists on keeping it so that HE can revise it himself.

Please read the original post, should you wish to reply to this. Thanks.

--
The Follow-up: The last I wrote here, I was still waiting for the client to "revise" my contract. This "revision" took the client nearly half a month. When I finally received it, it was certainly revised. In fact, it was completely disregarded and replaced by a "Photographer Release." This "Photographer Release" was filled with typical legal jargon and it was lengthy enough to supply reading-material for the bathroom more times than once. I hired a legal professional that specializes in copyrights to help me review it.

My attorney explained to me that the "Photographer Release" said:

The client wanted full copyrights.
The client wanted to hold me fully liable for third-party disputes.
Including payment for attorney fees, should they need one.
If I signed, then had an issue later on, I could only seek assistance through
their arbitrator, not my own lawyer, or through court. (My attorney explained
that arbitrators can be bias in the favor of the company; in this case, the client.)
The client wanted to turn my service into a "Work Made for Hire."
Which would give them substantial control.
The client wanted no obligation in sharing profits made off my images in the future.

So there you have it. Would you sign that for $350?
Neither would I.

Their "Photographer Release" was written in such a way, that the critical points mentioned above, could have easily been misunderstood, if not completely overseen. Within a day of receiving this release, the client was contacting me, asking me to give them my mailing address for the check. They were also telling me to sign and fax the release right away.

I found it amusing that they made me wait weeks on end for a response, but they expect me to respond immediately. (Rushing me into signing something I would eventually regret.) Anyway, I informed the client that I was reviewing their release with a legal professional and that I would get back to them. The client became upset and threatened to sue me. Reasons: breaking a verbal contract (which never existed.) And for questionable intent of usage of my images; the client was still on the whole porn / pro gun site thing. Apparently, the client wants to believe I have very, very bad intentions with these images. :rolleyes:

--
Conclusion:
My attorney suggested that I stand up for my (copy)rights and attempt one last compromise before officially walking away. So we put together a VERY straight-forward written proposal in response to the client's release. The jist of it was:

The quoted rate of $350 will be based on a 6-month license, not a copyright buyout.

It also stated that I would not use the images for ANY purpose what so ever. Not even a client-gallery on my photography site. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. In my opinion this was a very fair and reasonable proposal. It gave the client what they wanted: Catalog Images and a peace of mind. And it gave me what I wanted: Retained Copyright. It was a win-win. The proposal asked the client to respond, in writing, within 10 days.

Guess what? No response.

--
Not surprisingly at all, I have not heard a word from the client since I sent that proposal. There's just no winning this client. I can not please them. It has been well over 10 days and I have officially walked away from the project. I have learned many great lessons through this experience and the feedback that followed. It's made me a much more informed photographer.

Apologies for the length, but thank you to those that read it.
And thank you even more to those that helped through out.

Be well,
zembu

:)

Seefutlung

19th of July 2007 (Thu), 14:48

Racer23

19th of July 2007 (Thu), 15:06

I'd be carefull about "blogging" a former atty. Any information made public about his company or his name may be misconstrued as slander.

Removing the gallery and walking away would be the best approach. Keep professional.

Seefutlung

19th of July 2007 (Thu), 15:35

I'd be carefull about "blogging" a former atty. Any information made public about his company and his name may be misconstrued as slander.

Removing the gallery and walking away would be the best approach. Keep professional.

Nope, not "Slander" ... slander is usually reserved for the spoken word ... in this case it would be libel, the written word.

If the blog or equal is factual and/or clearly identified as "your opinion" then you win in court. The guy was nothing but a bully ... and a bully is a bully because he get away with said actions.

And if he does bring a suit ... what a great arena ... ex-attorney and clothing line owner defends that he isn't a jerk in court ... and you get to bring up all the times he was a jerk to you and through discovery you get an opportunity to contact everyone he's had a business dealings with and ask them if he's ever been a jerk to them. Hell, you can even take out a full page ad in the Union and ask the general population if he's ever been a jerk (sorta class action suit) ... great opportunity to get even but a lot of wasted time and resources which could be better spent doing something constructive with your life.

But still ... (at least do a blog and put this thread in it ... that would be the minimum of immaturity)

Gary

P51Mstg

19th of July 2007 (Thu), 17:40

As a retired lawyer, I can tell you one of the reasons I retired from that was because of people like your client. Lawyers are generally lazy, stupid and total a$$ho_es. IF you find one that isn't, you should hang on to him.

Also I dealt with what I refer to as the "General Public" quite a bit. These people are never satisified. If they won $50mil in the lottery, they would be unhappy because someone else won more or if they won it the next week it would have been $60mil. Those people make life and work a great displeasure.

For this guy, I'd send him a note and say I can only hold the picture files a few more days (15 days) then they get deleted which is my standard business practice for pictures that are not paid for.

Also send him a bill for something ($300 for example) for your out of pocket expenses.

The use the photos for 6 months, we keep the copyright for $350 is more than fair.

Mark H

3Turner

19th of July 2007 (Thu), 18:56

Zembu, that is good to hear that things worked out for the better...in terms of walking away from a one-sided deal. I bet if he was treated like he treated you, he would not be a happy camper. I agree with those above that $350 and 6 months use was a very fair proposal.

tcphoto1

19th of July 2007 (Thu), 19:03

A "work for hire" situation is ten times the original fee. That will give him unlimited use and eliminates the likelihood of you selling the images to porn or gun sites;) If that is unacceptable, you own the images and will sell them to the highest bidder. Give him ten days and act as though you already have interested parties.

sfaust

19th of July 2007 (Thu), 19:41

Zembu, you did the right thing by just walking away with your dignity intact and a great lesson in business agreements. Always have it in writing, even if its just an e-mail.

When first contacted by a client, they usually want a price. When I give them an estimate, or even just inquire about more details on the job, I try to attach a text with my standard policies on it. It covers things like copyright retention, billing terms, image delivery format, cancellations, etc. Short, but to the point. This at least covers me to show the client was informed just in case I don't send a more formal estimate or quote. If the initial contact is by phone, I tell them I'll follow up with a confirmation by e-mail or fax, mainly just to get something written.

I would refrain from doing anything with the images other than possibly displaying them in your portfolio as long as there are no trademark or model release issues. If there are, then I'd just file them away on the hard drive with an attached note that they are 'tainted'. While I like some of the ideas presented (creative!), I think when you wrestle with pigs, all you do is get dirty, and I'd rather leave clean :) This client isn't salvageable, and not worth the $350 you would have gained, nor spending any more time on him.

If he sends another draft of the contract, I'd just respond with a two or three line statement that its unacceptable and the only agreement you will consider at this point is the one you submitted from your attorney which covers the original verbal agreement, and the new restrictions on you to cover his fear of misusing the images. If he signs it and returns it with a CASHIERS CHECK, you will provide the images, but will not release them under any other circumstances.

Keep everything you do concise, honest, using good business practices, but stand your ground on your principles. Let him dig his own hole in the ground to bury himself should it ever go to court. The more you look like you are trying to appease his concerns in a professional manner, and the more he pushes for more than originally asked, the better the outcome will be for you.

Chances are it will never get that far, and he'll either infringe, eventually disappear and cut his losses, or finally cave and pay you. If you are fine with the last two, and covered on the first, there isn't anything else you should be doing. You've got the cards, and you don't have nothing to loose by waiting it out.

John Mireles

20th of July 2007 (Fri), 11:49

Zembu:

Since you're in San Diego, I recommend that you check out the APA chapter there. The web address is www.apasd.org. This mini-disaster could have easily been avoided with proper business practices. While I admire the fact that you stood up for yourself, it was too little too late and wasn't fair to you or your client.

Success in commercial photogrphy is not just about knowing the equipment. It's about understanding the process for making money. That's the trickiest part of the business and there's few good resources for education. The APA (Advertising Photographers of America) has excellent talks on the business and their monthly roundtables are a great way to speak one on one with established pros. It's well worth the minimal investment.

John

adam LC

20th of July 2007 (Fri), 17:33

Zembu:

I've followed this thread since the beginning and have to say that you've acted very professionally since this situation began. You stuck it out, nice one. A painful yet educational experience.

From this point on, I would ignore every communication he sends without consulting your lawyer first.

My hat is off to you sir!

BDM

22nd of July 2007 (Sun), 00:21

sfaust

22nd of July 2007 (Sun), 10:15

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with the notion that the client is trying "to walk all over you" as one poster opined. Basic contract law holds that an offer AND an acceptance is necessary to create a contract. Obviously, the second element of that is missing here. Hence, there is no contract. (Technically, that means you are also not bound by your compensation "agreement" but to change it at this late date probably would not be a good business idea).

Bruce, I agree with you to a point, but I believe an agreement was indeed formed. An offer was made with a price for specific work, it was accepted by the client, a shoot was scheduled and executed by both parties. Items that were not specifically discussed would obviously not be agreed to, and would default to what is normal and customary. Just because they didn't discuss that the digital images were to be supplied on CD or DVD, doesn't mean the client should expect and argue that they should be supplied as a slideshow on Blue-Ray discs.

Ownership of copyright obviously was one not discussed. Licensing terms was probably another. So I agree that those issues are a point of contention, and no agreement was made on these points. However, since ownership of copyright was never discussed there is no good reason why the client should assume ownership would be transferred to him. It is contrary to how the industry is run, and thus without an agreement the client shouldn't expect that to happen. That is where I personally feel he is overstepping his bounds. Licensing on the other hand could be assumed that he would get a reasonable licensing term with fair usage for his purposes. Again as would be typical in such an arrangement, and the photographer is clearly offering that.

But with the client asking far more than what's reasonable under similar circumstances in the industry, and at such a cheap price, yea, IMO he is trying to walk all over the photographer.

Granted, all of this should have been worked out before hand, and could have saved them both a lot of trouble. His client was a lawyer, he also should have expected something in writing. He also should have known better.

Maybe he is just pissed off and trying to make a point. Or maybe that's just the way he operates. Either way, demanding for copyright ownership is akin to assuming he would be getting 1,000 8x10 prints of each image at the same price. Neither is industry standard, and both would need to be discussed with the photographer from the onset if they are expected as part of the project. Without discussing it ahead of time, neither should be assumed to be included.

The fault lies on both sides, but I think the photographer tried to appease the client by trying to limit his usage to satisfy the clients fears. All he is asking for is retention of his copyright, something granted by congress, normal in the industry, and agreed to by the vast majority of clients. He is offering unlimited rights usage for eternity, something over and above normal practices. The client is clearly receiving excellent terms compared to the industry average.

Yet the client has cast a line in stone, contrary to the industry practices, asking for more than normal, and threatening the photographer in an attempt to force him to comply.

That's over the line in my book. Cut him loose, let him sink or swim based on his own actions, and move on.

P51Mstg

23rd of July 2007 (Mon), 00:05

Actually if we go back to CONTRACTS 101 (which I took in law school in 1985), You have offer, acceptence and consideration.

We can say we have 2 of the 3 elements here. There was an offer to to pay you to shoot pictures and an acceptence by the photographer (or you can look at it the other way around), but no consideration.

Consideration in this case is money and can be other intangibles (which exist in this case simplified to COPYRIGHT). No money has changed hands and no settlement on the copyright issue, so there was never a contract.

Contracts also require a "meeting of the minds". Example, I say shoot pics for me and I'll give you a piece of fruit. You say yes. I'm thinking apples and you are thinking oranges, hence NO CONTRACT.

Here, Photog is thinking I'll do it at a low price and keep the copyright, if I was giving up the copyright, the price would be much higher (10x for example). The customer is thinking, I'll get the pics and the copyright for a low price what a deal. Customer might not have been willing to accept the contract at a price of 10X. Also might not have been willing to take any deal where he didn't get the copyright.

So thats the legal contract basis here.

In short I stand by "the customer/client is an a$$___le anyways"

Mark H

sfaust

23rd of July 2007 (Mon), 09:05

Based on everything I understand, there was a clear contract between the photographer and the client for the items actually discussed and agreed to. But no contract regarding copyright ownership since it was never discussed.

For the items actually discussed, the photographer obviously extended a price to the client for his services, which was accepted by the client. The client conveyed that the images will be used in their marketing, brochures, web, etc, which was agreed to by the photographer.

So the price and use were accepted by the client and photographer, they executed the photography session under that agreement, and with payment to be deferred until the job is complete. My belief is that it would be a clear contact since consideration was clearly defined to both parties, but just deferred until the job was executed.

I do agree there is no contract regarding copyright ownership since it was never discussed initially, nor any mention of consideration.

Even if this was a written agreement rather than verbal, I think the same issue would have arisen if the photographer didn't have a clause that specifically states copyright ownership. Their would still be a struggle over who owns copyright since it wasn't spelled out.

What gets me is that the photographer has offered to give the client full use of the images, for eternity, for whatever he pleases! The photographer has agreed to be contractually bound NOT to use the images in anything other than his own portfolio. This as close to owning the copyright as you can get without actually owning it.

The client shouldn't have any issues with this arrangement. He is just playing hard ball, and with no tangible gain.

P51Mstg

23rd of July 2007 (Mon), 09:47

Two basic problems from a legal standpoint.

First, "No meeting of the minds", see post above.

Second, Consideration was not EXCHANGED (IE no money passed), if it had passed and THEN the customer/client said "I expected copyrights ownership", then its a problem. Of course its an issue of fact for a jury and who is really going to sue over $350 of pictures. Cheaper to get them reshot.

I'm sure you heard it before, but get a coptract before you put the memory card in the camera.

Of course in this case with clothing or fashions as an issue, how long would the pics really be of value for? Maybe 6 months is longer than needed.

Mark H

sfaust

23rd of July 2007 (Mon), 11:38

Well, now I'm really confused.

So you are saying that if no consideration is exchanged, it's not a contract, and not enforceable?

Doe's that mean that if a client agrees to one of my contracts, verbally or written, and we never exchange any 'consideration' since the agreement is such that "Payment will be due in full upon delivery of images", that we have no contract at all?

Or if I sign a contract with a vendor to provide me with $10,000 worth of goods to be delivered in 90 days, with payment to be due upon delivery, that for 89 days I am under no contractual obligation to fulfill that contract since I never exchanged any consideration? And I could call him on day 89 and cancel the delivery without any legal repercussions? That doesn't seem right, but if it all falls apart because there is no consideration as you suggest, then that would indeed be the case.

This has a wide impact for commercial photographers if true, since most contracts don't involve a transfer of consideration when signed. The client usually pays 30 days after the service is performed, and in many cases, 90 days after. If the contract isn't valid until 90 days after the service is performed, where does that leave all the commercial photographers and their contracts?

If performance of the service satisfies the consideration portion, which is how I understand it, then the contract would be valid from the time the photographer starts performance of the contact with the clients approval.

If that's the case, when this photographer performed the service for this client under his approval, consideration was indeed exchanged validating the contract. Granted they still had a disconnect regarding the copyright ownership, but that doesn't alleviate the client from fulfilling the other areas of the contract not in dispute.

I'm not a lawyer, so I could be all wrong on this. But this is how my attorney presented it to me when my contracts were drafted.

zembu

23rd of July 2007 (Mon), 15:11

Thanks for the update. There is nothing wrong with just walking away ... probably the more mature thing to do ...

but ... if you want to get "even" ... I'd send the client a bill for your time. I'd also check with the BAR Association to see if he is in good standing ... then lodge a complaint against him for intimidation. If he doesn't pay then I'd check in with the BBB, the Chamber of Commerce and take him to Small Claims. Remember that his time (at least in his mind) is much more valuable than your time. And I'd blog him. Similar to what you did here ... just state the facts for others in his/your community to reach their own conclusion. Guys like him hate to see themselves in the mirror.

Good luck to you.

Gary

I have no regrets in walking away, so thank you Gary. Your suggested ideas of getting even were indeed entertaining to read, but I'll be laying low now. I saw enough fire to let aside the fuel. But again, thank you. It is nice when another photographer can empathize.

I'd be carefull about "blogging" a former atty. Any information made public about his company or his name may be misconstrued as slander.

Removing the gallery and walking away would be the best approach. Keep professional.

Yes. I am very done.

As a retired lawyer, I can tell you one of the reasons I retired from that was because of people like your client. Lawyers are generally lazy, stupid and total a$$ho_es. IF you find one that isn't, you should hang on to him.

Also I dealt with what I refer to as the "General Public" quite a bit. These people are never satisified. If they won $50mil in the lottery, they would be unhappy because someone else won more or if they won it the next week it would have been $60mil. Those people make life and work a great displeasure.

For this guy, I'd send him a note and say I can only hold the picture files a few more days (15 days) then they get deleted which is my standard business practice for pictures that are not paid for.

Also send him a bill for something ($300 for example) for your out of pocket expenses.

The use the photos for 6 months, we keep the copyright for $350 is more than fair.

Mark H

I'm glad you see it that way. It's unfortunate that such a rate + service was not satisfactory for the client. And sorry to hear about your past dealings with effervescent greed. Certainly does not sound like an inviting demographic. As for sending a bill, I'm fine with just the lesson learned and an unabused copyright. I appreciate your words Mark, thanks.

Zembu, that is good to hear that things worked out for the better...in terms of walking away from a one-sided deal. I bet if he was treated like he treated you, he would not be a happy camper. I agree with those above that $350 and 6 months use was a very fair proposal.

Thanks man. Your support means a lot.

A "work for hire" situation is ten times the original fee. That will give him unlimited use and eliminates the likelihood of you selling the images to porn or gun sites;) If that is unacceptable, you own the images and will sell them to the highest bidder. Give him ten days and act as though you already have interested parties.

I have also read that such an assignment (Work for Hire) is discussed and agreed upon in writing, far in advance between client and photog, in part, due to the extent of rights the client will be receiving. Obviously, such an assignment was never mentioned to me prior, during, nor after the shoot by the client. And I was certainly not expecting such an unrealistic request being that their claimed budget was $300. I actually had to push for $350.

Thank you for your feedback, it's definitely been far beyond 10 days, but to be honest I don't see these images going anywhere but the trash bin on my desktop.

Zembu, you did the right thing by just walking away with your dignity intact and a great lesson in business agreements. Always have it in writing, even if its just an e-mail.

When first contacted by a client, they usually want a price. When I give them an estimate, or even just inquire about more details on the job, I try to attach a text with my standard policies on it. It covers things like copyright retention, billing terms, image delivery format, cancellations, etc. Short, but to the point. This at least covers me to show the client was informed just in case I don't send a more formal estimate or quote. If the initial contact is by phone, I tell them I'll follow up with a confirmation by e-mail or fax, mainly just to get something written.

I would refrain from doing anything with the images other than possibly displaying them in your portfolio as long as there are no trademark or model release issues. If there are, then I'd just file them away on the hard drive with an attached note that they are 'tainted'. While I like some of the ideas presented (creative!), I think when you wrestle with pigs, all you do is get dirty, and I'd rather leave clean :) This client isn't salvageable, and not worth the $350 you would have gained, nor spending any more time on him.

If he sends another draft of the contract, I'd just respond with a two or three line statement that its unacceptable and the only agreement you will consider at this point is the one you submitted from your attorney which covers the original verbal agreement, and the new restrictions on you to cover his fear of misusing the images. If he signs it and returns it with a CASHIERS CHECK, you will provide the images, but will not release them under any other circumstances.

Keep everything you do concise, honest, using good business practices, but stand your ground on your principles. Let him dig his own hole in the ground to bury himself should it ever go to court. The more you look like you are trying to appease his concerns in a professional manner, and the more he pushes for more than originally asked, the better the outcome will be for you.

Chances are it will never get that far, and he'll either infringe, eventually disappear and cut his losses, or finally cave and pay you. If you are fine with the last two, and covered on the first, there isn't anything else you should be doing. You've got the cards, and you don't have nothing to loose by waiting it out.

Thank you Stephen.

Once again, I entirely agree with your approach to this particular situation, as well as where it's gone. I've devoted A LOT of my personal time towards this issue and have put in a substantial amount of thought (even money) into it as well. Since the issue began, I've done all I could within the boundaries of reasonable business practice, time and time again, to please the client. Yet all efforts remain either unanswered or unacknowledged. I know it is instinctive for some to say that I should press on and retaliate, but you're right, that I should lay low. Honestly, I do not have the time, nor desire to further complicate or provoke the situation either way.

Through out this ordeal I have made sure to remain very honest and direct in all of my attempts to resolve the situation between the client and I. From the get-go, it was apparent to me that this was the type of client that wants to be in as much control as possible, even if that meant he had to bend some rules within fair business practice. This made it very difficult to communicate with the client on a level field.

What gets to me, is that if the client intended the shoot to be a Work for Hire assignment all along, why wouldn't he mention this the very moment he had a problem with my contract? Instead, the client claimed his only concerns were "pornographic and pro-gun" usage. So when I proposed that I wouldn't use the images for such purposes (not that I would anyway), one could only wonder as to why the client still refused to give my contract back. Chances are, I would have walked away on the spot if I had known why he really wanted to change my contract around. And I think he knows that, which is why the client chose to "handle" the situation the way he did.

P.S. By chance, could you PM me a sample of the attached mini-disclaimer you use?
It sounds like a great idea. (Doesn't have to be word-for-word; just for reference.)

Thanks again Stephen for all your help.

Zembu:

Since you're in San Diego, I recommend that you check out the APA chapter there. The web address is www.apasd.org. This mini-disaster could have easily been avoided with proper business practices. While I admire the fact that you stood up for yourself, it was too little too late and wasn't fair to you or your client.

Success in commercial photogrphy is not just about knowing the equipment. It's about understanding the process for making money. That's the trickiest part of the business and there's few good resources for education. The APA (Advertising Photographers of America) has excellent talks on the business and their monthly roundtables are a great way to speak one on one with established pros. It's well worth the minimal investment.

John

Thank you very much for that link John.
Something like the San Diego APA sounds very inviting and appropriate.

By far, my biggest lesson learned here was timing of contract and establishing a very clear mutual agreement based on terms and conditions. Although this was the first time I ever had a client sign at the end of the shoot, versus prior, it's a shame that this was also my first real commercial shoot.

"Success in commercial photography is not just about knowing the equipment."

Indeed. I feel this way about photography in general, but especially true in this case. It is evident that there is so much for me to learn in the business aspect of commercial photography. I'm determined to eventually be the one teaching the ropes, rather than the one climbing them with buttered-hands.

Zembu:

I've followed this thread since the beginning and have to say that you've acted very professionally since this situation began. You stuck it out, nice one. A painful yet educational experience.

From this point on, I would ignore every communication he sends without consulting your lawyer first.

My hat is off to you sir!

Thank you!!!
Seriously.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with the notion that the client is trying "to walk all over you" as one poster opined. Basic contract law holds that an offer AND an acceptance is necessary to create a contract. Obviously, the second element of that is missing here. Hence, there is no contract. (Technically, that means you are also not bound by your compensation "agreement" but to change it at this late date probably would not be a good business idea).

Since his products and/or company identity might be recognizable from the pictures, I think he has a legitimate concern that they not be used in an unattractive setting. On the other hand, he would not be entitled to an "all rights" agreement without a mutual agreement with you to that effect which should also include an appropriate compensation.

Frankly, I would look at what modification to the contract he proposes. It might be worth it to consult a lawyer at that point if you have the least bit of doubt as to how the modified terms might affect your legitimate future interest. However, I would be surprised if you could not agree on terms that would meet his concerns and still allow you to use the pictures for reasonable future purposes. Perhaps something like what your contract form presently provides with exceptions banning use for pornographic purposes or for gun advertising. If the latter exception would be too limiting for you than you may no other option but to decline the work. But before you do, you should weigh the present benefits of being paid against speculative future income from gun interests and particularly if the nature oif the pictures are unlikely to be of interest to that industry in any case.

And I heartily agree you MUST have a contract fully negotiated and signed well before shooting day. If you don't, you not only weaken your bargaining power but also create very poor client relations. There is enough to worry about on shooting day without last minute haggling over contract details. A professional is expected to have control over that sort of thing.

Good luck,

Bruce

Thanks for your feedback Bruce.

However, I hope you took the time to carefully read the original post.
Or better yet, the entire thread. Much of what you suggest (bolded paragraph)
has already been addressed, if not already occurred and put into action. But thank you anyway.
While I appreciate such an extensive response, please take the time to fully understand the given situation. Thanks again.

Critical Points I'd like to make:

• My contract was indeed signed by the client at the end of the shoot by a supervisor.
• It was the CEO (former lawyer) that refused to give my contract back, and proceeded to cross out the signature.
• The client explains the reason being: Fear of misuse of the images. (Since I retain copyright.)
• I propose to alleviate that concern in writing.
• The client refuses and insists that HE will revise it himself because, "he is a former lawyer."
• I contact the client several (3) times during a two week period, in regards to the status of my "revised" contract.
I get NO response each time.
• Even with no contract now, I STILL worked on, and put up their private online client gallery.
• I end up waiting nearly half a month to get my contract back.
• Instead of a revision, I receive a release that forfeits my copyrights entirely and still holds me 100% liable, while receiving no profits from sales, nor any increase in compensation.
• My response to their "out-of-nowhere" release was a written proposal that simply repeated my contract and confirmed the licensing term, except this time, I agreed to not use the images what so ever, not even for a client-gallery (since that was the client's claimed concern.) So talk about a sacrifice on my part. And there was no way I was going to sign their release for the price they were willing to pay me, as well as after the fact they had misled me into believing that the "revisions" to my contract would fairly benefit both parties.

--
I'd also like to reiterate:

I never had the intention to use the images for pornography and/or pro gun sites.
That concern was fabricated by the client.

Because you wrote, "...you should weigh the present benefits of being paid against speculative future income from gun interests and particularly if the nature of the pictures are unlikely to be of interest to that industry..."

So yeah, just wanted to make that clear.
That was never my intention to begin with.

--
I should also re-mention that the client claimed their budget was $300. Nothing more. I had to push for $350 (and this was with their assumption that they were getting "Work for Hire" which I was never informed about.) So please know, that this particular client was NOT very willing to negotiate costs appropriately either. But, I DO agree that his concern (misuse by the photographer) is a legitimate one (even though I'd never deliberately do such.) And that contracts should be fully negotiated and signed well before the shoot. But again, these points have already been addressed several times.

--
If after reading the points above, you still feel that this client was playing fair, then you are certainly free to hold that opinion. However, I can not agree having witnessed first-hand my repeated cooperation and reasonability versus the absence of theirs.

But, I do appreciate your feedback Bruce. Thank you.

...However, since ownership of copyright was never discussed there is no good reason why the client should assume ownership would be transferred to him. It is contrary to how the industry is run, and thus without an agreement the client shouldn't expect that to happen. That is where I personally feel he is overstepping his bounds. Licensing on the other hand could be assumed that he would get a reasonable licensing term with fair usage for his purposes. Again as would be typical in such an arrangement, and the photographer is clearly offering that...

100% agree.

The fault lies on both sides, but I think the photographer tried to appease the client by trying to limit his usage to satisfy the clients fears. All he is asking for is retention of his copyright, something granted by congress, normal in the industry, and agreed to by the vast majority of clients. He is offering unlimited rights usage for eternity, something over and above normal practices. The client is clearly receiving excellent terms compared to the industry average...

Exactly. Except I proposed a 6-month license, not eternal.
Either way, I think your points remain very valid.
Thanks Stephen.

--
Actually if we go back to CONTRACTS 101 (which I took in law school in 1985), You have offer, acceptence and consideration.

We can say we have 2 of the 3 elements here. There was an offer to to pay you to shoot pictures and an acceptence by the photographer (or you can look at it the other way around), but no consideration.

Consideration in this case is money and can be other intangibles (which exist in this case simplified to COPYRIGHT). No money has changed hands and no settlement on the copyright issue, so there was never a contract.

Contracts also require a "meeting of the minds". Example, I say shoot pics for me and I'll give you a piece of fruit. You say yes. I'm thinking apples and you are thinking oranges, hence NO CONTRACT.

Here, Photog is thinking I'll do it at a low price and keep the copyright, if I was giving up the copyright, the price would be much higher (10x for example). The customer is thinking, I'll get the pics and the copyright for a low price what a deal. Customer might not have been willing to accept the contract at a price of 10X. Also might not have been willing to take any deal where he didn't get the copyright.

So thats the legal contract basis here.

In short I stand by "the customer/client is an a$$___le anyways"

..Two basic problems from a legal standpoint.

First, "No meeting of the minds", see post above.

Second, Consideration was not EXCHANGED (IE no money passed), if it had passed and THEN the customer/client said "I expected copyrights ownership", then its a problem. Of course its an issue of fact for a jury and who is really going to sue over $350 of pictures. Cheaper to get them reshot.

I'm sure you heard it before, but get a coptract before you put the memory card in the camera.

Of course in this case with clothing or fashions as an issue, how long would the pics really be of value for? *Maybe 6 months is longer than needed.

Mark H
Well, now I'm really confused.

So you are saying that if no consideration is exchanged, it's not a contract, and not enforceable?

Doe's that mean that if a client agrees to one of my contracts, verbally or written, and we never exchange any 'consideration' since the agreement is such that "Payment will be due in full upon delivery of images", that we have no contract at all?

Or if I sign a contract with a vendor to provide me with $10,000 worth of goods to be delivered in 90 days, with payment to be due upon delivery, that for 89 days I am under no contractual obligation to fulfill that contract since I never exchanged any consideration? And I could call him on day 89 and cancel the delivery without any legal repercussions? That doesn't seem right, but if it all falls apart because there is no consideration as you suggest, then that would indeed be the case.

This has a wide impact for commercial photographers if true, since most contracts don't involve a transfer of consideration when signed. The client usually pays 30 days after the service is performed, and in many cases, 90 days after. If the contract isn't valid until 90 days after the service is performed, where does that leave all the commercial photographers and their contracts?

If performance of the service satisfies the consideration portion, which is how I understand it, then the contract would be valid from the time the photographer starts performance of the contact with the clients approval.

If that's the case, when this photographer performed the service for this client under his approval, consideration was indeed exchanged validating the contract. Granted they still had a disconnect regarding the copyright ownership, but that doesn't alleviate the client from fulfilling the other areas of the contract not in dispute.

I'm not a lawyer, so I could be all wrong on this. But this is how my attorney presented it to me when my contracts were drafted.

^
I find this all very interesting.
Would love some clarification/confirmation on this "consideration" topic.

*Sidenote: Yes, I think a 6-month license was longer than needed for the client, seeing as how the images were intended for a summer clothing catalog. But that's just me showing fair-play.

P51Mstg

24th of July 2007 (Tue), 01:16

Sorry, lots to say, and little time, got a full day of pictures in the AM

2 Things here. Since (I didn't know this before) the SUPERVISOR SIGNED THE CONTRACT (obviously an agent of the company and was authorized to do it), its binding. I mean, his boss; the owner can't simply say "OH my employee signed the contracts, I don't like it, I'll just cross out his signature and write a new one"

BS, maybe when you get the "new contract", the Photographer signs it and then The Photographer's's WIFE doesn't like it and she rips it up to write a new one. You'd never get any business done. Who knows who will rip it up next, maybe the janitor, maybe the model, maybe the girl at the McDonald's drive in. HEY ONCE ITS SIGNED ITS BOUND. If the XLAWYER doesn't like it, take it out of the employee who signed it's a$$ (more than likely nobody is goign to be working there long term anyways).

QUESTION????? Where did the images fall as far as guns and porn were concerned? I mean were the models nude? (I thought it was a clothing shoot, hence they should be wearing clothes). I mean MAYBE you could use them as porn (Our Porn mags/websites don't have any photos like this in them ....... (girls wearing clothes). Were there guns, bullet holes or bloood on them (I doubt it). I think his "fears" are unfounded....

Last issue is exchange of consideration. Emphasis on the EXCHANGE (physical transfer of money.

It should go like this.
I agree to shoot pics
You agree to pay me $300. We agree on copyright/useage.
I show up and take pics.
You write a check
I deliver pics
I keep copyright and you use pics for 6 months. All are happy...
Contract is fufilled

What happened was
I agree to shoot pics
You agree to pay me $300. We DO NOT MENTION copyright/useage.
I show up and take pics.
You say I WANT THE COPYRIGHT, I REFUSE TO PAY
I DONT DELIVER PICS
Contract was NOT FINISHED AND BREACHED.

SFAUST:
So you are saying that if no consideration is exchanged, it's not a contract, and not enforceable?
__> You don't have a completed agreement you have a breach of contract. Here, we never had a "meeting of the minds" (no agreement on copyright).

Doctors have it easy. You can diagram humans and they all basically work the same way. Law has a lot of balancing going on and many times no simple answers. You need to consider many factors.

Photography is similar to law. To take a picture you need to JUGGLE a few things:
Pick a lens (prime or zoom, what F Stop range (F4 or F2.8 or F5.6??)
Pick camera settings (set on auto; or pick a shutter/aperature/ISO/White Balance setting/ Picture style, etc)

Then Pic the subject and frame it. (Shoot with telephoto and do less cropping or use a wide angle and enlarge subject).

Snap (must hold steady or use a tripod) Shutter

Do you photoshop it??

Then can you findsomeone who likes all your selection which result in sales.

If you screw up one element, the picture comes out bad. But you can go through many different paths to get to the end (screw it up in the camera and you can fix it in Photoshop); but if you take a picture of a mountain when people are buying pics of beaches, it isn't going to work.....................

So there are no simple answers in photography, there are no simple answers in law either...

So if you think about it, photgraphy (DONE WELL) is a tough job. So you wver wonder why people spend a lifetime trying to master golf................

Mark H

blackshadow

24th of July 2007 (Tue), 09:01

I know you have spent a lot of time on this matter zembu and you haven't seen any money for it. From what I know of the law the client has clearly breached the contract considering their representative signed the contract. If you have a small claims tribunal in your jurisdiction I would be lodging a claim against the client there for the $350 (and extra expenses you have incurred trying to enforce your contract).
I know you are probably heartily sick of the whole matter so you will probably wash your hands and take it as a lesson learned.

overclock

24th of July 2007 (Tue), 09:45

One afternoon, a wealthy lawyer was riding in the back of his limousine when he saw two pathetic-looking men by the side of the road, eating grass. He ordered his driver to stop and got out to investigate. He asked the men, "Why are you eating grass?"

"We don't have no money for food," the first man replied.

"Then you must come with me to my house," insisted the lawyer.

"But, sir, I got a wife and three kids here," said the man.

"Bring them along!" replied the lawyer.

The second man exclaimed, "I got a wife and six kids!"

"Bring them as well!", the lawyer proclaimed as he headed back to his limo.

They all climbed into the car, and once underway, one of the men expresses, "Sir, you are too kind. Thank you for taking all of us with you."

The lawyer replied, "I'm most happy to do it. You'll love my place. The grass is almost a foot tall."

P51Mstg

24th of July 2007 (Tue), 09:49

Since you mentioned it:

The same wealthy lawyer was in a car wreck. His wife was killed, he is standing by the car crying. A State Trooper pulls up and talks to him. The Trooper says I'm sorry about your wife, the lawyer says "Her? My beautiful Mercedes will never be the same....".

Then the Trooper says "MY GOD YOU'VE HAD YOUR LEFT ARM CUT OFF!!!"

The Lawyer says "My Rollex, my beautiful Rollex...."

When you are a lawyer, everyone tells you lawyer jokes, and there isn't a lot of new ones out there......

Mark H

overclock

24th of July 2007 (Tue), 11:11

What about this one:

Q: What does a lawyer and a sperm have in common?

A: They both have a one in a 50 million chance of becoming human.

Seefutlung

24th of July 2007 (Tue), 13:05

Why do lawyers wear neckties (segway with the clothing in this thread)?

So their foreskin doesn't show. (rimshot)

sfaust

27th of July 2007 (Fri), 15:35

Love the jokes. Spot on :)

What happened was
I agree to shoot pics
You agree to pay me $300. We DO NOT MENTION copyright/useage.
I show up and take pics.
You say I WANT THE COPYRIGHT, I REFUSE TO PAY
I DONT DELIVER PICS
Contract was NOT FINISHED AND BREACHED.

SFAUST:
So you are saying that if no consideration is exchanged, it's not a contract, and not enforceable?
__> You don't have a completed agreement you have a breach of contract. Here, we never had a "meeting of the minds" (no agreement on copyright).
Mark H

You are right, the client breached the contract. But for a breach to happen, there must be a contract to breach.

IMO what really happened was;

Photog agreed to shoot pics for client.
Client agreed to pay $350 for that service, and the images.
Photog ad client agree to clients use in marketing/advertising, etc
Photog and client executed the shoot as agreed.
Client then tried to renegotiate contract with additional new items.
Photog tried to deliver service/images as originally agreed upon.
Client refused/presented contract with NEW terms.
Client refuses to purchase images unless photog signs new contract.OR another example..

Homeowner called builder to add 2 car garage with 3 windows.
They verbally agreed on a price, schedule, and timeframe, payment on delivery of keys for finished structure .
Builder finished all work as agreed upon, and tried to collect payment and deliver the keys.
Homeowner now says he assumed it would include a 10x14 attached laundry room, and presents a written contract stating so and won't pay until the builder signs it.
Builder refuses to sign the new contract, but agrees to deliver against original verbal agreement.
Homeowner doesn't pay, send another contract with more harsh terms.

The photographer IS willing to deliver the images as promised in return for the $350 the client promised. The client however, isn't willing to deliver the $350. Instead, he is withholding payment insisting on additional terms that are outside of the original agreement.

As I mentioned earlier, just because two parties never discussed the disposition of the clients first male born child, doesn't absolve either party of fulfilling the original contractual agreement.

I agree there is on contact regarding copyright ownership. But there was a verbal agreement regarding the photography service and delivery of images for the clients use in marketing and advertising for $350.

P51Mstg

27th of July 2007 (Fri), 21:52

As in most legal matters its difficult to get a layman to understand. I could write here forever and someone would always be able to say "but what if .......?"

Thats why lawyers make $250 an hour or a lot more and you can get all the justice in America that you can afford.

In medicine there is an answer; fixing cars, there is an answer; Law doesn't have simple answers.

Change gears for a second and look at the garage example.

Make it a BIT more reasonable.
Homeowner called builder to add 2 car garage with 3 windows.
They verbally agreed on a price, schedule, and timeframe, payment on delivery of keys for finished structure .
Builder finished all work as agreed upon, and tried to collect payment and deliver the keys. BUILDER FINISHED AS BUILDERS CUSTOMARILY DO IN THEIR AREA. Dirt floor and studs on walls; no drywall or paint.
Homeowner EXPECTED 6" reinforced concrete floor and painted drywall on walls.

Without going further, do we have a completed contract, a breached contract, or there was never really a contract (no meeting of the minds).

You can argue all of these existed. Eventually a judge (who decides matters of law) or with a Jury (who decides matters of fact) will make a decision on this.

That garage that had been agreed to build for $20,000, will now have a few other costs. For the missing $5,000 concrete and $3000 of drywall, to get it to a jury will cost the homeowner and the builder each about $20,000 in legal fees.

No matter what happens, its pretty clear that the homeowner will pay builder $20k for the garage. The real fight is over the floor and walls which cost $8000.

If the homeowner LOSES he is out $20k to his lawyer and gets no walls/floor. Builder is out $20k to his lawyer (tax deductible which only costs him about $12k out of his pocket as a business expense).

If Homeowner WINS he is out $20k to his lawyer and gets $8k floor/walls, builder is out $20k to his lawyer and $8k for floor walls.

In all, it is better if SOMEONE thinks settlement is a good idea. Simply SPLIT it, each side is out $4k and everyone is FAR ahead of fighting it. Even with lawyers, $3k each in attorney fees to settle it additional.

Here we are talking $350 of pics. If I was busines owner, I'd get them reshot and specify I get copyright in the agreement. Everytime I shot a TV commerical I got the copyright. Saved me a fortune and then some.

Of course, next time may be a $5000 shoot and have $10k in setup charges where it is hard to set up again. The outcome may well be different.

Over the years I figured something out practicing law. If people talked to or got lawyers sooner, they would save a FORTUNE in the long run. In different terms they would see me when it was too late (daddy just died of lung cancer doctor, should he have stopped smoking 30 years ago); In law I'd just say, its goign to take a lot of work to fix it, is it worth it to you???????

Mark H

sfaust

28th of July 2007 (Sat), 17:31

I don't have an issue understanding it, but I've taken law also, so I have a slight edge over a typical laymen :) I do understand the three basic parts of a contract. What I disagree with is how its applied based on what I've been taught, and what seems to be the status quo regarding everyday agreements. Contracts are being considered valid by the courts all the time even though no 'consideration was exchanged' when signed. And courts are holding signatories to their agreed upon obligations even though some other points may be in dispute.

And a circular question just for fun... Is a contract under dispute really a contract? If there is a dispute, there is no meeting of the minds. If there is no meeting of the minds, there is no contract. If there is no contract, what's the dispute about? (remember its just for fun, and could be argued forever with no resolution)

I believe the OP and client had an agreement regarding the photographer showing up and taking the images, then delivering the images to the client, and the client using those images in the manner they originally discussed. These are not under contention, both agreed to those terms up front, so a meeting of the minds indeed took place on these points.

They obviously didn't have a meeting of the minds with regard to the copyright ownership. They couldn't have, since it was never discussed prior to the work being performed. It was presented after the fact, and immediately disagreed upon. Thus they don't have any agreement or contractual obligations regarding copyright ownership.

I further believe that their disagreement over the copyright ownership doesn't invalidate their earlier agreed upon obligations. If the reverse was true, any contractual obligations could be invalidated by conjuring up new terms never before discussed and saying the contract is void since there was never a 'meeting of the minds'.

I think we are digressing further and further from the OPs original questions, and more an more into the finer details of law, and probably not on topic for this discussion. We probably won't ever see eye to eye on this, but I don't want to turn the thread into a debate on law.

But the advise we do see eye to eye on. Best to avoid the legal route unless there is no other choice. And to engage a lawyer early on, especially when not under the gun and needed immediately. The best thing I did was interview and pick my IP lawyer early on, and meet with him over various issues prior to ever need him. Money well spent. Same goes for an accountant.

John Mireles

29th of July 2007 (Sun), 02:58

Seefutlung

29th of July 2007 (Sun), 13:36

You can go back and forth as to whether an agreement was reached or a contract in existance and so on, but it really doesn't matter here. The bottom line is that the photographer screwed up by not nailing all this down beforehand.

This stuff is not unusual when dealing with "client direct" clients. Client direct is usually the toughest client to deal with. They are often cheap, visually unsophisticated and uneducated with respect to usage and ownership. They are business owners who've succeeded through a lot of hard work and are often used to getting their way. Nowadays, when it comes to commercial work, I rarely work with client direct for just those reasons. I'd rather work for ad agencies since the money is better and I don't have to get into debates about ownership etc.

All that aside, an experienced commercial photographer would have never let this situation unfold in the way that it did. This situation reminds me a of a kid with a brand new driver's license getting on the freeway for the first time and blaming all the other drivers for cutting him off and driving too fast. To mix my metaphors, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

This client acted completely predictably. I've seen this happen time and time again in my 17 years in commercial photography. The thing to do is learn from the experience, learn to implement the best business practices for commercial photography, get involved with groups like the APA so that you can learn from more experienced pros and always, always use a contract. Then you won't be having this discussion.

John

How can you say the photog screwed up when he had a signed agreement. Albeit the timing wasn't the best as it was signed at the shoot ... but it was a signed agreement nonetheless ... the owner took the signed contract scratched out the clothing company signature then decided to keep the contract so he can rewrite the agreement on his terms.

I doubt that any contract could have been reached with this client, short of a 100% agreement in the client's favor, would have prevented the photog from getting screwed. If Zembu had a sign contract prior to the shoot ... then the client would had been SOL in doing what he did at the scene of the crime ... he probably would have acted in the same manner but Zembu. armed with a signed contract, would have a lot more meat on the bones of his case/argument against the client (the client probably would have argued that the the signed didn't have corporate signatory power).

My Two Cents
Gary

John Mireles

29th of July 2007 (Sun), 15:02

From Gary:

How can you say the photog screwed up when he had a signed agreement.

That's not what I read. Here's what was posted in the original post. Seems pretty clear to me:

Last Wednesday I did a shoot for a major clothing line. The shoot itself went great. It was for their female branch of clothes. It involved four models and they also gave me an assistant photographer. However, I did not present my contract (terms and conditions) until the end of the shoot (second mistake, I know!!!)

From Gary:

I doubt that any contract could have been reached with this client, short of a 100% agreement in the client's favor, That may well have been the case. If the photographer had presented the contract before the job was assigned, he'd probably never have shot the job and we wouldn't be dealing with this issue. I think we all agree that this is one client that would not have been missed.

John

sfaust

29th of July 2007 (Sun), 15:46

That may well have been the case. If the photographer had presented the contract before the job was assigned, he'd probably never have shot the job and we wouldn't be dealing with this issue. I think we all agree that this is one client that would not have been missed.

John

The best part of working for yourself?

You can fire your boss (clients)!

If I don't like the way the initial contact is going, I raise my prices since they will most likely be a pain in the a$$ during the shoot. And that deserves premium pricing!

Seefutlung

29th of July 2007 (Sun), 17:13

From Gary:

That's not what I read. Here's what was posted in the original post. Seems pretty clear to me:

From Gary:

That may well have been the case. If the photographer had presented the contract before the job was assigned, he'd probably never have shot the job and we wouldn't be dealing with this issue. I think we all agree that this is one client that would not have been missed.

John

John-

It was not revealed originally ... but as the story developed more specific facts became evident.

Gary

Quoted from Zembu's recap:

"Critical Points I'd like to make:

• My contract was indeed signed by the client at the end of the shoot by a supervisor.
• It was the CEO (former lawyer) that refused to give my contract back, and proceeded to cross out the signature.
• The client explains the reason being: Fear of misuse of the images. (Since I retain copyright.)
• I propose to alleviate that concern in writing.
• The client refuses and insists that HE will revise it himself because, "he is a former lawyer."
• I contact the client several (3) times during a two week period, in regards to the status of my "revised" contract.
I get NO response each time.
• Even with no contract now, I STILL worked on, and put up their private online client gallery.
• I end up waiting nearly half a month to get my contract back.
• Instead of a revision, I receive a release that forfeits my copyrights entirely and still holds me 100% liable, while receiving no profits from sales, nor any increase in compensation.
• My response to their "out-of-nowhere" release was a written proposal that simply repeated my contract and confirmed the licensing term, except this time, I agreed to not use the images what so ever, not even for a client-gallery (since that was the client's claimed concern.) So talk about a sacrifice on my part. And there was no way I was going to sign their release for the price they were willing to pay me, as well as after the fact they had misled me into believing that the "revisions" to my contract would fairly benefit both parties."

John Mireles

30th of July 2007 (Mon), 00:21

My point remains that had the photographer presented the contract prior to the shoot and not performed any work without a signed contract, none of this would have happened.

Before I show up at a shoot, I expect a signed contract and an advance payment. I've had big productions ready to go down, but no check. I make it very clear that unless I get my check, there will be no shoot. I always get paid. Better to deal with these issues before the shoot - when I have leverage - than after when I've already done the work and I'm out of pocket with the money for the production.

John

sdphotoforum.com

31st of July 2007 (Tue), 08:08

Lots of great points and bad ones.

One thing I notice is that your from San Diego, If you in fact shot the material in California you have indeed a verbal contract. A service was performed on your part which gives due performance, they supplied models and material..... Your defense is hey didnt show up to sign in the time agreed (Shoot Started @ 4:00pm and you had a 2hr window, Client didn't show up till 6pm SERVICE FOR SERVICE) I can recall several time's signing after a shoot, How can the client sign for something that hasn't been shot yet, What photos are to be released if none have been taken.

Im not sure where you are in this problem but hope all is well.

I can strongly suggest joining a Photography Organization such as PPA, their law team would have walked you in the right direction @ no extra charge.

Don't let the Lawyer quote bother you, there's a reason why he's not a lawyer anymore!