Say something or remain silent?

[u_loco_local]

I gave to the family member of an artist permission to use some of my images taken of the artist for personal use and allowed them to print photos to give to family members.
Recently, I found out that one of the images was printed, autographed, and given to at least one of the artist's fans. There was no money made from that photo and nothing out of my pocket for printing, but this was not what I gave permission for. I thought it would be personal friends/family only.

I would think that kind of usage be considered "commercial" in a way, right?

I have a good professional relationship with these people and I don't want to cause any conflicts. I'm just wondering if I should send a friendly note reminding them that I prefer to not have any of the fans getting any of my photos as that is not what I allowed them to use them for.

I've been put in an awkward position because I don't want any more fans to be given any of my work at this time, unless we have a more specific written agreement.

How should I handle this? Should I not say anything, and wait to see if anyone else gets a photo? or, Say something now so no one else gets a photo?

[namasste]

First things first, "damage control". Yes, I think you have to say something and as long as its done in a professional way, I am sure they will understand. One thing to bear in mind is that this was your mistake and that leads me to point 2. If you give your work away, there's really nothing to be upset with (other than yourself) if its used in a way other than what you intended. I understand that there can be times to give stuff away but you should be able to quantify the benefit you accrue by doing so. If you can't I'd rethink it. The only time I give stuff to anyone is if its immediate family or for a cause I am involved with.

I learned this lesson the hard way and apologize if its something you already know. Just seems that this is exactly one of the many reasons it applies.

[RDKirk]

I gave to the family member of an artist permission to use some of my images taken of the artist for personal use and allowed them to print photos to give to family members.'

What does the license you gave them actually say?

[u_loco_local]

First things first, "damage control". Yes, I think you have to say something and as long as its done in a professional way, I am sure they will understand. One thing to bear in mind is that this was your mistake and that leads me to point 2. If you give your work away, there's really nothing to be upset with (other than yourself) if its used in a way other than what you intended. I understand that there can be times to give stuff away but you should be able to quantify the benefit you accrue by doing so. If you can't I'd rethink it. The only time I give stuff to anyone is if its immediate family or for a cause I am involved with.

I learned this lesson the hard way and apologize if its something you already know. Just seems that this is exactly one of the many reasons it applies.

Actually it was just one image file.

I don't give any of my work away for free, nor do I ever do ANY work for free or "gratis".
I was "compensated" for the image through an exchange of sorts that was appropriate. Maybe I should have mentioned that in my original post.


The file was sent on one condition: for personal use for their family.

Since it was immediate family, my agreement was to allow them usage to print the photo to give to their family members. That's it. I did not authorize them to print and autograph and give to any fans. That's not what I allowed that usage for.

[namasste]

Actually it was just one image file.

I don't give any of my work away for free, nor do I ever do ANY work for free or "gratis".
I was "compensated" for the image through an exchange of sorts that was appropriate. Maybe I should have mentioned that in my original post.


The file was sent on one condition: for personal use for their family.

Since it was immediate family, my agreement was to allow them usage to print the photo to give to their family members. That's it. I did not authorize them to print and autograph and give to any fans. That's not what I allowed that usage for.
in that case, you have every right to say something. as I mentioned, if its said in a professional manner, there should be no problem.

[u_loco_local]

in that case, you have every right to say something. as I mentioned, if its said in a professional manner, there should be no problem.

Thank you! :)

Yes, I'm just trying to come up with the nicest way to say it without causing any hard feelings or offending anyone. I don't want to come off as a jerk.

[Alleh]

How much money are you going to lose out on? Is it worth your relationship? Sounds pretty petty to me and I wouldn't bother.

[superstes]

How much money are you going to lose out on?

Sometimes it's not about the money.

The artist who gave away the signed photo should have known whether he had permission to give it away professionally, if he was unsure, he should have asked the photographer.

Is it worth your relationship? Sounds pretty petty to me and I wouldn't bother.No friends in business will just give you money to feed your family for free, there has to be an exchange, ie, photo usage for cold hard earned cash.

Time for a re think Alleh. JMHO.

[Karl Johnston]

Actually it was just one image file.

I don't give any of my work away for free, nor do I ever do ANY work for free or "gratis".
I was "compensated" for the image through an exchange of sorts that was appropriate. Maybe I should have mentioned that in my original post.


The file was sent on one condition: for personal use for their family.

Since it was immediate family, my agreement was to allow them usage to print the photo to give to their family members. That's it. I did not authorize them to print and autograph and give to any fans. That's not what I allowed that usage for.
:lol: What nerve...what kinda artist writes autographs on prints they didn't do in the first place?

[superstes]

:lol: What nerve...what kinda artist writes autographs on prints they didn't do in the first place?

I think it was a portrait that u_loco_local took that the artist was signing.

[Karl Johnston]

I think it was a portrait that u_loco_local took that the artist was signing.
Of the artist themselves? I suppose that makes sense, I was picturing something along the lines of ...anything but a portrait of themselves :lol:

[superstes]

Be interesting know to what the artist does, writer, singer, painter?
Can you enlighten us u_loco_local.

Steve

[u_loco_local]

It wasn't about the "money" in this case. I have a good relationship with these people, and have taken many photos of the "artist and company" on many occasions and am part of that "inner circle" so to speak.

The photo in question was a portrait of the artist. It wasn't something I took in a studio or had planned to do. It was a spontaneous quick pose photo, and the family happened to really like it. The Artist's immediate family contacted me for permission to make some prints for family and some very close friends.

That was OK, and it was my choice to allow it. I did receive some items that I took in exchange. I did not, however, know that this photo would be autographed and passed out to fans of the artist.

I don't care much for the "fans", and personally never wanted any of these fans to get any of my prints. I feel a little slighted by this whole thing because I have not chosen to sell any photos of the artist nor have I made any prints.

[RDKirk]

What did you contract or the note that accompanied the photograph, or letter or whatever actually say?

The fact is that unless the precise permissions (license) is stated--preferably in writing--most people today presume that possession of a print is possession of all rights to it.

Doesn't matter whether it's right that they do...it's just a fact that they do. Don't expect anything else.

[Metalstrm]

Most probably he gave it to them with no writing.. am I right?

Please let us know the outcome of the whole thing...

[u_loco_local]

Most probably he gave it to them with no writing.. am I right?

Please let us know the outcome of the whole thing...

There is no outcome yet. I haven't had time to contact the person and I'm still working on the email.

Our agreement was via email exchange, which, as I stated before, usage specifically was for family and their close friends. "Fans" does not fall into that category. We even talked on the phone about the usage as well.

This person that I had the agreement with is also a photographer, so they know about image "usage". I'm sure it was not intentional, but it's the principle that matters to me.

[Metalstrm]

There is no outcome yet. I haven't had time to contact the person and I'm still working on the email.

Our agreement was via email exchange, which, as I stated before, usage specifically was for family and their close friends. "Fans" does not fall into that category. We even talked on the phone about the usage as well.

This person that I had the agreement with is also a photographer, so they know about image "usage". I'm sure it was not intentional, but it's the principle that matters to me.

I think you are wholly in the right. Especially since this guy knows the stuff.

[PhotosGuy]

Sometimes it's not about the money. And if "one of the images was printed", I'm wondering just how good the print was? If it's a green underexposed print from the corner drugstore, it's now an example of your work.