TFP Model Altering my shot

[korrektor]

prety much what the topic says.
shot a TFP model
Model release don't state that she has no right to alter photos.
I gave pics to her and found out that she edited one of the shots. Changed the saturation levels, contrast... just gave it slightly a different look.
I need no opinions about the edit - it's a matter of taste, but the question is

is it legal for a TFP model to do so? model release states that I have all the rights to the pics but, again, nothing about the altering.



EDITED go to PORTFOLIO -look for a fulll body water shot
http://www.wix.com/klaralandrat/KLARAMODEL

ORIGINAL
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=791615

[zelseman]

it really isnt a huge difference between the two. Nothing that would make your work look worse because of her altering it. I would just add that clause to your contract.

[Karl Johnston]

oh god it's another wix website. Oo nifty music.

It looks like a very simple saturation change, I'd just leave it be. Nothing associating you with the image, really low quality too. Could be that wix is just rendering it more saturated, or perhaps resizing it. If it were me I wouldn't care, personally, long as I was paid. Maybe run it by her why she cannot do these things, and if she does display the original anywhere it has to be untouched - just as you had given it to her - if it is to be associated with your name.

Adding the clause is a great idea.

Often there's nothing you can do about it either way. Could go bat**** crazy and throw around legal crap but..that'd be going bat**** crazy :lol: not worth the hassle.

Better to improve relations with a previous client than anything and then see where it gets them. I assume you might have a clause in your contract to include royalties to yourself (or some compensation) if the image is picked up somewhere and used in a magazine or whatever. Though how many times does that really happen? I'm not really sure how LA works, though.

GN may give you more specific advice, I'd assume they'd have more experience with working with models.

I hear about it a lot on MM forums, albeit not being a model photographer.

This guy has a bit to say about it under the copyright law you guys have in the USA, may be an interesting read:
http://dorean.livejournal.com/1479.html

I assume the best way to deal with things is to contact her directly and draw it to her attention. Often people just dont realize things like this which are industry specific knowledge to us photographers.

Ever seen a fine art photographer drone on forever about the kind of manufacturing inks he uses, their ratings and everything else straight from epsons website ?
Kinda the same thing..the layperson doesnt understand what any of that means. If you get where im going.

I love your work. :D I spend hours going through your galleries Misha. By all means it should be protected and respected.

TFP could fall under a work for hire contract, as its not really "free work" but "trade work" which is paid ...considering time is money..etc..

[tim]

I like her edit better. Stop worrying.

[neil_r]

Have to agree, her edit is good.

[TTk]

I have to agree with other's her edit is better.

[korrektor]

To the last 3 commenters... Read the original post. I dont care which edit yu like better, that was not the question.

[korrektor]

Karl, thank you tons!!! It jas been resolved. I let it go but i did add a clause to the tfp contract. Again, thank you for the kind words!

[advaitin]

Photographer shooting photographer. Ouch!
I do that from time to time and the deal is I get my images to do with as I wish and they get copies to do with as they wish and vice versa. I need to have a portrait done every so often--although nothing like the one done of the woman photographer. I think of it as a professional courtesy. I like to do images one way and my reciprocation shooter likes to do images his way.

For instance, the school he recently graduated from has been encouraging the use of negative space in portraits. I'm old school, so I don['t care for that look. For my own use I cropped the images to suit me. Then, when I did shoots of him and his wife in her last quarter of pregnancy, I handed him a copy of the raw files to print as he wished. It seemed reasonable. We talked about it before we did it. Everyone was in agreement. Since it was a trade, no money was involved.

On the website for the business, on the other hand, I thought she should have had a visible credit for the image you shot. It is not right to use another shooter's work in the portfolio section without readily visible credit.

[bwolford]

Model release don't state that she has no right to alter photos.

I'm confused "the model release don't state she has no right..." Given the double negative, does it actually state she has the right?

[neil_r]

To the last 3 commenters... Read the original post. I dont care which edit yu like better, that was not the question.

I know but given that this is still (I think) a free world I was expressing my opinion. Nowhere in my model release does it say I can't do that, so I guess you have as much control over my comments as you do over your image.

Just sayin :-)

[korrektor]

Yes you may write whatever you want. No one is denying you this right. You are constantly not paying attention to what is actually written. But thank you for sharing your opinion.

[korrektor]

Photographer shooting photographer. Ouch!
I do that from time to time and the deal is I get my images to do with as I wish and they get copies to do with as they wish and vice versa. I need to have a portrait done every so often--although nothing like the one done of the woman photographer. I think of it as a professional courtesy. I like to do images one way and my reciprocation shooter likes to do images his way.

For instance, the school he recently graduated from has been encouraging the use of negative space in portraits. I'm old school, so I don['t care for that look. For my own use I cropped the images to suit me. Then, when I did shoots of him and his wife in her last quarter of pregnancy, I handed him a copy of the raw files to print as he wished. It seemed reasonable. We talked about it before we did it. Everyone was in agreement. Since it was a trade, no money was involved.

On the website for the business, on the other hand, I thought she should have had a visible credit for the image you shot. It is not right to use another shooter's work in the portfolio section without readily visible credit.


Speaking about credit... I think it is a rather pointless thing, especially on a website like this. And the model/photographer has been chasing me to take her photos...
Giving out raw files is not what i do usually but i think you are making a great point by saying that these issues should be discussed prior to the shoot.

[tim]

To the last 3 commenters... Read the original post. I dont care which edit yu like better, that was not the question.

My 2nd sentence covered that, but i'll expand on it. Stop worrying about the little things, it's trivial and unimportant, and i'm sure are other things your time and energy could be spent on. What does it matter?

[korrektor]

Yeah, i let it go. Just make sure to calibrate your monitor. The pic is overcontrasty and oversaturated, with considerable loss of iq.

[neil_r]

LOL Tim I will post you my Spyder :D

[tim]

LOL Tim I will post you my Spyder :D

I calibrated my monitor yesterday... professional photographer remember, I do that from time to time!

Yeah, i let it go. Just make sure to calibrate your monitor. The pic is overcontrasty and oversaturated, with considerable loss of iq.

The original is nice, but it's in a low saturation, low contrast style. The edit makes it contrasty and saturated... maybe a little more than reality, but in a way I like. Image quality isn't quite as good as your one, but isn't bad either.

btw no need to get grumpy :p

[zagiace]

I would not classify the image as altered. IMO giving an image a color correction or density correction is fine. I have the same clause in a few of my contracts but the intent is to prevent someone from doing some hideous artwork and then giving me credit. Which I see on myspace from time to time.
I agree with previous posters, its trivial.

[Snappy Photo Man]

Well you gave her a cd of images. There is no way to make her from re-editing the same image. Just let it go and move on. It was a TFP gig, not a paying one.

P.S. Her edit blows the one you did out of the water.

[S-Man]

...

btw no need to get grumpy :p


Oh he's like that all the time. I was just wondering why he didn't just 'KorrectHer' the way he korrekts everyone here :lol:
Problem solved...

[RDKirk]

I might mention that a commerical image sold to an ad agency or an editorial image sold to a publication certainly is subject to whatever editing the end user decides to make.

I don't see a tfp arrangement as being any different in principle.

[airfrogusmc]

Sh*t yeah they can do it. Welcome to the professional world. After you hand your images off to the graphic designer they crop and edit to fit tone, layout, mood or usually however they see fit. Does the check clear? If so don't worry about it.

[sfaust]

Is it known that she made the edits herself, or is it possible the contrast and saturation changed during the process of uploading, processing, cropping, etc, to her website? I only bring this up since I've seen carefully calibrated images with correct profiles change during the processing of uploading to specific sites. There seems to be a lot of differences in how the websites process the images during uploads, and what they apply automatically.

If she did change it, I don't see it as being all that important on this particular image. The differences aren't that significant, and for most its probably a matter of personal preference on which appeals to the viewer.

But as you rightly point out, are alterations something you want to allow your subjects to do on a regular basis? For this one it is probably a moot point, but might not be in the future, or for more radical alterations. Modifying your paperwork is the best way to combat it in the future, as you have already done.

I have allowed modifications for TFP work with a model as long as they don't credit me as the photographer. Since it's not my interpretation of the image, I don't want my name associated with it. It's only happened a few times, mainly because they wanted a different look and feel (sepia, B&W, contrasty, etc) that what was delivered. Nothing significant.

But for my licensed commercial work, it just goes with the territory. However, my contract does limit more radical modifications that change the image significantly (composites, etc). But for all the rest, they pad for it, have fun! ;)

[korrektor]

eah we figured this out already and it's really nota biggie... thank youguys for some very helpful tips!!