Right to publish issue - your comments welcome

Hi all,

Here's what's just happened this morning, basically I'm handcuffed in this situation, but I'd welcome how you would feel in my shoes.

Basically, I shot a classical concert in January with the usual contract signed 'n' sealed.

Did it for a discounted fee, as the main artists are all friends of my wife - who also performed.

I've made and distributed CDs (as per the arrangement) and 36 hours ago added less than 10% of the shots (just some general ones to show some of the performers) to my FaceBook page - which is secure against general browsers - into a locked album.

This morning, I had a call from one of the artists, upset that I'd added some photos to FB.

Now, in Japan it's my right to publish ANY AND ALL photos I take any time, anywhere.

But, I've heard through the grapevine that the artist who called me has been having a long-term affair with the guy who paid for the concert...and paid me!!!

Sheesh! What a pain! So of course, I've taken down the album - despite it being locked - and now have to "apologise", even though it's my right to print out concert pics 20m x 30m and slap them on the side of a building!

Thoughts?

Regards,

Simon

...without wanting to sound rude, but thoughts on what?

You posted some photos to the internet, someone asked you to take them down, and you did. You don't have to apologize, but you have chosen to because apparently you have to.

My thoughts are you have to decide how to run your business: then run your business that way. People have the right to ask you to take down your images. You have the right to say no. What do you want to hear?

banquetbear wrote in post #15656594
...without wanting to sound rude, but thoughts on what?

You posted some photos to the internet, someone asked you to take them down, and you did. You don't have to apologize, but you have chosen to because apparently you have to.

My thoughts are you have to decide how to run your business: then run your business that way. People have the right to ask you to take down your images. You have the right to say no. What do you want to hear?

I understand your question...but you have actually helped！
How？
Because you don’t think I need to apologise.

Thanks！

Even though Japanese cultural demands are a nightmare, I do now think I need to explain more about my contract with clients, AND explain more about my rights as a photographer, as set out under the copyright act.

Cheers！

Simon

I'm with the Bear. There is nothing to apologise for.
Although having said that it isn't exactly clear from your post why you think you need to take the images down or apologise. Is it just because this person has some sway with the person who paid you and you are worried about upsetting them (the person who hired/paid)? Is it just their photos they are upset about or the fact that you posted any photos at all? If the former just delete their photos and just post others.

Who has the rights to the images? You or the party demanding they be taken down? And on what grounds did the guy request the images be removed?

For what its worth I have had people tell me to take down images I have taken for what ever reason, and I did so. Then moved along.

Being in the US:

My first presumption, stated for the record: None of your images show the upset artist in a compromising position with the "other person." In other words, there is no question of anyone being submitted to "public ridicule and humiliation."

There is no law in the US that would require me to take down the album or even to remove any given image. Certainly not in a secured site and in most cases not even in an open site.

If it came down to a matter of being paid for the job, I would probably remove the image of that particular person (not any group images in which that person coincidentally appeared). But that depends on what's in your "standard contract." Are you depending on sales through the Facebook page to make your nut?

I would not apologize even if I removed that image, unless it somehow affected whether I'd get paid. Just because that person feels he or she has a reason to be upset doesn't mean I've done him or her any wrong. I don't necessarily apologize just because someone is upset about something...that person is the one who has been doing wrong, in my manual of morality. He or she was cheating and might get found out; why would I apologize?

I would not take down the entire album, unless it somehow affected whether I'd get paid.

No, you don't have to apologize.

But neither do you go thru life hurting people.

Country and laws are irrelevant. If you do something with a photo that harms another, and the person can give you a compelling reason they are being harmed, you do what you have to do to stop harming. Period. It's the right thing to do. On the other hand, if you went thru the rest of your life knowing you did something that harmed another and in response to their plea, you told them to stuff it, what kind of person would you be? Personal ethics and the way you treat people far outweighs black ink on white paper called "laws" or "rights".

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the apology is driven by the Japanese culture. In North American, and especially in the US (sorry not trying to belittle the US), apologizing seems to actually be frowned upon as some kind of weakness or admission or grave wrongdoing.

As I understand it, in Japan there is some virtue in an apology, and culturally expected even if it is unwarranted.

I agree with the other responses that you have the right to do as dictated by law, but you also have moral obligation to the cultural "law" that govern everyday life where you live. If there is a cultural necessity to apologize as not doing so could harm your business, then it is warranted, if not (as you did nothing wrong), then it is not warranted. Really it is up to you.

Being a Canadian and prone to apologizing for things we don't need to, I can understand your dilemma.

If I am wrong in my understanding of your dilemma, I apologize :P

i_am_cdn wrote in post #15659059
Being a Canadian and prone to apologizing for things we don't need to, I can understand your dilemma.

In Hong Kong you don't apologise if you bump into someone - too crowded/cultural. Went back to England recently and a guy almost bumped into me (but didn't) and we both apologised.

What did the contract say? That's really the only issue. If the contract states that you cannot post them, etc. then there you go. If not, then there they go.

I'd probably react the same way, even though there's no law that says you have to. However, I would have only taken down the shots that had the offended artist in them.

I had a similar issue some time ago when I took pictures at a free public concert. One of the performers was, what would you call it, a Britney Spears wannabe. When I posted my shots to my website, I notified her people. The manager contacted me and asked me if they could use one of the shots on her up-coming CD. Sure, I said. The next day, he sends me a legalistically-worded e-mail saying that I did not have approval to post pictures of her on a web site and I must take them down or risk legal action. I took them down, but not before I informed him of my rights and his client's rights with respect to photos taken in a public setting. My guess is that they had the idea in their minds that she was going to become a run-away success and the photos I had of her would horn in on their control of her publicity. In the final analysis their hopes were quite misplaced, as she went nowhere.

The other artists in the concert were delighted to have quality pictures of themselves. Go figure.

Just because by law you can, doesn't mean you should.

Maybe you want to specify in the contracts that you want to be able to use any pictures taken (not just the keepers or the ones you hand in) for your portfolio, and make sure they agree to that. If it wasn't in the contract, well, it all depends how you want to be perceived by customers and whether you want to remain in business. If you go confrontational and shield behind the law, you're coming across as a photographer who cares more about his professional success than the needs of his clients. Good luck finding future work if they perceive you as such.

You took them down which could provide more income down the road from this company / person.
If you played the "its my right to leave them up" card you may not get another paid gig from them.

You did the right thing in MY eyes (which means nothing....lol)

I think you made the right decision to take them down. I think there is something kind of odd (maybe even slightly creepy) about posting photos to the internet which have a person in them, if one of the people would rather not have a photo of themselves online. It just doesn't seem considerate.

Some people are self-conscious about how they are depicted, and that's a personal issue for them - we do not need to have them explain to us why they don't want their photo online - we should simply respect their wishes.

If I ever posted a photo of people on the internet anywhere, I would contact each one of the people in the photo and explain where I was posting it, and ask if that was ok with them. That is showing respect for those we photograph, and putting their wishes ahead of our own.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #15659948
I think you made the right decision to take them down. I think there is something kind of odd (maybe even slightly creepy) about posting photos to the internet which have a person in them, if one of the people would rather not have a photo of themselves online. It just doesn't seem considerate.

Some people are self-conscious about how they are depicted, and that's a personal issue for them - we do not need to have them explain to us why they don't want their photo online - we should simply respect their wishes.

If I ever posted a photo of people on the internet anywhere, I would contact each one of the people in the photo and explain where I was posting it, and ask if that was ok with them. That is showing respect for those we photograph, and putting their wishes ahead of our own.

If they had been posted on an open site, I would agree. But these were posed on a secured site open only to those granted access--as in this case, to the people in the photographs. This is the common method online sales to the clients are done.