Is this Ethical?

I was doing a bridal shoot for a Wedding consultant . A model, myself and an assistant. We were in a public place. During the course of the shoot my model had noticed that she was being photographed by someone else...I presumed he was just a 'hobby 'photographer. .

Thought he was following us , but from a distance...the next thing I knew he was asking my model to look up at him (we were about 10 feet below him under a path) and after taking a couple of quick shots he threw her a business card and said to email him and he would send her the files.

When I realized that he was a professional photographer..I was 'miffed' , I thought it was a bit rude and unethical.

He sent the photos....but with a great long Conditions of supply
......strict personal use
......not for personal gain
......no media whatsoever (TV, print or electronic media)
......in the event of a violation $500 per image charge for each image supplied plus on costs commensurate with total number of duplications.

Certainly in my opinon this was over the top under the circumstances...

Am I right to be miffed and think this is unethical on his part????

The pics he sent were awful...with myself and assistant in them as well.....they were not keepers at all...he as a professional would have known this. Sorry about the rant

He never had her sign a contract, so I don't see how he can impose conditions on her.

I would have smacked him right in the head as soon as he started to follow... and he would of had severe paper cuts on his nether region when I handed back the card...

JasonBr wrote in post #8419460
He never had her sign a contract, so I don't see how he can impose conditions on her.

Well, this is sort of correct and sort of wrong at the same time.

The lack of a model release does not mean the model can violate the photographer's copyright. She still can't use those images for commercial purposes, including publicity. However, neither can the photographer. That is one of the functions of a model release.

For example, if the photographer were to go to a content publisher and say "here, I will sell you the distribution rights to this photo," he would be misrepresenting the model's consent because no release was signed. Similarly, she cannot sell the rights to the photo because she does not own the copyright.

However, he could still use the image for his own non-commercial purposes (e.g., as part of a portfolio) without the model release because she was in a public location. That another photographer (the OP) was conducting business at the same time is completely immaterial to the fact that the intruding photographer and the model were both on public property, thus the image he takes does not require the model to consent.

Is the intruding photographer being ethical? Well, no. But it is not because of any kind of legal issue. The law regarding these matters is not about what is "fair" or "right" in a moral sense--it is, and always has been, about what is equitable financially. The reason why the action should be considered unethical is because it potentially interferes with an ongoing business transaction between the original photographer and the model. It is taking place in public, yes, but that is a necessary requirement for the nature of the transaction. Therefore, to have a third party insert themselves into that interaction--even going so far as to give direction to the model--could potentially damage that transaction. If they used flash, for example, this would be a very direct form of interference and might actually have grounds for legal action. But even I don't think this guy was that stupid to do something like that.

That's insane! Forget ethics - that's just incredibly tacky...

Why didn't you tell him you were on a shoot and that you guys didn't schedule enough time for another photographer? People that pushy will push until pushed back a little

Bobby

Send him a bill for his share of the session expenses. Make some up.

This is why photographers should pack heat.

Tacky and unethical. Have the model email the photographer than he does not have permission to use the images for anything at all, though your local laws will dictate what kind of conditions she can impose. Since she was in public there might not be much you can do about it.

tim wrote in post #8421163
Tacky and unethical. Have the model email the photographer than he does not have permission to use the images for anything at all, though your local laws will dictate what kind of conditions she can impose. Since she was in public there might not be much you can do about it.

That's not going to work, as I have already pointed out.

If the model was standing on public property, she has no reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore the intruding photographer can use the image for non-commercial purposes. She can only enjoin him from commercial use--this generally does not include editorial or fine art purposes.

If the people we took pictures of could prevent us from using their photos after the fact, it would have a very chilling effect on the art of photography.

Tim's a smart guy and I think he knows that That's why he said...

...though your local laws will dictate what kind of conditions she can impose. Since she was in public there might not be much you can do about it.

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's saying that the model should just let him know that he doesn't have HER permission - even if he has the law's permission and doesn't need her permission. Just letting him know that she didn't find his actions professional and hopefully it will sort of make him think next time he does something so freaking tacky

Bobby

Indeed... well, that is, if that's how the model feels about it.... *shrug*

I think it's safe to say that these things are either best dealt with WHEN it happens or just decide you aren't going to deal with it as it happens and ignore the annoying things that happen later

Bobby

Well thankyou for all your replies..some made me laugh ,some made me think.

In Australia the copy right laws do state that the photographer owns copyright in this case.

But it also states that a photographer should get a model release to ensure that he can use the photos without fear of legal action......if he dosnt the model can also seek legal action from a differnt element of law.....'the privacy act', because he took these without permission and they certainly didnt flatter the model ...she has the right to stop him using them and seek damages if he did.
Because she is a model the law would most likely find in her favour because these pictures may be detrimental to her career...

I looked all this up since I posted and found it very interesting. I personally would not pursue this....I was just miffed and thought that most professional photographers would show some '' Professional courtesy''

On the day I had no oppotunity to ask him to stop as he certainly picked his time to come close to take the shots and give her the business card....I was ankle deep in stones
(they were like quicksand) and battling the incoming tide.....what we do to get the shot!
Thanks to everyone for your input......cheers Val


'
'

Valjoy....I'm curious to know where in Aus you're located and/or where this went down?

Bit over an hour South of Sydney ....Wollongong