I received a call from a friend of mine about a month after we attended Photoshop World in Las Vegas. He was excited an agency want to use an image he took at the popular Westcott Shooting booth. He asked me to hunt down the model and get a release form from him. I paused, took a deep breath and searched for the right words to tell him why he can’t use the image. He snapped, “But why can’t I use the image, I took the photo!”. It’s true, he pressed the shutter that snapped the shot that took the photo. So why can’t he in good faith use the image? It’s simple, he didn’t create the image, Westcott did.
There is more to taking a photo than pressing a button.
To create this image, this is what Westcott did:
- Designed, built and paid for the set.
- Hired a model.
- Hired a Hair and Makeup Artist.
- Purchased the wardrobe.
- Supplied the lights.
- Had a Lighting Guru (James Schmelzer) set the lights.
As an added bonus, Westcott offered this shooting bay free to the public on the expo floor.
Is there another option?
Sure, if all parties agree on a price. I suggested he call Westcott and make an offer, plus pay the model and hair and makeup artist. He said, “Why, Westcott already paid the model and hair and makeup artist”. That’s true, but the payment was for the expo, not the right to use the image for advertising.
In the end, he agreed the amount of money the agency was willing to pay wasn’t worth his time and effort to pursue this option. I told him, he could always reshoot the image with a different model using the knowledge he learned from the Westcott booth. He’s still contemplating this option.
I’d like to see supporting copyright law on this. Because at face value, despite ethical issues, I have a hard time agreeing with the conclusion. I understand the model release. But the rest seems odd in some way unless some qualifying statement was made by the exhibitor.
I should have mentioned Westcott did post and announce the rules.
Besides that, how can the photographer claim the images is their image. Noticed I suggested he try and recreate the shot? He and I both knew he couldn’t. Last, this shoot would cost a lot of money to produce. To sell the image for $75 wouldn’t come close to paying just the model.
Lovely article.
I wish you had covered a little more about the ethics involved in the business of photography. I see a lot of photographer with lot many misconceptions regarding ownership of a photographs. :)
That sounds like a great idea, I added it to my list thanks
Reblogged this on Tay Tay and commented:
Something to think about. I didn’t know this
Good one! (Still chuckling)
The thing that you are failing to come out and say here is that the model needs to also sign a release and probably get paid something. No I doubt that will be arbitrary fee without knowing just what to photo will be used for. Lets say the model is paid $25.00 signs the release and the photographer or agency can now do what ever they want with the photo. What if the agency is going to use it in an ad fro a national company the will make millions with that photo. That would not be fair to anyone… Read more »
Joe, I did say the model was paid by Westcott. Eric, who has very close dealings with Westcott, pointed out they have a contract with the model just for the trade show. I bet if he had asked the model for a release, she would have directed him to a Westcott employee.
Reblogged this on lutherlking's Blog.
This really is a minefield isn’t it? Remember the pic a while back where a monkey pressed the shutter button and took some amazing selfies? There was a conflict with Wikipedia who said that technically, the monkey took the image and so the actual photographer had no right to ask for it to be taken down, despite owning th equipment, setting up the shots etc. Seems to be a big grey area with no definitive answer!
Great article V and great advice. You are indeed correct, the model in this instance was paid only for the trade show use, and use by Westcott exclusively, any other use by any other entity other than Westcott would be in violation of that agreement. It really isn’t a matter of ethics it’s a matter of contractual law. Being very close to Westcott and speaking for them at many trade shows we have always tried to make it clear that the images taken by attendees are for there own personal use and cannot be sold in any way, shape or… Read more »
Thanks!!!!
Thanks for this post! Is always hard to know where the boundaries are… I think model releases are my main nightmare regarding photography right now.
What will happen if he sell the picture? This doesnt apply to all countries
If someone wanted to print their image and show it at their studio then I don’t see a problem. Posting on a website then No. Another way of looking at it.
Cost of production $2000
Cost of model $100
Experience gained for learning what goes into it…. Priceless (Because that is all get out it and not the publication of the image).