Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,549   Posts: 1,544,641   Online: 784
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,309
    Blog Entries
    5
    Images
    50
    cheryl hit the nail on the head -
    bad experiences are told 10 people for every 1 person good experience are told to. get rid of the negatives - invite the model over to witness what you do, and put it all behind you, its not worth the trouble down the road -

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheryl Jacobs
    Personally, (assuming I didn't have a model release) I'd destroy the negs. I would never sell or give away negs -- they could reprint those things all day long, and there's not much you could do about it. No way. You could have prints of very poor quality floating around God knows where, all with your name attached to them, for God knows what purpose.

    If you have a model release, the only thing you have to consider is that they will most certainly badmouth you at every opportunity. So, although legally you would be on safe ground, you may pay a price for keeping the negs. In this business, reputation is everything, particularly if you are working with nude models.

    Just my two cents' worth.
    I have heard others comment on the danger of having one's name attached to poor images derived from the negatives if returned. I fail to see how that could happen. My negatives have never, ever had my name etched into the negative anywhere. Are my cameras, lenses or film defective?

  3. #23
    Bruce Osgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Brooklyn, N.Y. USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,437
    Images
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheryl Jacobs

    Just my two cents' worth.
    I think Cheryl has summed it all up. I would add (not from any informed point of view that the model(?) will be better off with the photographer, who has nothing to gain, holding the negs rather than a potentially irate husband.

    If you decide to shred the negs I would invite the model to the event and intentionally omit the husband --- let him live in doubt.

  4. #24
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,288
    Images
    20
    The issue of having one's name attached to bad repros is a real one. You could imagine a client wanting to retain the negatives to save a few bucks on the prints, having them done at the one-hour photo place, then showing them to friends/associates who might be potential clients, and thinking they were doing the photographer a favor, saying, "Robert Kennedy did these! Aren't they great?" failing to mention that these were unauthorized prints.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
    The issue of having one's name attached to bad repros is a real one. You could imagine a client wanting to retain the negatives to save a few bucks on the prints, having them done at the one-hour photo place, then showing them to friends/associates who might be potential clients, and thinking they were doing the photographer a favor, saying, "Robert Kennedy did these! Aren't they great?" failing to mention that these were unauthorized prints.
    People make unfounded allegations all of the time. (Elvis is alive and well and was seen at the Holywood Planet) I don't think that the lady and her husband are prone to further duplications of the images. Why would they want the negatives and prints? I am sure that the guy is probably just not wanting to share intimate details about his wife that he feels should be his to enjoy. It would be kind of like my wife deciding to bare her soul at this point and without discussion...a part of the exclusive relationship would seem to have been violated.

    People come in all sorts of flavors and those that disagree with my flavor are not always crazy.

  6. #26
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    something similar happened to me ONCE.

    A girl who had posed for me "in the altogether" heard that I had posted one of the images to a forum. She heard the term "on the web" and went absolutely ballistic.
    Without any consideration of the work ... I did not consider it to be a "nude"; the only body parts visible were hands and feet - she could not even be identified ... She cut me off - would NOT return my calls or communicate in any way. Even trying to contact her through her friends was useless. She *never* even looked at the print of that particular image I tried to send her. Work from that session - much "peppier" - had been exhibited in galleries - she had seen that work and approved. She was an experienced - many years - figure model for Life Classes in the various art organizations in the area.

    I had paid her for her work- and had the usual "Model Release", which would be an effective defense against an "Invasion of Privacy" law suit.
    So - I'm covered legally - what is left is a moral and ethical question.
    I've HAD to hold true to the principle of "Not being the cause of grief to anyone."

    I've pulled the majority of her work, with a few exceptions - and those were three of the images having been exhibited in galleries. *ALL* of her work was removed from any and all web locations, and none will be posted again. That is the best I can do.

    This situation is different - in my case there was no demand for the return of ALL images - nude or not.
    Considering the circumstances cited - and a lot would depend on the personalities and attitudes of those involved - I might try to discuss the model's - and her husband's concerns - and try to negotiate..
    Selling the negatives to them -- I don't think so ... If they were as offended by their content as they claim to be, I would wonder why they would not consider their destruction to be ideal.
    On the most basic level - this is still would be *my* work - and I think I'd hold on to it - whether or not I displayed it. As souvenirs - or for future use/ reference -- speculation that attitudes *might* change...

    The Copyright Laws would apply. The "creator" of the work holds the copyright unless expressly transferred. The negatives - or any other physical artifacts - really have nothing to do with it.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  7. #27
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,288
    Images
    20
    Don, I can understand your point, but that still doesn't make the case for giving away the negatives as opposed to destroying them. If she has no plans to reprint the negs, then she has no need for them, and if she does have plans to reprint the negs, she has no right to them.

    Shredding protects all parties equally and should satisfy the legitimate "reputation" concerns on both sides (i.e., the reputation of the photographer as someone who produces quality work and the reputation of the model as a person of modesty, if that is a personal concern).
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
    Don, I can understand your point, but that still doesn't make the case for giving away the negatives as opposed to destroying them. If she has no plans to reprint the negs, then she has no need for them, and if she does have plans to reprint the negs, she has no right to them.

    Shredding protects all parties equally and should satisfy the legitimate "reputation" concerns on both sides (i.e., the reputation of the photographer as someone who produces quality work and the reputation of the model as a person of modesty, if that is a personal concern).
    David,

    I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was making a point for returning the negs...I was making a point for not retaining them. I agree that shredding them would be the preferable remedy.

    I think that this is a point that one has an opportunity to choose between whether to assert one's "rights" or to not cause undue and unnecessary distress. In my experience, these things have a tendency to come back and revisit us in ways that we can not immediately see. Robert made mention of bad karma...what karma are we creating for our future?

  9. #29
    Cheryl Jacobs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Denver, Colorado, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,707
    Images
    211
    People make unfounded allegations all of the time.
    Ah, yes. But 'unfounded allegations' are still very effective. It doesn't have to be a proven fact for people to believe it. And you know how people love to believe the worst.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Just north of the Inferno
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    750
    Images
    27
    See, to me the problem is this -

    If you just "give in" because it is easiest, that leaves you open to abuse.

    I did nothing wrong here. So why should I give up my property because some guy with an inferiority complex doesn't feel right about something his girlfriend did way before she met him?

    By that logic, I would own none of my work. Take a street photo - the city can ask for the negs. Take a photo in my house - the company that rents it to me can ask for the negs. Take a picture in the national forest - Smokey The Freakin' Bear can ask for the negs.

    Nope. Bad precident.
    Official Photo.net Villain
    ----------------------
    [FONT=Comic Sans MS]DaVinci never wrote an artist's statement...[/FONT]

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin