Predicament.

[PaulH]

1. First do you have a full release on the images from the original date?

2. If so, does that release have any stipulations about splitting residual income for additional sales or give model approval rights in anyway?

3. Have you already submitted and gotten accepted or interest from the publisher of the resubmit?

………

While waiting for a reply I will offer my opinion on the above.

First of all if you indeed have a full release giving all the rights to you the photographer, have paid the model for that shoot, have no stipulations in the release that need her approval then you indeed have every right to submit them. Having that right however does not make it right with your current situation with the model now. Having contacted her and asked her about it leads me to believe that the release is clouded with some split of income or right of approval. If that is the case then forget it, it is over and done. She does not want it out there, so don't do it.

The fact that you lost money on it several years ago is irrelevant now. Why stir up potential bad feelings or even a lawsuit over it. Shoot someone else better looking and submit that set. Just be sure to get a full and unencumbered release signed when you do. That way your ass is covered and there are no hard feelings down the road.

Cut your loses and let it go brother. It is a no win situation at this point.

Now, if you have already re-submitted those images to a magazine for approval or inspection and they are interested, you are in an even worse situation. At this point it may cause you future work with the magazine making you look unprofessional by having second thoughts after submitting to them.

That is enough food for thought to last us for tonight.

[gregkdavis]

[ QUOTE ]

O.K. fellas, lets take this down the road you suggest.

Let's say this is all about ethics. Let's say that ethics require you to "ask" the model about her desires and to then respect them if she "changes" her mind.

Let's say that if you go against her wishes that it makes you both a **** and unethical and may hurt your business in the future.

What then do you call the models conduct in this situation?



[/ QUOTE ]

Answer:
Easy... normal, ethical and not out of line.

Why?

You need to look at the senario you set up a little closer. (Especially)
<"IF ethics require you to ask the model about her desires and to then respect
them is she changes her mind.">

[ QUOTE ]

What if you paid the model, everything is in order for the material to be sold/published, but she comes back and ask for more money? Are you going to pay her more.


[/ QUOTE ]

Answer:
Maybe so, maybe not--- a deal is a deal. If I lost money would she return her fee?
Probably not. Then again, her fee may escalate if I or anyone would want to work with her again.
No, it's a risk we all take.
Everybody that's earned their stripes usually began with low to average pay, then struck paydirt
and their fees rose with their popularity. It's all about supply and demand. No one is immune to the
market and luck factor.

[ QUOTE ]

I read post after post on here about guys whining about the outlay of cash and expenses and hassle to get a model to show up, shoot, and then have something of publishing grade.


[/ QUOTE ]

Answer:
If you don't want to go thru an agency. If you are cutting corners on prices, then that goes with the territory.
And those who whine about it are not living in the real world. Most net models are not that serious about it.
Most are young and slowly learning the concept of responsibility. But, hey.... I don't expect tiffany service
for Kmart prices.

Can it be very frustrating? Oh yea, I've been there.
But I don't fret on it much, and I find over the years that I have come out ahead.
I develope relationships and those relationships have paid off.

[ QUOTE ]

So, is that the risk then, you outlay the time, effort, work, your craft, your vision, your sweat and tears, and then if the model "decides" after all of that to withdraw her consent to the

publication....where does that leave you?

Out of business?


[/ QUOTE ]

Answer:
If one model is going to put you out of business, then you deserve to be out of business.
You don't put all your eggs in one basket.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't see this as a matter of ethics at all. Ethics is doing the right thing even when no one is looking and even if no one can force you to "choose" between 2 paths legally.


[/ QUOTE ]

Answer"
Just because it's legal doesn't make certain things ethical, and not all the ethical things are legal.
There are more ethical actions that are legal, as opposed to the opposite.

[ QUOTE ]

Ethics is about not going back on your word.


[/ QUOTE ]

Answer:
You are correct.
Ethics cover far more situations than just not going back on your word.
What you listed is just one example.

[ QUOTE ]

Ethics is about not screwing people by use of a loophole.


[/ QUOTE ]

Answer:
Ah, you are speaking in lawyer-talk.
Ethics goes beyond the law, even beyond morality in most cases.
Ethics cover things like, trust, responsibility, dependability, reliability... things the law doesn't
truly address and cannot.

[ QUOTE ]

You have done everything you intended, stated, planned for and what was the agreement and expectation of the parties.


[/ QUOTE ]

Answer:
Well, was it done within the realm of reasonable time? Things change.
Did the photographer fullfill expectations? Maybe the model expected action within weeks
but months or years went by and now his/her attitude has changed.

If everything has been done as intended, this would be a moot point and this
whole discussion would be meaningless.


You certainly have the choice to not publish the photos. But should you choose to exercise that path, it's not ethics. Maybe it makes you a nice guy. Maybe it makes you a sucker. But

it's not ethical conduct. It isn't about morality.

Some may disagree with me I am sure.


[/ QUOTE ]

Answer:
Well, I don't know what you mean here.
If you choose not to publish photo's - make sure it's done for your own reasons, not someone elses.
I don't know what being a nice guy has to do with it, unless the path that was to be taken was
to be considered "sleazy" in the grand scheme of things.

Being a sucker is about being fooled when it's obvious.

I don't know where ethical conduct or morality enter into this area.


[ QUOTE ]

You say you wan't to maitain a good relationship with the model.

Are you going to shoot with her again?


[/ QUOTE ]

Answer:
Well that depends on the model and my relationship with the model.


[ QUOTE ]

Would you recomend her to another photographer who asked for a reference.


[/ QUOTE ]

Answer:

If she is good to work with, I don't see why not.

[ QUOTE ]

Would you set up a publication grade shoot with this girl ever again?

If not, why not?


[/ QUOTE ]

Answer:
Well that depends on the model and my relationship with the model.
If it was a good positive professional relationship, I don't see why
not... It's all about what happens when she's on the job.

Now if I fail to capitalize on my end, and some time elapsed and I just
happen to run into a situation where I can capitalize, but I take the time
to ask her feelings on it instead of acting in my own best interest, well
then I am subject to whatever her feelings are on the situation.


Have fun! LOL! This is a cool thread!

Greg.

[johnnyolsen]

did you pay the model?

[gregkdavis]

I forgot to put this comment in quotes;
[ QUOTE ]


You certainly have the choice to not publish the photos. But should you choose to exercise that path, it's not ethics. Maybe it makes you a nice guy. Maybe it makes you a sucker. But

it's not ethical conduct. It isn't about morality.

Some may disagree with me I am sure.




[/ QUOTE ]


Answer:
Well, I don't know what you mean here.
If you choose not to publish photo's - make sure it's done for your own reasons, not someone elses.
I don't know what being a nice guy has to do with it, unless the path that was to be taken was
to be considered "sleazy" in the grand scheme of things.

Being a sucker is about being fooled when it's obvious.

I don't know where ethical conduct or morality enter into this area.
================================================== ========================
It may not be necessary-- but I wanted to try to keep it accurate.

Greg

[acousineau@centurytel.net]

gunfitr- excellent example, well said!!

[acousineau@centurytel.net]

If he had the full rights how would she even know that he was going to publish them? Why would she know until after the fact or even then unless he just felt like telling her so that she could add it to her resume. I send pictures to my sister all the time that she gets published, I don't know or care when they are published. I am way to busy. I would think she was crazy if she called me and asked permission to publish pictures that I sent her to publish. That right there is the whole point. The pictures were taken to be published- end of story. I send a release along with my pictures. If he didn't have a release it is his bad and he just learned a hard lesson.

[jimmyd]

i gotta go with gunftr's take on this. this isn't about ethics. it's about business. if the entire business relationship was performed ethically, then where does ethics come into this? because the model no longer wants to model?

if your "predicament" is that you are friends with the model, then that's something else and is about "friendship ethics." it's then a matter of risking your friendship.

but if the entire so-called "predicament" originated with you entering into a professional business relationship with the model, then ethics isn't a part of the equation.

[R_Fredrick_Smith]

Originally Posted by jimmyd

i gotta go with gunftr's take on this. this isn't about ethics. it's about business. if the entire business relationship was performed ethically, then where does ethics come into this? because the model no longer wants to model?

if your "predicament" is that you are friends with the model, then that's something else and is about "friendship ethics." it's then a matter of risking your friendship.

but if the entire so-called "predicament" originated with you entering into a professional business relationship with the model, then ethics isn't a part of the equation.

Its possible that after almost 2 years since gunftr made his statement on this very old thread that he might not say the same thing now. Who knows. But I wonder if ethics can ever be separated from any human equation. In looking back at the start of this almost 2 year old thread, I can sort of "assume" that the photos were shot for an adult magazine of some sort. I can certainly see if a model no longer does nude work or adult work that she might not want photos like that to appear in print several years after the fact. She might have gotten married or become a school teacher, or whatever. We certainly know from cases right in Texas that a school teacher (hypothetical) lost her job over nude photos of her. Of course in this case we never really did get the full details from the original poster.

I believe there is a moral and ethical obligation that a photographer has to a model even if the photographer is out money for a shoot. The photographer would have to ask himself, "would my allowing these photos to be published cause harm and injury to the model"? If it would, then the moral thing to do would be to forego the selling of the photos. I've had this situation or one similar happen to me twice. In one a model got married shortly after the shoot and wanted the photos back, I agreed not to allow the photos to be published and returned all the negatives and slides to the model. She was kind enough to return the fee that she had been paid, so I was only amount my time and film costs, but I felt good about the situation because I know that she was happy with the situation. On a second occasion, a model dropped out of the business and wanted all of her nude photos removed from portfolios, etc. to avoid any embarrassment that they might cause in her new profession. I had releases on them of course, but I removed them from all of my portfolios. Why? Because it was the right thing to do because it did not hurt someone else. Its sort of like the "golden rule" clause that appears in the rules section of the G1 forum.

Cheers,
rfs

[jimmyd]

Originally Posted by R_Fredrick_Smith

I

I believe there is a moral and ethical obligation that a photographer has to a model even if the photographer is out money for a shoot. The photographer would have to ask himself, "would my allowing these photos to be published cause harm and injury to the model"? If it would, then the moral thing to do would be to forego the selling of the photos.

I've also had similar situations happen to me and, in each case, I decided not to exploit the images. But it had nothing to do with business ethics. I simply did so because it really didn't matter all that much and I'd rather go with a decision that allows everyone to sleep easier at night... especially me. But i did not return the images to the models! A similar situation happened to someone I know and then, sometime later and after he returned all the images, the model did another reverse and exploited those returned images herself.