Client produced unlicensed edit of my image, what to do?

Disaster_Area

Disaster_Area

Gadget Monger
Local time
8:37 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
877
So a while ago I sold an image to a local (but internationally known) business to display in their boardroom. They wanted a digital file as they where getting a bunch of photos all printed at the same place for display. I was fine with that and provided them with a digital file with an explicit licence to print one copy, and only one copy.

Apparently they did a really poor sepia treatment of all the images they bought for the collection and I'm not happy with the way they cropped it too. I would have done my own edit (and charged for it) if that's what they wanted but when they asked for a copy of the shot they didn't mention their intention of altering the shot in any way. To be fair, it may be a case of the left hand not talking to the right, and the individual I dealt with may not have had any idea what the end plans for the shot was, but I'm not happy with it. Especially since many people know it's my work and it's really not a flattering representation of the shot anymore.

So what do I do about it? I was thinking of presenting them with a second bill for what my editing time would have been... with maybe a little extra tacked on... but I'm not sure. Thoughts?
 
I don't have an answer for you but will be interested in seeing what people think. I guess it depends on the terms e.g. "rights to print one copy" vs. "rights to print one copy as is without further editing".

This also brings up a related question - what if they'd printed on canvas or perish the thought burnished metal otherwise unedited? Personally for me that would have been almost as bad as bad sepia crop since I for my part feel pretty strongly about Silver Gelatin.

Have you talked to them?
 
Last edited:
Yeah.. a freindly chat is the first step... I just want a plan of action in my head in case they get pissy about it so I'm not caught off guard. I'm really hoping it can be handled civilly.

Strike two however is that they didn't put artist names next to the images... I don't really care about that, but a few Flickr friends of mine who where also contacted for images for the collection where too new to photography at the time to feel confident about charging for their work and just asked for a photo credit for their shot instead of money.
 
I would look at what the changed it to and take that as an example of what they want. then make the edits to your standards and provide that edited version free of charge for they same single print license. then request they remove the poorly done version. you have an opportunity to provide some great customer service and maintain the integrity of your work. I would bet the person who made the changes does not understand they do not have that right.

good luck to you


-Jon
 
Yeah.... I'm 99% sure that whoever did the edits had no idea that it would be a problem. Huge problem with living in the age of digital photography... people figure they bought the right to do whatever they want with a digital file.

Part of this will be a learning experience for me, and I'll be adding an explicit non-edit clause to my contracts unless the client pays for the option.
 
Check out the new Canadian copyright law before you talk with them ... it firms up the photographer's rights.
 
KenD said:
Check out the new Canadian copyright law before you talk with them ... it firms up the photographer's rights.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that new bill assigned moral rights to the photographer, even if the economic copyright is sold. Additionally, the moral rights need to be explicitly waived in any contract, so just leaving out "You don't have the right to alter my work" isn't enough for a client to get away with alterations.
 
I care because it's no longer representative of my work, and many people with access to the photo know I took it. I also charge for custom edits, and they didn't pay for that. And because my friends work in the same collection was given with the expectation of attribution and they didn't do that.
 
So you've a contract to provide one file from which they can make one print, and as your not supplying the finished print then you've relinquished that control to them. I think you would need to have thought it through and made agreement beforehand. I can't see that you can go back after the fact and start adding stipulations.
 
Disaster_Area said:
I care because it's no longer representative of my work, and many people with access to the photo know I took it. I also charge for custom edits, and they didn't pay for that. And because my friends work in the same collection was given with the expectation of attribution and they didn't do that.
Click to expand...

If that's the case you should think about getting them to take the photo down, rather than trying to get more money out of them for something you didn't do (nor apparently forbade? you did let them print it themselves afterall). If I were worried about about somebody thinking an alteration of my work was genuine to my original artistic intent I wouldn't want anybody to see it at all.
 
bobbyrab said:
So you've a contract to provide one file from which they can make one print, and as your not supplying the finished print then you've relinquished that control to them. I think you would need to have thought it through and made agreement beforehand. I can't see that you can go back after the fact and start adding stipulations.
Click to expand...

he is right if you made the one and only print then I would go ahead with the bill..

If i did not edit my work afterwards and if someone did , would I speak to them and feel dissapointed by this , yes and maybe... But I wouldn't create another bill for an edit I did not make..

My uncle gave this script to a lawyer he was friends with for a long time after their meeting was over, just so he could get an idea what he thought about it, as a friendly thing.. rest assure he had a bill from the lawyer in mail for 275 dollars the next week for reading the script..
 
Disaster_Area said:
I care because it's no longer representative of my work, and many people with access to the photo know I took it. I also charge for custom edits, and they didn't pay for that. And because my friends work in the same collection was given with the expectation of attribution and they didn't do that.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't charge for doing an edit that you did not want them to make. You were paid for their permission to use the image. I would explain to them that the way it was printed was in your view a misappropriation, and that it now misrepresents your work. The goal should be for them to correct their mistakes, and adhere to the original contract.
In the long run your reputation is more valuable than the fee of a couple of edits. If they go away thinking you are an artist with high standards, they will respect you more and perhaps be more willing to pay more for future work. That is better than them thinking that you are just squeezing out a few more pennies left or right.
 
i think the first step is to notify them that they have infringed your copyright, and must cease its publication. Step two would probably be to have a lawyer write a letter. Even if you are not on firm legal ground, they might decide that non-compliance is not worth the risk.
 
tunalegs said:
If that's the case you should think about getting them to take the photo down, rather than trying to get more money out of them for something you didn't do (nor apparently forbade? you did let them print it themselves afterall). If I were worried about about somebody thinking an alteration of my work was genuine to my original artistic intent I wouldn't want anybody to see it at all.
Click to expand...

+1 on that, AFAIC
 
Disaster_Area said:
So what do I do about it? I was thinking of presenting them with a second bill for what my editing time would have been... with maybe a little extra tacked on... but I'm not sure. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I think your idea is so unpleasantly stupid that if I were a potential client reading this it would in itself rule you out immediately to see you think in this way. I would just put the lax lapse down to experience rather than alienate all potential clients. If you don't like it then you can be thankful your name is not apparently on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom