Legal help!!!
- Started
- Last post
- 7 Responses
- hUtChhOuSe
Our multimedia company were asked by a beer company to 'document the day' at one of their sponsored events.
We got hold of a freelance photographer and took the snaps. Now we've discovered that they've used one of the photos for the packaging of their multipacks in supermarkets throughout the UK.
The guy in the photo (an innocent bystander) has been on the phone to us asking for some sort of payment for his image being used nationwide.
Any ideas where we stand on this? Who ACTUALLY owns the copyright for these pix?
Should we be demanding more cash from the beer company as it seems the pix are now deemed 'product shots'?
Please help.
Thanks.
- MrDinky0
if anyone who is going to be in the picture should of have signed a model release rather its intentional or not. And yes that man has the right to contest for payment BUT you can always fight back by stating that he was not part of the intentional centre of the picture nor part of. Its like taking a picture of the crowd, where you have no control over who is in the picture.
if in your contract, you stated that the pictures fully signed off to the client than you can not ask for more money since the client paid for them. if there is no contract you can fight the beer company on rights managed picture but kiss off your client good bye.
i say deal with the guy in pic first. Also at the same time, tell the beer company your situtation and see what can be worked out
- UndoUndo0
ask him along to a tasting, get him plastered, offer a couple of free crates and get him to sign the release!
- nburlington0
Yeah but if the beer company has the right to use the image on their products; don't THEY have the responsibility to deal with the guy in the shot?
If you're going to get f'd over by the client, send that guy after them.
- MrDinky0
rather the beer company uses the picture is any format, the contractual obligation stands with the client comissioning photos.
the client does not require to explain what the photos are going to be used later on, if it is deemed that the client states that they are going to buy out the picture.
now, the client has the best intention that the vender has done their duedeligence on providing the client with the pictures that are royalty free . model released, if this was not the case, the vender should have explained it to the client the complication that may arise if the picture is used in any form. If the client has stated a complete buy out than the vender must deal with any complication that comes up with the picture.
in essence, the vender must solve this issue because they got their assignment from the client to take photos. the vender must clear any potential obsticles that may arise. the vender can inform the client of their situtation and ask for assistance.
- radar0
I would settle it all over a beer.
- tkmeister0
i am with radar.
- hUtChhOuSe0
Hey Mr Dinky....
I like your advice.
It's a complicated situation. We don't wanna lose the client, annoy the photographer (and lose him) or provoke the model. The photo of the 'model' was taken by said camerman after he approached him on the beach. "here, mate, can you hold this surfboard for a photo for this beer company..."
Obviously, if we had known how it was going to be used we would have taken measures by informing the photographer and the 'model ' of where the photo would end up. As this was going to be shown to a small audience (internal company promotion) we deemed it unrealisitic to charge the client goig rates and billed him accordingly.
So the client didn't just 'buy' the pix from us and all their rights. He lured us into thinking this is a low-key project then pushes it out nationwide.
I blame the client.
Question is. What do we do about it? We got a model who wants answers and a photographer who thinks he's hit the bigtime!
And we're in the middle thinking everyone has got it wrong...
We're happy. We got paid.