I'm relatively new to all this, so can anyone tell me if this seems normal and/or fair..?
I recently took part in a play. A one-off for an evening of new writing. Unpaid, nothing signed at any point, completely run-of-the-mill, etc. We were told a photographer was coming to take pictures of the dress rehearsal at the venue (I do not know if the photographer was there at the director's request, the venue's, or the photographer's).
Afterwards, the actors received a Facebook message from the director to say that some of the pictures were up on the photographer's website if we wanted to have a look. I had a look, and thought a couple would be good to have on my website. I replied to the director's message asking the best way to go about getting a couple. The director said something along the lines of "I have a DVD of all the pictures, but the best way is probably to contact the photographer", so I emailed the photographer. The reply was along the lines of "You can buy 10 for £75, or they're £10 each".
So: can the photographer use my pictures without permission on their site (they're still there)? Should we have been offered some photos by the photographer as a "thank you" as they are being used to promote their services? Should they director have offered to pass on some pictures? What do you think?
Steve - good point, indeed - the "tog" needs to eat. But so do actors!!!!
For the tog to use those pictures to - in essence - advertise his/her business without paying the actor-models is taking the proverbial.
I've posed "in costume & character" for a lot of photographers. I've always been given electronic copies of those production stills. How it works: I get the pictures, the tog gets my performance. Simple trade - equitable both sides.
In response to Danielle, I'd reiterate the fact that I think the photographer was levelling charges thanks to the fact that it appeared *additional* copies were being asked for, rather than for any other reason. Which appears fair enough in context.
As to whether the photographs should be allowed to be used to advertise the photographer's work on a website when there have been no releases signed, I tend to agree with Rob, and would say the use is questionable, again *given the context*. The photographer appears to be happy to use pictures of the actor concerned for self-promotion without explicit permission having been given, but is then also prepared to charge them for use of the same pictures. Clearly, something is pretty dubious about this arrangement. The 'grey area' may concern the production company having signed off on the photographer's free usage of all images in return for *their* copy of the material, but this is again dubious: the individual actor should be granted the right to sign the individual release form.
But it does sound like this is over and done with now, and Mark's made the decision to let it blow over.
If an actor becomes a 'name' through high profile work subsquently,the photographer will need to pay royalties in perpetuity if a release form hasn't been signed.
'Cease & desist' terms may have to be attained at this point.
In the meantime,put the whole episode down to experience I reckon.
You must login as a candidate to participate in the forum.
Please note:Messages written in the forum do not represent the views of The Mandy Network, nor have they been vetted by The Mandy Network staff.
If you read something which you believe to be offensive or defamatory, please contact us and we will take the appropriate action.
