I could be wrong, I could be right

[cx2uk]

I took some photos for a fundraising calendar for a local club. I did it for free (portfolio building). Given the nature of the photos I didn't anticipate using them in a portfolio and didn't get a model release or anything. I was happy to provide the club with print quality images to use in their calendar with my images credited to me. Nothing further was discussed or intimated.

I have since discovered that my images have been given to another photographer who has altered them and they have been released to a press agency for advertising purposes. The calendar will contain my originals. I'm shocked that another photographer would do this and frankly not at all happy that my work has been altered without my permission. I could have edited them myself to meet their requirements! When I explained I wasn't happy about this they said it's OK since my images won't be credited to me in the press anyway! Aaargh!

I have asked to see the edited images so I can ensure they are done to a standard I am happy with. If not I will provide them with edited versions myself. I have also insisted that if they are part of a press release I am credited.

Am I being unreasonable?

[Rhondak]

Originally Posted by cx2uk

I took some photos for a fundraising calendar for a local club. I did it for free (portfolio building). Given the nature of the photos I didn't anticipate using them in a portfolio and didn't get a model release or anything. I was happy to provide the club with print quality images to use in their calendar with my images credited to me. Nothing further was discussed or intimated.

I have since discovered that my images have been given to another photographer who has altered them and they have been released to a press agency for advertising purposes. The calendar will contain my originals. I'm shocked that another photographer would do this and frankly not at all happy that my work has been altered without my permission. I could have edited them myself to meet their requirements! When I explained I wasn't happy about this they said it's OK since my images won't be credited to me in the press anyway! Aaargh!

I have asked to see the edited images so I can ensure they are done to a standard I am happy with. If not I will provide them with edited versions myself. I have also insisted that if they are part of a press release I am credited.

Am I being unreasonable?

Wow..I am as new as can be..and I will be watching this thread to see the responses from others with far more experience. I assure you I would be livid, first at my work being edited by someone else, and second by not being credited. I too am building my portfolio and I tend to do a lot of things for charity......often my husbands band does shows that will benefit a charity...they don't get paid...they use my images for all advertising..so we kind of use each other...I get credited for all of my photographs...the band gets exposure and the charity makes money....in those cases and with everything for the band I have a signed release stating we both get to used the images to self promote...with all credit given to the photographer(me)

[Jim Poor]

Is this an ad campaign for the charity to which you donated the images?

[Gobae]

In the real world yes, you're being unreasonable; but in the world of copyright probably not.

If someone gets a car from dealer, they can do anything they want to the car, including taking it to another dealer, garage or custom shop for service/modification all without the original dealer being consulted to make sure the changes were "done to a standard {they're} happy with".

[dakwegmo]

Originally Posted by Gobae

In the real world yes, you're being unreasonable; but in the world of copyright probably not.

If someone gets a car from dealer, they can do anything they want to the car, including taking it to another dealer, garage or custom shop for service/modification all without the original dealer being consulted to make sure the changes were "done to a standard {they're} happy with".

I think even in the "real world", if a car dealer gives someone a car. They're going to be upset if they find out the recipient is taking the car to another dealer for repairs or modifications.

[Gobae]

Originally Posted by dakwegmo

I think even in the "real world", if a car dealer gives someone a car. They're going to be upset if they find out the recipient is taking the car to another dealer for repairs or modifications.

Really?! I seriously doubt my car dealer cares what I do with my car after I drive it off their lot.

[Jim Poor]

I think even in the "real world", if a car dealer gives someone a car. They're going to be upset if they find out the recipient is taking the car to another dealer for repairs or modifications.

Let them be upset. It doesn't matter legally. One can take a car anywhere one wishes.

Now, back to the subject.

Most charities have stipulations that state by donating photos to them, you are giving them full rights, and sometimes even the copyright.

Working with charities is a great way to get experience and even some networking, however, the key is to work with charities that you would actually support anyway rather than just picking a random charity as a means to an end (self promotion).

The question here, is whether you care more about the charity or the advertisement.

Even if I thought you were on solid ground for pushing your case (I don't) I'd recommend that you consider the repercussions of escalating this. Is it worth gaining the reputation of being an ogre?

Now, for the future, you need a contract that spells out what can and can't be done with the images and by whom. Sending photos off to a retouch artist or designer for an add campaign is pretty common procedure. Even if that person happens to be a photographer.

[zona5101]

another instance where having stuff in writing would have been the best.
A lot will depend on what you intended or said when you handed over the images. Something as innocent, as "here ya go, do what you like with them" and they may do exactly that. Providing them with a specfic purpose such as "these are for your exclusive use in your calendar" puts different limitations. Still, the image is yours and you intended it to be used in a particular way and the reciepient had you believe it would be used in a particular way, I think you are not being unreasonalbe to request the image not be handed off or modified by any one or used in any way other than the understood calendar use.
The dificulty may come in what was exactly conveyed when you handed over the images...

[dakwegmo]

Originally Posted by Gobae

Really?! I seriously doubt my car dealer cares what I do with my car after I drive it off their lot.

The dealer just gave you the car for free?

[Gobae]

Originally Posted by dakwegmo

The dealer just gave you the car for free?

Of course not. The car lot statement is an analogy meant to illustrate that in most of our daily lives once we give/sell something to someone it's theirs to do with it as they please. In contrast, copyright law often allows the creator to attach limitations that just aren't commonplace with other things.