Should I do this boudoir shoot?

August 27, 2013 5:11 PM

I recently purchased an online deal for a boudoir photo shoot after checking it out on Yelp and seeing that the company had decent reviews. I have some privacy concerns.

I've exchanged a few emails with them, and in the last one I asked if there was some sort of contract between the company and clients stating that none of the pictures would be reproduced or posted without the client's consent. Their answer was: "We never post or share any images with out clients permission. We do not need to use your photos. There is no contract to sign."

Is this something I should insist on drafting and signing? Is it enough that they wrote it in the email, or does that carry no legal weight whatsoever?

The main reason I'm taking these pictures is for posterity and for a nice reminder of what I looked like during my (relative) youth, and I'm still debating on whether to present a picture or two to my boyfriend for a special occasion. In any event, I am going to let the photographer know that I only want him to take pictures of my body and not my face. However, I also know that I cannot control every snap he takes, and I also cannot force him to erase everything off his camera/computer after the session. But the ones I choose as prints will definitely not have my face or only the lower half of my face.

Also, I'm not dead set on doing this shoot, either. I thought it'd be a fun (and out of character) thing to do, but I'm feeling increasingly uncomfortable about it and wanted to hear from the hive mind.

Thanks.

posted by shipsthatburn to Grab Bag (15 answers total)

Are you ever going to run for office, become a professional that works with kids, want a job with some sort of security clearance, become a therapist, doctor,lawyer, police person, see where I'm going with this?
posted by HuronBob at 5:25 PM on August 27, 2013 [2 favorites]

If the photog is so brusque and dismissive of your entirely valid concerns about privacy in advance of the shoot, I shudder to think of how s/he is going to make you feel when you are at your most vulnerable.

Personally, I'd pass.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 5:27 PM on August 27, 2013 [20 favorites]

This strikes me as just a little odd, because there would normally be SOME sort of written release or contract in my experience. I don't shoot this sort of thing, but I do shoot nudes and there's always a model release.

Personally, I think if you're even slightly concerned then you should just not do it. You can't un-take a photo. I'm not trying to talk you out of the idea, but if you're concerned enough about privacy to not want to show your face, then you're probably not going to want to live with the "risk" of the photos getting into a public venue.

But even given a written contract, do you have the resources to enforce it?

Seems like a lot of effort for something you're not fully committed to.
posted by blaneyphoto at 5:28 PM on August 27, 2013 [3 favorites]

I've done a boudoir shoot and I found it really fun and empowering. But I did it with a photographer who made me feel confident and comfortable. If the idea still intrigues you a bit, maybe look into someone who is more responsive to your requests. This sketches me out.
posted by chatongriffes at 5:43 PM on August 27, 2013 [6 favorites]

Assuming you are in the US:

I would not do this without having a licensing agreement or even a transfer of copyright in place.

Copyright law is complex, but in general, absent a written agreement, the photographer would hold the copyright to those images even though you paid him/her to take them, and could use your photos however they'd like, and prevent you from using them if they so chose. This is a situation similar to one that people often face when hiring a wedding photographer. You can research the "Work for hire" portion of US copyright law which lays out the very narrow circumstances during which a photographer is considered to be "for hire" (I don't think this circumstance applies).

I'm surprised the photographer was so blunt about this. I guess I don't know that many professional photographers, but the ones I do know are pretty well-versed in these sorts of issues and are happy to explain how photography licensing works.
posted by muddgirl at 5:55 PM on August 27, 2013 [2 favorites]

I recently did a pin-up shoot, and the photographer had a statement to sign that explained clearly what my rights and her rights were with regard to the pictures, and I had the option to give her the right (or not) to post them on-line at her business's website and Facebook page. I wouldn't do a shoot witih someone who didn't have a written statement of that kind.
posted by not that girl at 5:57 PM on August 27, 2013 [5 favorites]

My ex did something similar... years later I saw his picture from that shoot on the splash page of a gay porn site (ahem...)

What I was doing looking at the porn site is not the point of the story, but rather that his picture was there without his consent. It took a lot of pressure and threatened lawsuits to get the image removed as the photographer was easily able to claim that he'd never distributed the photos. Of course, by then the picture was out - and the internets being as they are, it's never really gone away.

Buyer beware.
posted by matty at 6:14 PM on August 27, 2013 [1 favorite]

Seconding Muddgirl. Absent a signed contract making it clear who owns the copyright to the images, I would not do this.
posted by radwolf76 at 6:22 PM on August 27, 2013

The studio is "work for hire"m as you're paying for the session and you own the rights. Draft up something and send it to them, if you are rearlly concerned.
posted by Ideefixe at 6:22 PM on August 27, 2013

I don't think that's true, Ideefixe. From my reading, there is only one category of "work made for hire" where copyright is automatically transfered without a written agreement - that of an employer and employee:

In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common law of agency, we consider the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to this inquiry are the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired party's discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party's role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the hiring party is in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party. See Restatement § 220(2) (setting forth a non-exhaustive list of factors relevant to determining whether a hired party is an employee)."

I believe in this case the photographer would be an independent contractor, not an employee. Again, this comes up all the time in wedding photography.
posted by muddgirl at 6:30 PM on August 27, 2013 [1 favorite]

The studio is "work for hire"m as you're paying for the session and you own the rights. Draft up something and send it to them, if you are rearlly concerned.
posted by Ideefixe

That's not defined at all here. Great if it is, but nothing stated says that's the case and a clear, legal document would need to be in place to have that work for hire situation to have any validity. I'm going to go out on a limb and say I'm an authority on the matter since I spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with licensing and legal issues surrounding photography. My lawyers and agencycould probably offer better counsel though. I pay them plenty for the work they do.
posted by blaneyphoto at 6:34 PM on August 27, 2013

Response by poster: Thanks for your opinions, everyone. I'm now firmly in Camp No. It's just not worth the potential grief.
posted by shipsthatburn at 6:58 PM on August 27, 2013 [1 favorite]

Best answer: I am a boudoir photographer. I am not your boudoir photographer. I have a business license and a contract reviewed by a lawyer that spells out very clearly how I will and will not use a client's images. We talk about it before they sign the contract and I am open to changing the verbiage to make them more comfortable. I provide a very sensitive and intimate service, and I want my clients to trust me completely.

So it all comes down to trust: do you trust this person? Do you trust them to get partially/mostly/completely naked for them? Do you trust them to give you a good and happy experience? Do you trust them to make you comfortable during and after the session?

I would be extremely leery of someone offering boudoir on Groupon or another discount website, and even more so if they didn't have a contract. I personally wouldn't trust that type of photographer to take my family portraits, let alone photos of my bare ass - and I have self-portraits of my bare ass available online.
posted by rhapsodie at 9:31 PM on August 27, 2013 [6 favorites]

It would be odd to have a photo of a headless naked woman. Instead, why don't you do a photo session with a photographer you trust, and include your face in them? I did a pin-up photo shoot in the spirit of "I'm not getting any younger, might as well," and there was nothing scandalous about it. I wore a vintage swimsuit, so even if the photos became public it wouldn't be mortifying. If you want to be more covered up than that, you could wear a fancy silk robe or some such.
posted by The corpse in the library at 9:00 AM on August 28, 2013

Further... do you trust them to be technically savvy enough to not accidentally put your proofs on the internet publicly?
posted by smackfu at 9:10 AM on August 28, 2013