How can this be resolved amicably???

[TrueColours]

Or can it??? :confused:

Susie Smith owns a mare - Fluffy - who competed for 2 years with the good pro Billy Brown. The mare had her last show season last year and is now in foal to a nice WB stallion and Susie has the in foal mare for sale as well as offering an in utero option on the 2010 foal.

The mare is a nice mare but not a NICE mare. She pulled in some decent ribbons in decent classes, but was not and never will be a superstar mare.

Susie also has another youngster in training with Billy and it will hit a few shows this season.

Susie intends to advertise the mare for sale / the in utero foal for sale, using pictures of Fluffy that she had taken at the shows and a professional photographer had taken as well (with Billy riding her), and Billy has now asked her not to do so, as he has now told Susie that he never really liked the mare all that much in the first place and he doesnt want to be seen as "endorsing" this mare in any way. Plus he said it puts him between a rock and a hard place, as it will immediately be evident who the rider is on the mare at the shows, and he will then have the choice of telling the truth about the mare (which will tick Susie - his client off) and/or lying and/or ommiting details about the mare which he is not comfortable doing

Susie is ticked and I can see her side of the equation, as she paid good money to have Billy ride and train and show the mare for 3+ years, only to learn now that he "didnt like her all that much" and doesnt want to be associated with her, but she also doesnt want to rock the boat as she has her youngster with him and he DOES do an excellent job with them

I know Susie reasonably well and the same with Billy, and Billy has said the mare was a miserable cow that needed handling with kid gloves and if the foal turns out a 10th as witchy as the mare was, he wouldnt take it if it was offered to him for free, so he wants to remain at arms length from this whole transaction and NOT have anyone ask him his opinion on this mare if he can at all help it. And in all fairness - maybe that temperament was show created and maybe she is an angel now - who knows???

The best pictures available of this mare are her show ones. She is fit, looks great and shows acceptable form over fences, but it is now looking like they cannot be used. All of them have Billy in the tack

Billy has offered to help braid her, clean her up (she is now in broodmare shape since her last show was around September-ish 2008), stand her up and get some nice conformation poses of her and assist in getting some nice movement shots as well

I dont believe there is a right or a wrong here but is there a middle ground?

Very honestly, if I was looking to purchase this mare and knew she had shown for 2 years, I'd find it awfully odd that no pictures of her over fences were available to view but I can see both sides here ...

Any brilliant suggestions???

[misita]

Who paid for the pictures? I use photos of my horses with their trainers all the time and they've never had a problem with me using the photos. When a professional photographer has been used, I pay the bill and own the photo.

The trainer should be honest about his opinion of the mare, but he should have told the owner he disliked her very much earlier than now. Just because he's the rider/trainer doesn't mean he's promoting the horse.

[Penthilisea]

Susie could offer to have the pics professionally edited to "hide" Billy's identity.

[szipi]

Since I am a trainer and horse seller, I am brutally hones about the horses I train - and I tell everyone exactly how it is...just because i have been in the above situation. Billy should have been honest while training the mare (and maybe he was). However, I would not opposed to the owner using my picture on the horse - heck, she paid for the training, the showing and the PHOTOGRAPHER, she owns the dang pictures. The owner has to understand though that if someone tracks me down, as the rider, I would tell my opinion to the prospective buyer...maybe a little bit more tacktfully than outlined.

Also, what Billy should have done, besides being honest about the mare while in training, he should have educated the client about breeding, and breeding to a stallion who would likely compensate for the mare's temperament. For most trainers, keeping the client in the dark is the way to go - because the knowledgable client would shed light to the trainer's shortcomings. I prefer to deal with educated clients and I go out of my way to teach my clients HORSEMANSHIP, not just riding.

[Molly Malone]

The trainer, if any sort of professional at all, will give his opinion of the mare when asked a direct question to do so, he will Not offer it willy nilly. And if asked 'did you like her/' would, again if at all professional, would say 'The mare and I did not get on, but she was trainable enough that we could show and win.' His opinion of the potential foal's temperament is best left as 'there are so many variables, I couldn't begin to offer an opinion'.

Whoever owns the photographs uses them. The man took enough money for two years and is still taking in the money that he can suck up the possible remote chance that he might be seen as endorsing the mare. Perhaps if she were in his barn and he was getting a big fat commission, he might be singing a different tune.

Susie should get a new trainer.

[ThreeDays]

While I agree that the trainer should have mentioned that he didn't much enjoy working with said mare long ago - not now - it really is no concern of his as to whether the mare owner wishes to sell her performance mare as a broodmare.

The identity of the rider/ trainer will be hard to hide in edited pictures since any person inquiring about purchasing the mare will most likely pull up the mare's competition records and see who the rider at each of the competitions was.

If the mare owner owns the copyrights to the photos she is free to use them in any capacity the copyright allows. Editing the face/ idenity of the rider might show as a nice gesture if she wishes to maintain a working relationship with the trainer - but as I said - his idenity will never really be hidden.

Getting into a conversation as to whether this mare should have been bred at all in the first place is not the OP question and can be discussed elsewhere.

It sounds as though the mare owner paid good money over the career of the mare to achieve accolades in sport. The former trainer really has no right to say he doesn't want his name mentioned as part of the sales process.

It doesn't bode well for either party involved that their working relationship was so mute of honest assessments of the horse until now.

The mare owners decision to breed the mare doesn't lay responsibility in the hands of the trainer. He appears to have done the job he was paid for and sounds like he was not consulted on his opinions of reproducing this mare.

While the mare doesn't sound like my cup of tea as a breeding mare the trainer has no right to threaten to stand in the way of a sale since she is not being marketed as a sporthorse and this out of his realm.

[paintjumper]

That would PISS me off! If he can not be honest enough about the mare while he is putting my money in his pocket, he certainly would not be riding another one of mine. The pictures belong to the one that paid for them. I have never asked my trainer about her feelings but then I never had to as she loved riding my horses as much as I did. The one horse I did have with my QH trainer many years ago was a butthead and Sandy told me so the first week she had him, she knew earlier, but she wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. I was sorry to hear it ,but thankful she was not wasting my money. He was sold and I got a better one. I'm not impressed, Billy.

[Laurierace]

I think its really unprofessional that he doesn't want to be associated with the mare NOW that she isn't lining his pockets anymore, but had no problem taking the money when she was with him. The pictures are her pictures, taken while he was being paid to be a job. He might have a right to say he didn't want the pictures of him used if he wasn't being paid to ride but that obviously wasn't the case. Use the pictures and instruct him to be vague if asked about the mare directly, if he bad mouths her give him hell.
Being the person I am I would probably tell him where to stick it, but that's just me!

[Jaegermonster]

DItto what Laurie said. Including the stick it part.
He sure didn't have a problem being associated with the mare when he was riding her, and I bet he didn't have a probelm cashing the checks from riding her.
The owner paid him to ride, the owner paid for the pictures, she can use them how she wants to.

[Jaegermonster]

Susie could offer to have the pics professionally edited to "hide" Billy's identity.

screw that. If Billy's worried about his identity NOW (after he was already paid to ride, train and show the horse) then he should pay to have the pics edited.

[NoDQhere]

Susie should just cut Billy's head off, in the pictures of course :lol:

Personally I am thinking he's being very unprofessional about the whole deal and I think Susie should be finding a new trainer.

[Nes]

Susie should just cut Billy's head off, in the pictures of course :lol:

Personally I am thinking he's being very unprofessional about the whole deal and I think Susie should be finding a new trainer.

Agreed. No one wants to look at the rider anyway, just cut him out.

Billy is being a big baby! It's not going to damage his reputation, he rode the horse for 3 years! What about all the people that saw him ride at shows? He's obviously upset about something else.

(GJ on the pseudonyms btw! very funny :lol:)

[Laurierace]

That is a good point. His butt sitting on the horse all those years at the shows is endorsement enough to get the word out assuming his head wasn't cut off then too. Its not like people in the know will be shocked to see him on her.

[Renae]

You can do amazing things with photoshop- for a professional photographer putting a different rider on the horse in a picture is no big deal, its doen more often then you would guess.

[Laurierace]

You can do amazing things with photoshop- for a professional photographer putting a different rider on the horse in a picture is no big deal, its doen more often then you would guess.

But why? She owns the pictures, she paid for the rides. They are hers to do with as she pleases. Its one thing if she took out an ad saying Billy Unprofessional says this is the best horse he ever sat upon and will move heaven and earth to be able to buy her unborn foal, but simply using her pic for a ride she paid for is none of his business.

[ThatScaryChick]

I think its really unprofessional that he doesn't want to be associated with the mare NOW that she isn't lining his pockets anymore, but had no problem taking the money when she was with him. The pictures are her pictures, taken while he was being paid to be a job. He might have a right to say he didn't want the pictures of him used if he wasn't being paid to ride but that obviously wasn't the case. Use the pictures and instruct him to be vague if asked about the mare directly, if he bad mouths her give him hell.
Being the person I am I would probably tell him where to stick it, but that's just me!

I agree! I would also tell Susie that she should find a new trainer or at least I hope she doesn't use him anymore. The guy sounds like a real tool.

[Dance_To_Oblivion]

Just wondering...is there any other way that Billy would be associated with the mare? For example if a prospective buyer looked up her show record would his name be there? If so then I think his reaction to her wanting to use the pictures is a bit odd. Also, if a prospective buyer asks Susie about the mare's show history then his name will come up anyway... so I don't get his issue with the pictures.

[TrueColours]

Thank you so much for all of the responses and suggestions :)

I think as well if this mare was of the calibre of a - lets say - Rox Dene - EVERYONE and their brother would know who she was, what she won, who rode her, etc but when we are talking about a 3' mare who showed and pinned modestly, had no particularily notable features about her, no one thought twice about her or remembered her for any reason after she left the ring, it just isnt the same thing. So - in the ad for the in utero foal, or the mare for sale in foal, to state that she "pinned well at ABC Show in the 3' division" and won the hack and was Reserve Champion at the Manure Manor Acres Show - NO ONE is going to remember her (good or bad) unless they possibly see the picture of Billy riding her. And I assume that Billy is perfectly happy keeping it exactly that way

Susie is perfectly happy stating that "Fluffy successfully showed in the 3' Hunter division in 2007 and 2008" and not even mentioning the fact that Billy rode her, but the sticking point is that the pictures add some value to the mare and/or her in utero foal and Billy has let it be known that he wont be happy if they are used

And I guess unfortunately in this case, whether Billy is a jerk or not is a moot point. Susie believes he can walk on water, she wants him to continue riding and showing her youngster, so she wont tell him to go and stick it because she doesnt want to rock the boat ... err ... saddle ... and then have to find another trainer and possibly be branded as a trouble maker among the close knit trainer/rider fraternity. And in some cases the devil you know IS better than the one you dont ...

I wonder if a tree or standard can be strategically photoshopped in to hide his smug face in the pictures??? :lol:

[Laurierace]

Another good point! Photoshop a bag over his head, or better yet a zebra striped helmet cover complete with ears and a tail (saw one of those today only it was pink!) but put it on backwards so the tail covers his face!

[columbus]

I think unfortunately you have found Billy to be someone not to be trusted with your business. I have had this discussion with baby trainers who are just starting. You do not ever say anything bad to anyone about a horse you have from a customer. Keep it to yourself or to the owner to keep them appraised of the horse you are working with. An honest trainer is not one who says exactly what they are thinking as they think it but an honest trainer is the one who says...to the owner, I may not be the one for this mare as I am finding these issues with her. The owner should be the only one to have heard his opinion about the mare, certainly not you. I don't care if he is your "friend"...I hope he doesn't do to you behind your back as he does to this customer...select your friends more carefully as this could be you. I would not not trust the trainers integrity. When the trainer has more fun dishing about the customers horses behind their backs then they can find business elsewhere.

Likely this owner paid dearly to make a reputation for this mare and he feels he has the right to undo the work she has done to improve the mares future with a few thoughtless words. She wasted two years with this toad...I feel very sorry for her. What a sour taste this trainer has left? I unfortunately find this all to common and now when I am hearing someone dish manure about their customers and horses I tell them that I am not likely to do business with people who treat others in this manner. Icky people. Pew. The pictures are the owners to do with as she pleases. This trainer has nothing to say about it and if he choses to undermine her efforts to sell the horse he only is being more and more disrespectful. Find some class Billy. And boy...don't call the owner a friend as I would hope a real friend would have told Billy what an unproffesional business manner he had. Everyone...class up. PatO

[RedMare01]

Maybe I'm crazy, but if the mare is being marketed as a broodmare only, why would the trainer be asked anything about her? If I were interested in a mare for sale as a broodmare, I would not really think to go to the trainer (who there is a 99% likelihood I would not know personally, or if I lived outside of the area, even know who he was at all (unless he a really big BNT...)).

I would tell her to use the pictures and leave the rest up to chance. If someone does happen to mention it to him...he should have thought of this situation when he was riding the mare. What if he were being paid to sell her himself? Would he have the same reaction then? I think not.

Caitlin

[dmalbone]

The fact that she owns the copyrights to the pictures does not mean that she can legally use them however she pleases as weird as it seems. Identity in photographs and advertising is weird like that... Waivers are needed out the wazoo nowadays. Just because he's riding the horse, unless there is something in a training contract somewhere where he gave his permission, he would have very good grounds to sue if he wanted to. Especially if these are published in a magazine or internet. I think he's being a complete jerk personally, but as a photography student know that what seems like such a minor thing could get this horse owner in big trouble. Yes... it's possible to easily photoshop his face out and replace it with another nondescript face that would consent to it. The photographer who sold the owner these photos basically isn't selling the rights to use the people in them for whatever one wishes. It's extremely touchy legally and if it means this much to use these pictures I would honestly consult a lawyer as it could end very, very poorly. It may be worth looking into any sort of agreement that these shows may have had if it was recent enough. Some may have a generic "you show your face here you may be shown in the media" sort of thing.

[showjumpers66]

I agree with the others that if she has copyrights to the photos, then she should be able to use the photos. She has PAID for the services and there is a lot of market value when you have good show photos. I think it is fair to say that there is an "understanding" between trainers and owners that competition photos and videos will be used for marketing purposes. If he had a problem with representing the horse, then he should have said something when he was competing the horse. When I am shopping, I always pull show results which are going to have on record who was riding her thus it is pointless to avoid using the photos or to blank out the trainer's face. The information is readily available, photos or not.

[Laurierace]

Let's swing this into my world for a minute. Take a big time race trainer like Bob Baffert. Bob trained a horse for a client and won a race here and there (the only time you would get a pro photo in racing) Mare is now in foal and owner wants to advertise the win pic with everyone including Bob Baffert in it. Bob hears about this and says that mare couldn't run much and was an evil witch or something to that affect. You think he has a right to demand they not use the win pic or photoshop a toilet over his face? As long as they aren't advertising his quotes, he doesn't have a leg to stand on in my opinion.

[stoicfish]

He shouldn’t worry about the pictures since he rode the horse in public and even if the shows were small, it was still public knowledge that he was involved with the mare. Suggesting that she hide that fact - is poor.
As far as him vouching for the mare – well is he a jerk for not wanting to lie about a horse? The owner couldn’t possible be that unaware of her horses character along the way, but it probably wasn’t an issue till between them till now. How about her trying to misrepresent a horse? (not saying that is her intent, but that is almost how it sounds) How is the buyer going to feel if he/she finds out after they buy about the mare? Is that not an issue? Wouldn’t it be better to sell the horse with a certain amount of disclosure and then there is no conflict. As far as his position, there is lying and then there is being honest using some tact.

[TrueColours]

How about her trying to misrepresent a horse? (not saying that is her intent, but that is almost how it sounds) How is the buyer going to feel if he/she finds out after they buy about the mare? Is that not an issue? Wouldn’t it be better to sell the horse with a certain amount of disclosure and then there is no conflict

I think in all fairness here, the mare was apparently a cow in a show environment and I have NO idea what prep was necessary to get her to the ring each time and if she just finally got pissy with what was being done to her to make her quiet and compliant, but since last fall, the most that is asked of her is that she eat her breakfast and dinner and is a good girl being led in and out of the field each day and since she has retired and been bred, she has been fine

So - is the "real" mare the pissy show mare? Or is the "real" mare the calm, happy, in foal at home mare?

[stoicfish]

How about just telling prospective buyers all of it? Maybe they will never want to show and it will be a non-issue for them. Or maybe they want a horse for their kid to show and it is a big issue. The mare will be better off with someone that knows her history and is comfortable, and the seller will have a rep. for being honest.

[Penthilisea]

On the plus side, Susie is hearing what Billy really feels BEFORE he tells a potential buyer! I've seen plenty of sale ads with a photoshoppe dout face- some were just black blobs. It's not the worst thing ever, especially for a middle of the road broodmare.

[kdow]

The fact that she owns the copyrights to the pictures does not mean that she can legally use them however she pleases as weird as it seems. Identity in photographs and advertising is weird like that... Waivers are needed out the wazoo nowadays. Just because he's riding the horse, unless there is something in a training contract somewhere where he gave his permission, he would have very good grounds to sue if he wanted to. Especially if these are published in a magazine or internet. I think he's being a complete jerk personally, but as a photography student know that what seems like such a minor thing could get this horse owner in big trouble. Yes... it's possible to easily photoshop his face out and replace it with another nondescript face that would consent to it. The photographer who sold the owner these photos basically isn't selling the rights to use the people in them for whatever one wishes. It's extremely touchy legally and if it means this much to use these pictures I would honestly consult a lawyer as it could end very, very poorly. It may be worth looking into any sort of agreement that these shows may have had if it was recent enough. Some may have a generic "you show your face here you may be shown in the media" sort of thing.

This would be my concern also. (I'm a film student, and we have to get waivers from our actors.) I don't know for sure what the exact situation is legally - I suppose someone could argue that there's an implied waiver in the trainer riding at a show where he knows there will be a photographer, but the same could be said of actors, since they clearly know they'll be being filmed, and we still have to have the paperwork in interests of CYA, so. I'd definitely spend the money to have a consultation with a lawyer with experience in this area before whipping out the show photos while the trainer is unhappy. (Because getting into an actual court case about it might be even more painful.)

Honestly, as other people have said, it would be pretty simple to edit the photos to make it difficult to identify the rider on the horse. Just blur out the face and any other distinguishing marks on the rider (if he had a distinctive jacket or something, I'd try to change that up also) and there you go.

[Jaegermonster]

So - is the "real" mare the pissy show mare? Or is the "real" mare the calm, happy, in foal at home mare?


The "real" pissy mare is behind door number 3- it's Billy Trainer.

[Equilibrium]

Well what if they do track Billy down, is he to say she's a lovely sweet mare or is he to say she was alright at what she did with proper handling. Because I do think this is a tricky situation.

Yes, Billy is paid to ride and obviously he did just that. Yes his involvement should be over at this point, but it is possible an interested purchaser would contact him about the mare. I don't think he needs to be nasty, but also honesty, to some degree, would be acceptable.

Let's put it this way, if any of you were buying said mare would you be happy buying a mare who may or may not have issues once the foal was born? Because we all know how south that can go in a hurry. Never mind bashing trainer, aren't these the mares we all say shouldn't be bred?

And while Bob Baffert may not like a filly for her attitude or say he didn't like her, most people in the TB breeding game are not so likely to care what a trainer said. More importantly, hussy mares are delt with accordingly such as stripped of their foals and raised by a nurse mare.

As far as pictures are concerned I think she's well in her right to use them if she wants. When I galloped horses anybody could buy or use the shots we had taken and that was the end of it.

What do we tell owners when they ask us about their TB babies? Mostly the truth. We had an incredible witch of a filly here one time and we weren't afraid to tell him just that. We also told him her good points, but didn't beat around the bush that possibly her attitude was going to cause her some problems which in fact it has. And this was the very first horse we had for him and he paid a bit of money for her. He's still a very good client and was one who actually appreciated honesty. Said everyone else always tells him how wonderful his horses are. Although I do love when we get asked if they will be good racehorses. My usual answer is "If I knew that I surely wouldn't be mucking out stalls for a living!"

Anyway, TC, it is a tricky situation.

Terri

[rideagoldenpony]

I think its really unprofessional that he doesn't want to be associated with the mare NOW that she isn't lining his pockets anymore, but had no problem taking the money when she was with him. The pictures are her pictures, taken while he was being paid to be a job. He might have a right to say he didn't want the pictures of him used if he wasn't being paid to ride but that obviously wasn't the case. Use the pictures and instruct him to be vague if asked about the mare directly, if he bad mouths her give him hell.
Being the person I am I would probably tell him where to stick it, but that's just me!

I couldn't possibly say it any better than Laurie, so I'll leave it at that.

[Foxtrot's]

Billy sounds like a jerk. Lots of sale photos of horses are cropped with the heads missing.

There was a case in NY where a homeless person in Central Park was sleeping on a park bench and had his photo taken which then ended up in print somewhere. Said person sued and in the end lost on the point that he was in a public place and could be photographeed - not like the photographer sneaked up and took a photo of him sleeping in his bedroom.

Very interesting topic. If it was my mare I'd probably say, "So sue me." Billy needs to protect his name. But he could do a lot of damage if he was unprofessional enough to badmouth the mare... or stupid enough since she is still using him for her other horses.

[CrossWinds81]

My cut and dry take is this...sorry if I'm repeating anyone else's take. I haven't read exery single post...

Susie paid for pics for a reason...she has the right to use them.

Tell Billy this is what IS going to happen whether he is pleased or not...if someone is really interested in finding out every detail about the mare. they will, and she can tell him to be tactful but honest with his responses.

As someone has well mentioned already though, if her show name is given to interested buyers, it will be public knowledge anyway.

I'd try best to keep high emotions out of it. If susie wants to sell her mare she has that right and should be able to give the mare whatever credit is due whether she was witchy or not she still pinned the classes and was managable enough to do it.

[Iron Horse Farm]

I have owned broodmares of one type or another for 17 years. In all of that time, I have NEVER been tempted to contact a former trainer who may or may not have known any more about the horse than what she felt like over a fence.

IMHO, what trainers know about breeding can fit on the head of a pin.

I've also known a couple of mares who were absolute COWS under saddle who turned out to have underlying injuries that didn't show up until they had been bred. I personally had a mare that was very barn sour and most people would have told you not to breed her because of her temperament. I was smart enough to figure out that her "attitude" was probably more based on the fact that her fat, hard handed rider kicked and pulled, landing on her face and bouncing on her back then her actual personality. Sooo, what a mare might have been like at a horse show isn't high on my list of "weed out" questions to ask when looking at a broodmare. I judge what I see in front of me.

Use the photos and tell Billy to kiss your everloving a**.

[Kyzteke]

Or can it??? :confused:

Susie Smith owns a mare - Fluffy - who competed for 2 years with the good pro Billy Brown. The mare had her last show season last year and is now in foal to a nice WB stallion and Susie has the in foal mare for sale as well as offering an in utero option on the 2010 foal.

The mare is a nice mare but not a NICE mare. She pulled in some decent ribbons in decent classes, but was not and never will be a superstar mare.

Susie also has another youngster in training with Billy and it will hit a few shows this season.

Susie intends to advertise the mare for sale / the in utero foal for sale, using pictures of Fluffy that she had taken at the shows and a professional photographer had taken as well (with Billy riding her), and Billy has now asked her not to do so, as he has now told Susie that he never really liked the mare all that much in the first place and he doesnt want to be seen as "endorsing" this mare in any way. Plus he said it puts him between a rock and a hard place, as it will immediately be evident who the rider is on the mare at the shows, and he will then have the choice of telling the truth about the mare (which will tick Susie - his client off) and/or lying and/or ommiting details about the mare which he is not comfortable doing

Susie is ticked and I can see her side of the equation, as she paid good money to have Billy ride and train and show the mare for 3+ years, only to learn now that he "didnt like her all that much" and doesnt want to be associated with her, but she also doesnt want to rock the boat as she has her youngster with him and he DOES do an excellent job with them

I know Susie reasonably well and the same with Billy, and Billy has said the mare was a miserable cow that needed handling with kid gloves and if the foal turns out a 10th as witchy as the mare was, he wouldnt take it if it was offered to him for free, so he wants to remain at arms length from this whole transaction and NOT have anyone ask him his opinion on this mare if he can at all help it. And in all fairness - maybe that temperament was show created and maybe she is an angel now - who knows???

The best pictures available of this mare are her show ones. She is fit, looks great and shows acceptable form over fences, but it is now looking like they cannot be used. All of them have Billy in the tack

Billy has offered to help braid her, clean her up (she is now in broodmare shape since her last show was around September-ish 2008), stand her up and get some nice conformation poses of her and assist in getting some nice movement shots as well

I dont believe there is a right or a wrong here but is there a middle ground?

Very honestly, if I was looking to purchase this mare and knew she had shown for 2 years, I'd find it awfully odd that no pictures of her over fences were available to view but I can see both sides here ...

Any brilliant suggestions???

This is easy! Just use photos where the rider is not too obvious and/or use Photoshop to blur or retouch the face again. Do not mention trainer's name in ads, although said trainer should realize this is a matter of public record and not difficult to discover.

However IF a prospective buyer should ask the trainer his opinion, he should remember he happily took Sally's $$ for 3 yrs. If he hated the mare that much he should have declined the ride. He should be able to think of some nice things to say (I'm sure there were some) and let it go at that...or remark that the mare was very sensitive -- nothing wrong with the buyer knowing that. Could save alot of trouble down the road.

[DeeThbd]

Let's swing this into my world for a minute. Take a big time race trainer like Bob Baffert. Bob trained a horse for a client and won a race here and there (the only time you would get a pro photo in racing) Mare is now in foal and owner wants to advertise the win pic with everyone including Bob Baffert in it. Bob hears about this and says that mare couldn't run much and was an evil witch or something to that affect. You think he has a right to demand they not use the win pic or photoshop a toilet over his face? As long as they aren't advertising his quotes, he doesn't have a leg to stand on in my opinion.

BUT....doesn't his presence in the picture IMPLY something about the quality of the mare (using the Baffert example).
Secondly....regarding the trainer's ethics....did he take the owner's money and do a less than stellar job training her because he disliked her, or did he train her through her attitude and get her to perform to the best of her ability? There are plenty of race trainers who have horses they loathe in their barns, but they aren't paid to LIKE the horse, they are paid to get it to run. I would be very upset if I went to look at a horse and the trainer did NOT disclose a horse's difficult attitude - I would feel I had been sold a bill of goods and lost any faith in that person's credibilithy.
I guess I am in the vast minority here...would people rather pay a trainer who thought Pookums was a darling mare and did a decent job training her, or a trainer who thought the mare was a cockroach and still brought out the best in her performance-wise? If despite his feelings for her he brought her along well, wasn't he doing what he was paid to do?
And....regarding the necessity of having her endorsed as a competition horse....the implication is tha her offspring will also have some success in the show ring - isn't that the whole purpose of breeding her and offering the foal for sale?
Just trying to figure it out from the point of view of someone who neither breeds nor shows beyond the local level.:D
Dee

[Laurierace]

Absolutely his being in the pictures implies something. The old a picture is worth a thousand words thing. So what? Part of the training job is to stand in the winner's circle with your hand on the horse's hip if she wins.

[rcloisonne]

Susie paid for pics for a reason...she has the right to use them.
Not if she's using them for material gain. I'm not a lawyer but have had many professional photos taken of my show horses over the years and all clearly stated they are for personal use only. You pay for the print but the photos actually belong to the photographer. Otherwise written permission is required to use them in any ad or publication. A fee is usually involved. ;)

As far as the trainer goes, I wonder what he really thinks of her current horse? My horses and I would be so out of his barn...

[Saidapal]

The identity of the rider/ trainer will be hard to hide in edited pictures since any person inquiring about purchasing the mare will most likely pull up the mare's competition records and see who the rider at each of the competitions was.

Since this is true I don't see what the problem is. Use the pictures. Anybody interested in her as a performance horse will look up her record and probably seek out Billy anyway, and someone who's buying her as a brood mare won't care.

Billy is just going to have to suck it up in my opinion. He was willing to take Susie's money and endorse the mare enough to compete her. Plus, there's nothing wrong in telling the truth if he is asked. I had a mare who was very difficult for most people to ride and it didn't make her a bad mare. Only difficult. Anybody who knows mares will understand that!

And if I were Susie, I would be looking for another trainer on the off chance that he really feels the same way about her new horse and will do it again.

[LockeMeadows]

Is there anyone else who thinks there is more to the story? We're only hearing one side of this and there are usually three sides to every story; hers, his, and the truth.

[SilverBalls]

Is there anyone else who thinks there is more to the story? We're only hearing one side of this and there are usually three sides to every story; hers, his, and the truth.

I was thinking the same thing. :eek:

My younger brother would would always tell a story about someone else and all the time he was actually talking about himself... :confused:

[lolita1]

I agree there sounds alot more to it than what has been said and if it isn't about you really may be you shouldn't have posted about it. If the owner owns the photos then Billy is out of luck plus he got paid to ride the horse. If he didn't like it that much he should have handed it back. Billy sounds like a PITA besides which what is wrong with a nice mare there are very few NICE mares they are pure gold. Good luck to the owner.

[patch work farm]

I agree with what others have said, she paid for the pictures and he loaded his pockets with her money, tough luck for him. Frankly, I have never had anyone ask to speak to my trainer about any of the horses I have had for sale unless they are in his care on his farm. I think Billy is making a mountain out of a molehill and no, it doesn't sound like this will end amicably in answer to your original question.

[okggo]

You can do amazing things with photoshop- for a professional photographer putting a different rider on the horse in a picture is no big deal, its doen more often then you would guess.


It is quite a simple solution really, photoshop Paris Hiltons head on his body. Problem solved.

[SilverBalls]

It is quite a simple solution really, photoshop Paris Hiltons head on his body. Problem solved.

Priceless! :lol::lol::lol:

[Peg]

I had a comparable circumstance and there is no more to the story. Mine did not end amicably, I'm afraid. Peg :no:

[~Freedom~]

Is there anyone else who thinks there is more to the story? We're only hearing one side of this and there are usually three sides to every story; hers, his, and the truth.


I agree and I always thought that Faux Finish was supposed to be more than just a decent/modest mare.

According to her FF is a stunning, unique one of a kind mare.

Since when has TC ever been less than bold in describing any of her multiple egg producing mares?

[jeta]

And I guess unfortunately in this case, whether Billy is a jerk or not is a moot point. Susie believes he can walk on water, she wants him to continue riding and showing her youngster, so she wont tell him to go and stick it because she doesnt want to rock the boat ... err ... saddle ... and then have to find another trainer and possibly be branded as a trouble maker among the close knit trainer/rider fraternity. And in some cases the devil you know IS better than the one you dont ...

And herein lies the problem.....Describe this close knit trainer/rider fraternity....Are we talking top notch or are we talking about someone that THINKS he is a "good pro" in Susie's area?....IMHO anyone who swings his leg over the horse and enters the show ring for 2 YEARS knows damn well that he is endorsing the mare with each check he cashes.....A pro would know that he is going to get some peaches to ride and is also going to get his fair share of difficult rides....I am going to assume that he is not so big a deal that he could refuse to ride this mare if he really felt strongly about her attitude and abilities....So if his reputation were truly at stake here he would have manned up and asked Susie to take her business elsewhere....

Now if you were to say he put in some training rides and refused to walk in the show ring on this mare and Susie was using those photos to market the horse I think your pro just might have some right to gripe.....

[wehrlegirl]

He shouldn’t worry about the pictures since he rode the horse in public and even if the shows were small, it was still public knowledge that he was involved with the mare. Suggesting that she hide that fact - is poor.
As far as him vouching for the mare – well is he a jerk for not wanting to lie about a horse? The owner couldn’t possible be that unaware of her horses character along the way, but it probably wasn’t an issue till between them till now. How about her trying to misrepresent a horse? (not saying that is her intent, but that is almost how it sounds) How is the buyer going to feel if he/she finds out after they buy about the mare? Is that not an issue? Wouldn’t it be better to sell the horse with a certain amount of disclosure and then there is no conflict. As far as his position, there is lying and then there is being honest using some tact.


I totally agree with this.. if he is honest with someone who has gone out of their way to contact him about a show record on a broodmare, he is being professional. The owner was prob. not in the dark about her mares behavior and should be honest with buyers....I dont think most horse people are going to be 'shocked' when told that some mare was being a ***** at a show..if she hated showing then the owner should just say she was retired to doing what she is happier with.. I dont think there is any shame in that, nor would it really effect a sale unless she is marketing her as a show horse. But then again a different rider could have a whole other experience with her- happens all the time .

[Home Again Farm]

I agree with the others that if she has copyrights to the photos, then she should be able to use the photos. She has PAID for the services and there is a lot of market value when you have good show photos. I think it is fair to say that there is an "understanding" between trainers and owners that competition photos and videos will be used for marketing purposes. If he had a problem with representing the horse, then he should have said something when he was competing the horse. When I am shopping, I always pull show results which are going to have on record who was riding her thus it is pointless to avoid using the photos or to blank out the trainer's face. The information is readily available, photos or not.

Ditto on all counts. :yes:

[Portia]

While the photoshop comment above was a joke (and a funny one ;) ) it is not a bad idea. Just fuzz out the rider's face in the photo, or even his entire body.

If he doesn't accept that, then he's being unreasonable. Jeez, it's not like it can be kept a secret who rode the mare during her show career. All anyone has to do is look up the name of the mare on the USEF site, and it will show her entire show record including who rode her in each class.

[unclewiggly]

In a perfect word why would Billy bob Boyo give a rats ***??
She is being sold as a Brood Mare w/ Foal on board. Foals worth is far more calculated to the stallions standards than the mare. Granted she won some prizes but was not the conformation model or zone champion.
He just basically doesn't have to make himself available to answer a potential question which he most likely won't even be asked.
I think there is more to this as in he won't be getting any commission from sale of mare. Why else would he care??
If she were being sold as a competing show horse then maybe he would want to ensure the next rider can replicate his ride or let them know straight up she needs a "proffessional". To much drama for a "mare in foal". Think more questions than answers here.

[sid]

Perhaps Susie is worrying and caving in unnecessarily. After all, Billy has another of her horses in training. To speak ill of the mare for sale and that were to get back to Susie I'm sure would end the relationship. He obviously kept his mouth shut about the mare all the while he was earning a handly income from her. I'm sure he doesn't want to shoot himself in the foot financially.

Additionally, who's to say Billy won't do the same darned thing when he's done with the present horse and Susie decides to sell it, too. Sounds like a very one-sided financial arrangement if you ask me.

Maybe he has a history and doesn't want to be found by someone...you never know.

In any case, I think Susie holds the cards here (because of her other horse in training) and should proceed in publishing photos that she legally owns.

[kdow]

I have to point out, since people keep saying "well, you paid for the photos, you own them" that this is, in fact, NOT necessarily the case.

The copyright for the photograph by default belongs to the person who created the photo, i.e. the photographer. That means the photographer gets to decide what can and cannot be done with the image. (I am skipping over the issue of permission to use the likeness of someone here - pretend we're talking about a photo of a jump with no people in it.) You don't even have to put a little copyright symbol and date on it - it's just automatically there when you create the work.

When you buy a photograph from the photographer, the PHOTOGRAPHER gets to determine what rights he is actually giving you with regards to that image - he can sell you a copy of the photo for personal display only, while retaining the actual rights to the image himself (meaning he could also sell copies of that same photo to other people, enter it in a photo competition, etc.) or it can go all the way up to selling the negatives to the photo and all rights associated with it (meaning you could do whatever you darn well want to with the photos, make as many copies as you want, etc.)

To understand exactly what you're buying in any given transaction for an image, you MUST read the fine print. It should detail exactly what you're actually purchasing with regards to the print, your right to use it, etc. If you're not sure, ASK. Most professional photographers are quite familiar with this stuff, as it's very important for artists to be aware of what rights they have with regards to the use and display of their work.

The short version, however, is that if you buy a copy of a photo taken by a photographer at an event, it does NOT automatically follow that you can use that photo in advertising or for commercial purposes, or print out multiple copies for everyone in your family. It comes down to what that photographer is actually selling you with that particular image.

(I will add that there is probably some kind of standard contract that most equine photographers use when looking at selling show photos. So probably photographer X and photographer Y at different events are going to be selling you the same basic 'package' of use of images. However at the end of the day, it's down to you to make sure you do actually have the right to use any given image in the way you intend. "But photographer X lets me!" is not a defense in court should it come down to photographer Y suing you for copyright infringement.)

I'm sure I'm not actually explaining this as clearly as I could, but it really just boils down to the idea that buying an image does not automatically mean you can do whatever you want with it. It's more complicated than that.

[sid]

Yes...legally owns the photo. I used the term "owns the photo" too loosly. The photographer actually owns the photo. The owner must check with the photographer regarding fees for use. The person who contracted the photographer usually must pay a "per use" fee to the photographer who owns the copywright when using it for advertising (with the appropriate credit). Or, they may pay an "unlimited use fee" which can cost a lot more.

Clearly, anyone who is having their photo taken by a professional photographer (aka "Billy") isn't a part of the equation. Between the photographer and the person who paid for the service.

[Bogie]

Do NOT photo shop the pictures. Once they have been altered, it raises issues about the photos that Susie doesn't want to address. For example, why did the rider not want his picture used or what else about the photo was changed?

Susie paid for the right to use the photos and she can use them any way she wants (as long as they don't come up against copyright laws).

Billy doesn't have any right to tell her she can't use them. If someone contacts him about the horse he certainly can give his opinion but I would hope that he would be professional enough not to bad mouth the mare. As many have pointed out, he liked her well enough to ride her for three years. Maybe he isn't getting a commission :confused:.

[dmalbone]

Susie paid for the right to use the photos and she can use them any way she wants (as long as they don't come up against copyright laws).

Billy doesn't have any right to tell her she can't use them. I'm sorry... this just ABSOLUTELY is not right. The poster above explained it better than I tried. There is post after post after post saying the same thing... you paid for them, you use them however you want. That is 100% completely FALSE. If you are not aware of the legalities of this situation you shouldn't be telling the OP what to do. I completely agree it seems like a weird situation and I would LOOOOOVE to hear the trainers side of the story, but the fact remains: SHe bought the copyright to the pictures, but that does NOT mean she bought the ability to use them however she wants. She could very well end up sued by both the photographer AND the trainer. What... someone takes a picture of one of you women on the beach and then one day it appears in a cheap girly magazine with some lude comment and you're going to be ok with it? No... just because the photographer sold the picture of you (which he took and legally owned) where maybe you were having a completely innocent wardrobe malfunction and then playboy publishes it with some perverse comment, you're basically saying that YOU as the subject of the photo have absolutely no say in the matter because the photographer took it and sold it to Hugh. Sorry... it just doesn't work that way AT ALL. Yeah... I used a bizarre example, but when it gets down to basics it's the same thing. Owning photographs does NOT mean you can use them how you wish if there is another human in the picture. Sorry... that's just the way the law works.

[dmalbone]

Another quick example... my wedding photos. I paid my photographer to photograph my wedding. A wedding publication approached her from seeing some pictures on her blog and wanted to publish them. Even though legally the photographer owned the pictures (I was later purchasing the rights to them but had not yet) she could NOT and did not (because she had common business sense) just hand my photos over!! :eek: She asked my permission for the rights of the publication to print them and I had a ginormous agreement from the wedding co. to sign stating that I agreed to have my image published and was legally granting my permission. Just because a horse is involved makes it NO difference. Say Besty Florist comes along and sees those pictures. She thinks... hey, she PAID ME good money to create those bouquets that everyone is holding, I have a right to use these pictures as well and puts them on her site. Nope, not even close.

[Iron Horse Farm]

I'm sorry... this just ABSOLUTELY is not right. The poster above explained it better than I tried. There is post after post after post saying the same thing... you paid for them, you use them however you want. That is 100% completely FALSE. If you are not aware of the legalities of this situation you shouldn't be telling the OP what to do. I completely agree it seems like a weird situation and I would LOOOOOVE to hear the trainers side of the story, but the fact remains: SHe bought the copyright to the pictures, but that does NOT mean she bought the ability to use them however she wants. She could very well end up sued by both the photographer AND the trainer. What... someone takes a picture of one of you women on the beach and then one day it appears in a cheap girly magazine with some lude comment and you're going to be ok with it? No... just because the photographer sold the picture of you (which he took and legally owned) where maybe you were having a completely innocent wardrobe malfunction and then playboy publishes it with some perverse comment, you're basically saying that YOU as the subject of the photo have absolutely no say in the matter because the photographer took it and sold it to Hugh. Sorry... it just doesn't work that way AT ALL. Yeah... I used a bizarre example, but when it gets down to basics it's the same thing. Owning photographs does NOT mean you can use them how you wish if there is another human in the picture. Sorry... that's just the way the law works.

Your example is flawed. If you are on a public beach, you can have your picture taken. You are out in PUBLIC.

[littleum]

People are kicking around "copyright" too loosely.

Copyright: the OWNER of the work

License: the right to USE the work. This does NOT entitle you to CHANGE or ALTER the work, or to use in it in a way not previously approved! (Ie, you can only use the photo in print ads, but not the internet, you can only use the photo on your website, you may not give it to the press for their use)

In short: unless you KNOW you bought the COPYRIGHT (and you should have some written evidence of this) THE PICTURES ARE NOT YOURS. The photographer owns the "deed", you're just the leasee!

There is really some awful, terrible advice being given out in this thread, while the actual good advice being totally ignored.

[dmalbone]

Your example is flawed. If you are on a public beach, you can have your picture taken. You are out in PUBLIC.

No it's not. I'm not saying you can't have your picture taken. Of course you can. Just because you are in public does NOT mean that this picture can be used for any purpose the photographer wants though.

[kdow]

Your example is flawed. If you are on a public beach, you can have your picture taken. You are out in PUBLIC.

We're still expected to get releases signed by people who (for example) walk through a shot when we're filming, even if we're filming on a public sidewalk. That could quite plausibly just being the school being overly paranoid, but given the details of this particular situation where it sounds like the trainer might well make a fuss if there's any way he possibly can, I think Susie would be wise to double-check with someone who knows more details of the law and how it might be applied in this case.

(Even the local ACLU office might be a good first step - they'll probably have an idea who else to contact locally if they can't answer the question themselves.)

I would just be very conservative about making sure everything was in the clear, given the way the whole situation is described.

[Iron Horse Farm]

No it's not. I'm not saying you can't have your picture taken. Of course you can. Just because you are in public does NOT mean that this picture can be used for any purpose the photographer wants though.

Actually, this is why the paparrazzi can take photos of Madonna coming out of Starbucks and use them or sell them to the National Enquirer. You have no expectation of privacy in a public place.

Now, a horse show is proably not considered a public place.

ASSUMING (yea I know, but go with it for my example) that the mare owner has full and complete rights to the photos from the photographer to use as she wished......depending on what state that they are in, the trainer has no expectation of privacy. He knew he was being photographed and it is implied that since he was training the horse to make it more valuable, that proof of him doing so (ie those pesky photographs) is a part of his "service".

[mew]

I just have one question. . . if people looks up her record they will see how she placed and with who in the irons which will associate billy with said pony. So isn't all of this somewhat of a moot point? Billy agreed to show the horse, and is now permanently associated with said horse. That said susie should be okay with billy telling the honest truth about the horse. When people lie the main thing that gets hurt is the horse

[dmalbone]

Actually, this is why the paparrazzi can take photos of Madonna coming out of Starbucks and use them or sell them to the National Enquirer. You have no expectation of privacy in a public place.

Yeah... but could Starbucks use those photos of Madonna in an ad for the newest latte she's sipping, saying that she is endorsing it without her permission?

[Iron Horse Farm]

Yeah... but could Starbucks use those photos of Madonna in an ad for the newest latte she's sipping, saying that she is endorsing it without her permission?

If Starbucks was paying her to taste test their new lattes, then probably. :D

[paintjumper]

That the photographer owns the photos? If he/she gets permission/paid to shoot a horse show and then sell the photos to the horse owners then why do the SOLD photos still belong to the photographer? That's like me going to the Ford dealership, buying a truck with my money and then the dealer still owning the truck and telling me what I can do with it. Or me buying a painting that someone painted but it is still not belonging me......Suzy Painter created it so it is always belongs to Suzy Painter even though someone else bought it from her.......... a painting that she had for sale!!!! Does not make sense to me????

[kdow]

That the photographer owns the photos? If he/she gets permission/paid to shoot a horse show and then sell the photos to the horse owners then why do the SOLD photos still belong to the photographer? That's like me going to the Ford dealership, buying a truck with my money and then the dealer still owning the truck and telling me what I can do with it. Or me buying a painting that someone painted but it is still not belonging me......Suzy Painter created it so it is always belongs to Suzy Painter even though someone else bought it from her.......... a painting that she had for sale!!!! Does not make sense to me????

The photographer does not own the physical object of the print of the photograph - they couldn't come and take it off your wall. What the photographer owns is the creative work - the content of the photograph - because the photographer created it by choosing the composition and various other elements. As a result, the photographer gets to determine what is and is not allowed to be done with that creative work - the conditions in which it's used/displayed, etc. So if they sell it to you for personal use, then you could put it up on your wall at home, no problem.

The purpose of the rules is to protect people's intellectual property rights, so that people who create these things are reasonably rewarded for their work.

(It all gets a bit complicated as there is such a thing as Fair Use, which says that there are specific situations in which work can be reproduced WITHOUT the explicit permission of the creator, but that tends to be things like for educational purposes or the purpose of reviewing the creative work. It doesn't apply to selling a horse. :) )

ETA: Also the exact rules for copyright and intellectual property laws vary from country to country, so what I'm saying only specifically applies to the US. There are international agreements about respecting the laws of other countries, but not everyone has signed on to those. (Which is why, for example, there are all of those pirated DVDs produced perfectly legally in some places.)

[TrueColours]

Go away for a few hours and we are now talking about Madonna and Starbucks and taking lewd pictures on a beach somewhere ... :lol:

For what its worth, I have seen the pictures and I am 99% certain none that were being used were taken by a professional photographer. They were taken by Susie (I am pretty certain) with Billy riding, so if we are talking technicalities here, Susie owns the pictures outright

I also know for 100% certain that the pictures WERE up on Susie's website and Billy asked her to take them down and she complied as she didnt want to rock the boat, but she is unhappy about it. No ifs ands or buts

And despite the not so veiled comments ;) , this is NOT about me. I know both parties equally well and I have been asked by both parties what my opinion is on the matter and who is right and who is wrong and to be honest, I dont have a clue nor can I think of a fair way to settle this so both parties walk away happy

This is a real mare involved, with 2 real parties on both sides of the equation, with no immediate resolution in sight

kdow - going back to the legalities you mentioned. If Fluffy then happened to be wearing an Edgewood bridle and Edgewood wanted to use the picture of her for promotional purposes, and the picture was taken by Susie, obviously they would need to ask her for permission, but does that then extend to asking Billy's permission as the rider as well???

[goodmorning]

I'd tell that pro that he needs to re-evaluate why he rides as a pro in general. Usually a pro rides to make money and somehow increase the value of the horse (by making it easier for the ammy to ride or easier to sell). ..Now I'm wondering if he's really annoyed by the fact that he's not getting a commission. Just sounds odd to me, particularly when you can look show records up. Billy needs a serious reality check.

[kdow]

kdow - going back to the legalities you mentioned. If Fluffy then happened to be wearing an Edgewood bridle and Edgewood wanted to use the picture of her for promotional purposes, and the picture was taken by Susie, obviously they would need to ask her for permission, but does that then extend to asking Billy's permission as the rider as well???

I'm not actually 100% certain exactly what the laws are with regards to using someone's likeness with or without permission, which is why I suggest consulting a specialist in the area - since Billy might make trouble, Susie would be best off to make sure it isn't the kind of trouble that'll cost her a lot legally, y'know?

In the specific example with Edgewood, I would suspect they would definitely want to get permission from the rider because many people might interpret Billy being in the photo as Billy somehow specifically endorsing Edgewood. So Edgewood would, in theory, be gaining monetary benefit from Billy being in the photo since people might go 'oh, well, if BILLY likes it...' and in that case I'd think you REALLY want to make sure you've covered all the bases, so Billy can't come back and say 'you made money off of me, I deserve some of that.' A waiver would stipulate what kind of recompense (which might be 'none') Billy got for his likeness being used, so he wouldn't be able to come back to them later about it.

If Susie took the photos herself, that that simplifies things because since she holds the copyright she CAN do whatever she wants with the photos - so it shouldn't need to be a drawn out consultation to just clear up what's what.

[YankeeLawyer]

Are Susie and Billy in Canada? I ask because Canadian law may very well differ from US law regarding the right to use the photos in situations such as this. There have been a lot of statements / misstatements of law on this thread, but presumably all were made based on the assumption US law applies. In France, for example, there are much stricter laws protecting the rights to one's image than in the U.S.

[TrueColours]

YankeeLawyer - correct. Both reside in Canada

Billy shows more in the US and in Europe than in Canada but the home base is Canada and both are Canadian citizens

[Blonde Filly]

Is there anyone else who thinks there is more to the story? We're only hearing one side of this and there are usually three sides to every story; hers, his, and the truth.

I think you are 100% right...and I think we all know the parties and mare here involved...with web sites with in-utero sales, timing of the over fence showing in 2007 and ending in 2008 and bred for the first time in 2009 with the foal for sale now in-utero on said posters web site and ect...seems crazy to bring this all up on a public bb...rather than just work it out with Billy in private..but I'm also thinking this is to express it/veiled threat for Billy to see and read. JMHO

[Molly Malone]

I think you are 100% right...and I think we all know the parties and mare here involved...with web sites with in-utero sales, timing of the over fence showing in 2007 and ending in 2008 and bred for the first time in 2009 with the foal for sale now in-utero on said posters web site and ect...seems crazy to bring this all up on a public bb...rather than just work it out with Billy in private..but I'm also thinking this is to express it/veiled threat for Billy to see and read. JMHO


Except FF showed in the US. And her trainer bought her full sibling. And there has never ever been even a whiff of FF being a bitch on wheels, and given how you guys love to tear each other down given any opportunity, I'm sure we would all have read insinuations by now as to her demeanor. God knows we've all read plenty of other insinuations about her. I think it highly unlikely this is FF that is being discussed. The OP isn't stupid.

[sid]

If one is in the horse business one should understand that others, including professional photographers, don't do their job for free.

All prof photographers copyright and/or license their skill.

As a stallion owner (most of us MUST display prof photos) I have paid thousands to use their photos (and offpring) in ads and I don't regret it for one minute. They did a good job and deserve to be paid of their skill that may (and has) benefited my business promoting them....:yes:

But I've never been confronted by someone who threatened to trash a horse to be kept out of the photo. That's what I don't get about Billy-Bob, or whoever the heck he is.

[3Dogs]

well wait - so you want to exclude Billy? - maybe a jerk but as a buyer, I might want to know what Billy has to say - no one else thinks that the person who HAD the mare for three years might have something of value to say? Particularly since said "Susie" is trying to sell the "mare" in "foal" -

all the folks involved with Susie's horse should be allowed to be known by a prospective buyer. It is impossible to get complete stories anymore and now you have a mare that is in foal - more then ever, since coming to ride her (I guess that not an option) is out, and what? Two folks with two stories. And maybe a pain in the arse (or not) foal on the way

[TrueColours]

Bridget - as always, you are so out in left field I dont know whether to laugh or cry ... :rolleyes:

a) my trainer isnt a male. Not the last time I checked anyhow

b) she is not Canadian even though with the nice weather we have been having and the crummy weather SHE has been having in PA, maybe she is having thoughts about moving up here and I dont know about it yet ... ;)

c) she doesnt show "mostly in the States and in Europe with a home base in Canada" nor has she EVER shown in Canada at all!

d) FF is NOT for sale in foal. Her foal is for sale in utero, but SHE is not for sale any longer and mostly certainly NOT for sale with the foal she is carrying ...

e) the pictures of Jill riding, showing her and jumping her are on Jill's website and mine and they have never disappeared from either one so where are you getting that they have been removed??? :confused: Ever???

f) if she hated FF so much why would she buy the full sibling AND try to find someone to buy the OTHER full sibling??? And why is FF staying with her so she can present her to the WB inspections AND possibly stay there to foal out as well??? Usually if you hate something that much, you are happy to see their tails disappear down the driveway asap ...

g) last time things like this were judged and scored, FF was a NICE mare not just merely a nice mare ... ;) ... and she has never been a "miserable cow" either. FAR from it ... ;)

h) I dont have any photo's that *I* took of Jill riding, showing or jumping FF - they were all taken by someone else and/or professional photographers. Kinda hard for me to do when I havent even SEEN the mare since March 2007 when I dropped her off ...

i) if I had ANY issue with Jill on ANY subject, I would pick up the phone and hash it out with her and not hang up until it was resolved to the satisfaction of both parties not try and find a solution to it here or on any other BB

j) kinda hard for Jill to "volunteer to come over and stand FF up and clean her up so I can get some conformation and movement pictures done of her" when the mare is still with her and not with me ...

k) I am merely trying to help out both sides here to see if anyone else can come up with a solution that I havent even thought of, that I can present to both of them to make this win/win for both of them

Satisfied now???

I think it highly unlikely this is FF that is being discussed.

Thanks Molly. You win the *gold star* for your comment ... :)

sid:

But I've never been confronted by someone who threatened to trash a horse to be kept out of the photo. That's what I don't get about Billy-Bob, or whoever the heck he is.

Billy has never said or insinuated that he would "trash" the mare. He doesnt want to be seen as "endorsing" her in any way and he feels if pictures are used showing him riding her, it is a subtle / subliminal "endorsement" for the mare and he would prefer to stay at complete arm's length on this sale. I guess in the same way if you picked up that he wore a Rolex when he rode, or wore Porsche sunglasses. Would you not construe in the same way that successful trainers and riders like Billy LIKED and RECOMMENDED Rolex and Porsche products?

I also have no idea why Billy is digging in his heels so hard about taking the pictures down, but he is adamant that they not be used. Maybe there is more on his side of things that I and the mare's owner are not aware of at all. Who the heck knows???

[Cartier]

We have photos on our website of our Dobermans being stacked and/or being shown by our handler, Kelly Marquis, (who is one of the top Doberman handlers in the country). We give Kelly photo credit in the photo caption.

All the photos effectively say is, “as a fact, as evidenced by this photo, Ms. Marquis stacked and/or showed our dog, and this is what the dog won or how the dog looked when she did.” We are not saying that Kelly Marquis endorses our Dobermans. We are not making any comment at all with respect to what Ms Marquis thinks of our Dobermans, and people are free to contact her for opinions if they choose.

Susie can use the photos with Billy, he did in fact ride the mare. All she is saying is, “Here is a factual example of how nice this mare can look.” That is fact, it is not a claim the Billy Bob endorses anything.

To answer the OP's question, I don’t see an amicable resolution. Both parties need a smack upside the head. Billy needs a reality check. The photos depict fact, not an endorsement. If/ when he is contacted, Billy can give an opinion based upon his experience. His opinion will reflect on his professionalism. That comes with the territory as a trainer. If an owner disseminates a photo of an animal with a known entity (trainer/ handler), the owner is opening the door for people to inquire. A professional who makes a living taking owners money to present animals in the most favorable light possible can always find a tactful way to honestly answer direct questions. Susie needs to find the balls to stand up for herself and use the photos, accepting the likelihood that people will get accurate information from the trainer about this mare, which may or may not facilitate a sale. The customer should be learning accurate information about the mare from Susie, so that whatever Billy says is not “news.”

Btw, I seriously doubt this is the only area of her life where Susie is letting people walk all over her, and absent some compelling new data, we would fire Billy so fast it would make his head spin.

And Donna, I can't believe your lovely FF is even old enough to be in foal. Where did the time go? FF is younger than our Lourdess (who is also not the subject of your thread). :lol:

[DownYonder]

I haven't read the entire thread, but is it possible that Billy Brown is hinting that he wants a commission on the sale? He would probably change his tune in a hurry if you agree to pay him something when the mare sells.

However, if it were me, I'd fire him and find a new trainer for my other horses. What an arrogant, pompous a**. If he didn't like the mare, then why the heck did he take training money for her for two years?

[JustJump]

TC I don't want you to take this personally, but perhaps you should really consider a career change; it's always so hard to find a good, gripping read in the genre of equestrian fiction. Are you aware that manuscripts can be submitted directly to Amazon for Kindle? Honestly, you are showing no small amount of talent, and you have such a gift for creating drama. So perhaps it would help somewhat, to be able to channel all your creativity in a constructive way. It might also help to supplement your income, if that's a problem; I probably shouldn't make assumptions, but it is a slow time for many who are reliant on sales these days.

[Cartier]

TC I don't want you to take this personally, but perhaps you should really consider a career change; it's always so hard to find a good, gripping read in the genre of equestrian fiction. Are you aware that manuscripts can be submitted directly to Amazon for Kindle? Honestly, you are showing no small amount of talent, and you have such a gift for creating drama. So perhaps it would help somewhat, to be able to channel all your creativity in a constructive way. It might also help to supplement your income, if that's a problem; I probably shouldn't make assumptions, but it is a slow time for many who are reliant on sales these days.

Well… there’s certainly nothing personal about that post. :lol: How could TC feel otherwise? :lol::lol::lol:

Seriously, maybe it’s just me, but I’m seeing insinuations jumping off the page here. :eek: JJ, are there details that you know? If so, share. Why be so dramatic? What’s the back story?

As for fiction on these boards… must be a matter of perspective. I think it’s pure fiction when a poster (a friend of a stallion owner selling semen or the owner of a foal/horse for sale) suddenly has the autonomous impulse to start a thread or pose the question, the answer to which is from their buddy (posting a short time later) saying, “Why Susie, now that you mention it, my stallion/foal/horse is just perfect in that context.” It happens all the time here, it’s harmless when it does… but we all know it’s just a set-up to advertise a given horse... to sell something. Maybe we should have an annual COTH Most Obvious Advertisement Award. :):yes: If we were all honest, we’d admit that at one time or another, almost every poster on this breeding forum would deserve a nomination, including Arthur and I.

[willowmeadow]

This has nothing to do with copyright issues. Susie cannot use the photographs for personal gain without consent. This would be an invasion of privacy by appropriation of name, likeness, or identity.

Yes, people in public can have photographs taken and used in an EDITORIAL publication without repercussions, however, the same photographs cannot be used in an ADVERTISEMENT.

Here is a great article about the privacy law pertaining to this in the US:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/using-name-or-likeness-another

Unless the trainer signed a release giving consent for commercial use, to whomever took the photograph, the photograph cannot legally be used for commercial purposes.

[shawneeAcres]

Having not read this entire thread, my opinion is thus. A trainer is hired by a client to train an ride a horse, period. That in NO WAY implies an "endorsement" by the trainer, simply a contractural obligation to train, ride and show (if both paties agree) said horse. If Billy is SO insecure about his reputation that these photos may cause someone to think he is "endorsing" said horse, then Billy has some other issues going on in my opinion. There is likely much more about this than is on the surface, I can speculate as to what that is, but will not do so in public on a BB as I have no idea about this. Billy needs to get over it and Susie should utilize the photos as she wishes.

[TrueColours]

TC I don't want you to take this personally, but perhaps you should really consider a career change; it's always so hard to find a good, gripping read in the genre of equestrian fiction

Wow. Are you pscyhic or what?! :eek:

I just got asked to write an article for:

In our upcoming issue of our magazine, we would like you to do an article on "Selecting a Stallion for your Mare".


Now - I know this isnt a paid article, but heck - even John Grisham had to start SOMEWHERE! :lol:

I probably shouldn't make assumptions, but it is a slow time for many who are reliant on sales these days.

And thanks for the concern ... ;) ... but things are pretty okay in this corner as well in the area of horse sales! :)

And I will re-iterate once again. This is a real mare. Susie and Billy are both real. Neither one is me. Neither one is my trainer. Billy DID ride the mare in her show career. Billy DID ask Susie to take down the photo's off her website

Thats really the gist of it there

However, if I WAS doing a script now for Harlequin or some such thing, I could probably embellish and expand upon the details quite a bit more ... ;)

[~Freedom~]

TC I don't want you to take this personally, but perhaps you should really consider a career change; it's always so hard to find a good, gripping read in the genre of equestrian fiction. Are you aware that manuscripts can be submitted directly to Amazon for Kindle? Honestly, you are showing no small amount of talent, and you have such a gift for creating drama. So perhaps it would help somewhat, to be able to channel all your creativity in a constructive way. It might also help to supplement your income, if that's a problem; I probably shouldn't make assumptions, but it is a slow time for many who are reliant on sales these days.


I can only imagine the size of that manuscript.

I think it’s pure fiction when a poster (a friend of a stallion owner selling semen or the owner of a foal/horse for sale) suddenly has the autonomous impulse to start a thread or pose the question, the answer to which is from their buddy (posting a short time later) saying, “Why Susie, now that you mention it, my stallion/foal/horse is just perfect in that context.”

You could substitute sister instead of buddy and I think that has already happened---on another board.:eek:

[Cartier]

This has nothing to do with copyright issues. Susie cannot use the photographs for personal gain without consent. This would be an invasion of privacy by appropriation of name, likeness, or identity.

Yes, people in public can have photographs taken and used in an EDITORIAL publication without repercussions, however, the same photographs cannot be used in an ADVERTISEMENT.

Here is a great article about the privacy law pertaining to this in the US:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/using-name-or-likeness-another

Unless the trainer signed a release giving consent for commercial use, to whomever took the photograph, the photograph cannot legally be used for commercial purposes.

Interesting article. I'm not an attorney, but this would not meet the three criteria mentioned to prevail in a claim for Unlawful Use of Name or Likeness
“A plaintiff must establish three elements to hold someone liable for unlawful use of name or likeness:
1. Use of a Protected Attribute: The plaintiff must show that the defendant used an aspect of his or her identity that is protected by the law. This ordinarily means a plaintiff's name or likeness, but the law protects certain other personal attributes as well.
2. For an Exploitative Purpose: The plaintiff must show that the defendant used his name, likeness, or other personal attributes for commercial or other exploitative purposes. Use of someone's name or likeness for news reporting and other expressive purposes is not exploitative, so long as there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the plaintiff's identity and a matter of legitimate public interest.
3. No Consent: The plaintiff must establish that he or she did not give permission for the offending use.’

How can Billy assert that he had did not give permission to be photographed doing what he was hired to do in a public place? The photo, taken in a public place, is of Billy riding the mare... in public. It is a factual depiction of the professional service which he provided for a fee. Is Billy going to argue that he expected the show to be held behind closed doors, in private and that no one would ever see him ride the mare? The photo depicts what everyone at the show saw, there is no expectation of privacy; the photo merely depicts a news event, it is not an endorsement. This is NOT an aspect of Billy’s identity that is protected by law.

It would be absurd for Billy (or any credible professional trainer) to assert that they did not understand that their professional services, including competing the horse, were not intended to enhance the market value of the horse(or the horse’s progeny). It is equally absurd for Billy to assert that he did not implicitly agree that by providing his services (for a fee), he would be connected to the horse in the context of marketing the animal. That is one of the main reasons people train and compete their horses with trainers, i.e., to establish and/or enhance the market value of the horse.

We would drop any trainer who can not connect to this simple fact: It is not all about the trainer; owners need to get some return on their investment. Owners need to at least try to make a profit, most are lucky to break even after training and showing expenses. A trainer who actively impedes the owner’s attempts to make a good sale by barring the owner from utilizing all the facts about the animal’s training and competition history is unprofessional, selfish, out to touch with reality.. and should be fired.

[TrueColours]

Cartier - if it comes right down to it - Billy doesnt have a LEGAL leg to stand on, but if - lets say - someone of the calibre of Scott Stewart or Tommy Serio or one of the top riders asked you to take down the picture of your horse with them riding it, on your website, because they catch rode the horse at one show, hated it and really dont want to be known as "its rider" - would you do so? Especially if you now had said trainer riding and showing one of your other horses - would you risk causing possible "waves" by saying "No. Its staying up there?"

Not quite the same thing but close enough

[Cartier]

You could substitute sister instead of buddy and I think that has already happened---on another board.:eek:

Sure, it’s happened. But are you asserting that theirs is the only example on these boards? Seriously??? :eek: You need to get out more.:lol: There are days on this forum where most every post is an advertisement. :yes: Possibly you just haven't noticed because you focus a bit too much on TC and her sister. :) Go back and read some of the Stallion threads.

[Cartier]

Cartier - if it comes right down to it - Billy doesnt have a LEGAL leg to stand on, but if - lets say - someone of the calibre of Scott Stewart or Tommy Serio or one of the top riders asked you to take down the picture of your horse with them riding it, on your website, because they catch rode the horse at one show, hated it and really dont want to be known as "its rider" - would you do so? Especially if you now had said trainer riding and showing one of your other horses - would you risk causing possible "waves" by saying "No. Its staying up there?"

Not quite the same thing but close enough

Are you really asking me if I would risk making waves. :lol::lol::lol:

Let me think about this… it’s difficult to answer because I have not walked a mile in the shoes of your example.

Okay, here's my perspective: Elly would never allow another rider on one of our horses, so I have to respond in the context of the dogs. Back up handlers go back in on our dogs all the time. They know when they take a dog back in the ring that they are the de-facto stand in for the handler. I would not be using the photo if it did not make my animal look good. I am paying the handler to make my animal look good, to enhance the market value of the animal. Showing is advertising. The handler’s name in the show catalogue is advertising. The handler makes the decision to be associated with my dog in the context of advertising before he/she takes my money. (The back-up handler is simply a stand in for the handler).

But, I don’t know about Tommy Serio making a personal request of me. I guess if I valued him (and I would, far as I know, but we don't breed, own or show hunters), and I wanted to continue with him, and we had a good relationship otherwise, I would try to accommodate him to the degree possible. But it would be a mutual give and take. We do not employ handlers that are demanding primadonnas; we try to work together as a team. Since we're talking about one mare here vs. a long-term partnership which includes other horses, I would work with Tommy to come to some resolution… maybe putting a smiley face over his face, but I would bitch about it :lol: and I would expect some reciprocity or future consideration for my effort and inconvenience. :)

[SoNotaDQ]

This is actually a very interesting *release* question. This has nothing to do with copyright. Copyright is who the owner of the photos is. In the US, it would automatically be with the photographer(in Canada it is automatically with the person who hires the photographer unless a written agreement states otherwise). I am going on the assumption that the photographer has granted a license for the use of the photos in advertising.

The issue here is if Billy had to have signed a model release in these photos or not for them to be used in advertising. He was hired to do a job, which he did. I would think that his acceptance of the money and the fact he rode the mare publicly would imply that she wasn't *that* bad.

I have emailed PPA about this issue. We'll see what they say. I really want to know because I do a lot of advertising photos with trainers and dog show handlers in them. They are sold made for the sole purpose of advertising.

I get model/property/liability releases on EVERY shoot. If a client were to ask me not to use their photos, I would respect their wishes. Legally, I have the right, as I get a release. I have not thought to get releases for handlers/trainers at this point though. I rarely use humans in stock photos and if I do, I get a second release to cma.

And to those that feel if they buy a print, they own the copyright, you don't. You own the print and the print itself. Not the right to use it in advertising, on your website or to scan it. You can work those things out with the photographer though. I personally give a complimentary web file for those sorts of uses with the purchase of prints. Those web files do come with the expectation of being used electronically. Print advertising has a different usage license and different fee schedule.

What you feel is correct, and what sounds correct are not always what is legally the right answer. I'd be happy to report back what the PPA says if anyone is interested.

[Cartier]

would love to hear back... who the heck wants to be in court if it can be avoided. :)

[SilverBalls]

TC I don't want you to take this personally, but perhaps you should really consider a career change; it's always so hard to find a good, gripping read in the genre of equestrian fiction. Are you aware that manuscripts can be submitted directly to Amazon for Kindle? Honestly, you are showing no small amount of talent, and you have such a gift for creating drama. So perhaps it would help somewhat, to be able to channel all your creativity in a constructive way. It might also help to supplement your income, if that's a problem; I probably shouldn't make assumptions, but it is a slow time for many who are reliant on sales these days.

This may well be my favorite post of all time on this BB. :winkgrin:

[Blonde Filly]

This may well be my favorite post of all time on this BB. :winkgrin:
I would have to agree and who spends SO Much time on a computer worrying about Billy Joe Bob from Nowhere and Susie Q from Lost in the World and "their horses and their problems" on a public BB. Seems Billy Joe Boy and Susie Q should be working this out and not TC on a BB! Just simply nuts to waste so much time on someone else's problems and worries!!! :eek:

[TrueColours]

SoNotaDQ - I'd love to hear their take on this as well - thank you! :)

So - if I get this right then, from your post. Susie hired Billy to train and ride and show the mare. She paid the bills, he rode and trained and showed the mare to the best of his and her ability. That is then the "end" of their legal contractual agreement

In probably 99.9% of the cases, the trainer / rider would have no problem at all with the owner using photo's of their horse that either THEY took, or were taken by a professional photographer (with the proper releases and authorizations being obtained from the photographer) showing the trainer in the saddle, but in order to cover their bases 100% completely, the owner should get a standard release and authorization from the trainer / rider for every photo they then use for promotional purposes? Or perhaps a blanket one done stating that "Billy Brown agrees to his image being used for possible promotional purposes riding the horse Fluffy, owned by Susie Smith?"

Food for thought. I would have also not even thought twice about using a picture that I took or paid for, of one of my horses, with someone else riding it for me and would never think to ask their permission before doing so

And to those that feel if they buy a print, they own the copyright, you don't. You own the print and the print itself. Not the right to use it in advertising, on your website or to scan it. You can work those things out with the photographer though.

Agreed. In the photo's I bought from the Merrill Lynch show, I had to specifically state that they were being used on my website only and would not be scanned or used in printed advertising material. In this case, I was sent a low res jpg image which was fine for website use, but if used for print ads, the quality would not have been there and the photographer was concerned that this would then be a direct reflection on the quality of her work so I fully understood and respected her position on this

[LaurieB]

I would have to agree and who spends SO Much time on a computer worrying about Billy Joe Bob from Nowhere and Susie Q from Lost in the World and "their horses and their problems" on a public BB. Seems Billy Joe Boy and Susie Q should be working this out and not TC on a BB! Just simply nuts to waste so much time on someone else's problems and worries!!! :eek:



Well the short answer to that would be...all of us. :lol:

Seriously, isn't that part of why we're on the COTH forum? So we can discuss and worry about other people's problems? :winkgrin:

[Blonde Filly]

Well the short answer to that would be...all of us. :lol:

Seriously, isn't that part of why we're on the COTH forum? So we can discuss and worry about other people's problems? :winkgrin: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol:

[Bogie]

Yes, I think you've nailed the question: do you need to get a model release from a professional who was paid to ride a horse in a show. My ASSumption was that would not be required; on reflection, just because I thought it was part of the job doesn't mean that I'm correct or legally in line.

I'm actually going to write an article on the topic of horse show photos/copyright/release issues and would be very interested in knowing what is the legally supported practice. Thank you for looking into it.

This is actually a very interesting *release* question. This has nothing to do with copyright. Copyright is who the owner of the photos is. In the US, it would automatically be with the photographer(in Canada it is automatically with the person who hires the photographer unless a written agreement states otherwise). I am going on the assumption that the photographer has granted a license for the use of the photos in advertising.

The issue here is if Billy had to have signed a model release in these photos or not for them to be used in advertising. He was hired to do a job, which he did. I would think that his acceptance of the money and the fact he rode the mare publicly would imply that she wasn't *that* bad.

I have emailed PPA about this issue. We'll see what they say. I really want to know because I do a lot of advertising photos with trainers and dog show handlers in them. They are sold made for the sole purpose of advertising.

I get model/property/liability releases on EVERY shoot. If a client were to ask me not to use their photos, I would respect their wishes. Legally, I have the right, as I get a release. I have not thought to get releases for handlers/trainers at this point though. I rarely use humans in stock photos and if I do, I get a second release to cma.

And to those that feel if they buy a print, they own the copyright, you don't. You own the print and the print itself. Not the right to use it in advertising, on your website or to scan it. You can work those things out with the photographer though. I personally give a complimentary web file for those sorts of uses with the purchase of prints. Those web files do come with the expectation of being used electronically. Print advertising has a different usage license and different fee schedule.

What you feel is correct, and what sounds correct are not always what is legally the right answer. I'd be happy to report back what the PPA says if anyone is interested.

[lolita1]

I was wondering how FF managed to be named as the horse? Didn't understand it then still don't as I've seen the Photos and she is a NICE horse. Anyway.

If the owner owns the photos and Billy was awake and saw her taking the photos - toting the camera would be enough - he had the right at that point to say no - then the photos are legally the property of the person that took them i.e. the owner. Also re professional photo's it is easy enough to contact the professional and purchase the right to use the photo in a certain manner. That makes the photos legal.

On the whole Bill v Susie I don't see how it will work out nicely. Susie probably shouldn't use the photos out of respect for what is going on but then Susie really should take her money else where. Vote with her feet. Bill gets paid to ride horses and lets be honest not all of them are fantastic in either nature or conformation. He still rode it, took care of it (I assume here), got paid for it and so did endorse it. Really if Bill didn't like it that much he should have handed it back. I know trainers that go out and see prospective horses to show and they tell the owners NO and the reason. Or alternatively send back horses that just aren't working out. As a person with intergrity that is what Bill should have done and now really as a result has no say IMHO on the issue.

The horse world is a catty one however with professionals they will take on other professionals x-horses as they like getting paid. I feel sorry for Susie and I hope it works out for her. Horse owners do have it tough they try their best to achieve the right thing for their horses and themselves but often can get professionals that muck them up.

[~Freedom~]

Sure, it’s happened. But are you asserting that theirs is the only example on these boards? Seriously??? :eek: You need to get out more.:lol: There are days on this forum where most every post is an advertisement. :yes: Possibly you just haven't noticed because you focus a bit too much on TC and her sister. :) Go back and read some of the Stallion threads.

Oh I have noticed but LaurieB below put it well enough..........

Well the short answer to that would be...all of us.
Seriously, isn't that part of why we're on the COTH forum? So we can discuss and worry about other people's problems? :winkgrin:

Actually Laurie I don't have to come to COTH for usually what is posted here by certain stallion owners that are looking for free advertisement can be viewed on almost any other forum and the same thread/post has been copied over and over again on multiple forums.

But in answer to why I look on COTH...it is way more dramatic and a good mudwresle can be most entertaining.

I am truly waiting for that manuscript:winkgrin:

[SilverBalls]

I am truly waiting for that manuscript:winkgrin:

Not me... I couldn't read any more of that senseless babble... this was enough! :eek:

[Cartier]

Not me... I couldn't read any more of that senseless babble... this was enough! :eek:

I thought LaurieB’s post (quoted above by Freedom+) was very funny…

As for some of you… I really marvel at your energy… it’s literally all I can do to keep up with our home and what’s on my plate on any given day. How on earth do you manage to attend to the important things in life and still have time to read and keep up with more than one forum? And if it annoys you, why do you do it? And here's something I've never really understood, you all seem like such nice people, why all the anger... going back so many years?

[summerhorse]

The trainer, if any sort of professional at all, will give his opinion of the mare when asked a direct question to do so, he will Not offer it willy nilly. And if asked 'did you like her/' would, again if at all professional, would say 'The mare and I did not get on, but she was trainable enough that we could show and win.' His opinion of the potential foal's temperament is best left as 'there are so many variables, I couldn't begin to offer an opinion'.

Whoever owns the photographs uses them. The man took enough money for two years and is still taking in the money that he can suck up the possible remote chance that he might be seen as endorsing the mare. Perhaps if she were in his barn and he was getting a big fat commission, he might be singing a different tune.

Susie should get a new trainer.


Ditto!

[SoNotaDQ]

I received an answer from PPA, regarding model releases. It is pretty much what I thought and this has been a great reminder thread for me to cover my butt on all bases(as a professional photographer)

Firstly, if Billy were my trainer he'd be an ex trainer. That aside, the owner of the horse does not have a right to publish photos of him without his permission. Especially since he has specifically asked for them not to be.

Word to the owners that have someone ride their horses for photos, get a model release. With one, you are covered. Without, you are SOL.

This below is directed at me, for my state and TN's laws. Model release laws differ from state to state. If you have a release, you are all good. Your photographer should have a stack on them to use. I know I will not do anymore advertising shoots without signed releases from ALL parties. So, if you hire me to do a shoot of your horses, expect to sign a release! :)

We certainly recommend that signed model releases be obtain before using
an image commercially. In fact, it is the law that this happen in a
handful of states.

For you, in Tennessee, you should advise your client to have a signed
release on file despite the fact that the law dictates that model
release permissions can be granted verbally or in writing. The need for
a written release has becomes important under this scenario because of
the fact that the rider has expressed the fact that he does not wish his
likeness be used.

I would certainly avoid using any of these images on your own site as
samples of your work. As for your client's ability to use the work,
while you and she may have worked out a licensing agreement her ability
to implement this relies solely on whether or not she is able to obtain
the rider's consent.

If you think of it in terms of privately commissioned family portraits,
the family is give you permission to photograph them to create prints
for their personal/private display. They do not anticipate seeing their
smiling faces on a billboard advertising your studio.

[dilligaff2]

You could substitute sister instead of buddy and I think that has already happened---on another board.:eek:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Over and Over and Over and Over--just like the Energizer Bunny

[Iron Horse Farm]

No offense but does anyone else think that this is getting ridiculous?

If I take a young horse to a horse show with the express purpose of getting photos to advertise the horse for sale, I have to get a model release from the handler before I can use the photos? What about the judge? If she's in the picture handing out the ribbon do I have to hunt her down too?:no:

Makes me wonder about all of the times that I've clicked on sale horse ads and sen my hubby in the photo handling the horse.

[SoNotaDQ]

Common sense no longer applies in the 21st century. Law suits do. You cannot defend yourself without a release if a person in the photo decides to sue you. People win suits over spilled coffee and tripping on your property.

I am not saying it is not ridiculous, it is. This thread has been a real eye opener for me. I would not have thought it was necessary to get a model release when the handler set the thing up and posed for me for the express purpose of advertising. I will now. CYA

Pretty sad though

[TrueColours]

Thank you SO much SoNotaDQ! :)

At least Susie knows now 100% where she stands if it ever did end up in litigation and forewarned is forearmed ... :)

And I do agree. The lawsuits that get brought before the courts in every country for every insane or inane reason are ridiculous. But we dont have to agree with the reasons - just know that they exist and we can either chose to comply with them or not

And really - it wont cost anyone anything. Get a standard waiver done and have your trainer/rider/handler sign it at the beginning of the season or the contracted period and you are good to go

Thanks again