My opinion would be that their drawings are their property, your home is your property. If they want to post their drawings, sketches or whatever, I don't think you can stop them. But I do think you can ask them not to post pictures of your private home.

Your kitchen in a portfolio is not your recommendation. Only your recommendation is your recommendation. If you don't want to offer one, just decline to give it.

Many design professionals have portfolios that are not that great because their clients were so stupid they completely wrecked excellent designs. Others have portfolios that overstate their capabilities because homeowners like you were the ones who came up with all the great ideas.

This is the way a creative business works. Every prospective client--including you--wants to see past work, and it is, yes, expected that a project that comes out exceptionally well may be featured in a portfolio. Advertising art directors get samples of their work. So do clothing designers. Artists and architects get photos. In every case, there's always somebody claiming it was "really" their idea. Sometimes that's true.

I would imagine you at least gave permission for your kitchen to be photographed?

This is a good question and I hope someone with some legal background can chip in.

I assume you are talking about finished pictures? My experiences with similar, albeit different circumstances (such as event photography), is that it the use is defined in the contract. They often have a clause that states that photos may be used for portfolios/advertisements, and the customer has an option to decline.

I think they might be more 'entitled' to be able to include artwork or drawings that they have done, but I have a bit of trouble thinking they can take pictures of a private residence and use those photos however they like without permission.

Can you check the contract and see if it has anything of the like in there?

It is normal for people who have worked on a project for you to take pictures for their portfolios. You can decline, of course, and some people do when it's an identifiable house and they're worried about security. If you have a formal contract, the right to take and use these pictures is almost always written in. You can counter with an agreement for them to sign that says that they won't put your pictures online or in their portfolios, though that's extremely hard to monitor and enforce, and if they're going to be dishonest enough to lie about their contributions, they're going to be dishonest enough to "forget" your agreement. Most good trades won't work on your project if you don't let them photograph it at all. Their photographs are the only proof that they have that they did the job, and did it well, if a client has a later complaint, and especially a lawsuit. There are just as many--or more--dishonest homeowners who try to stiff designers and trades as there are vice versa, and they need those photos to protect themselves.

Many people have a hand in creating the work, and have differing contributions. One person might have done the custom plaster work, another is the mason, another is the carpenter, then there are the architect who created the room, and the designer who created the finishes. Sometimes, people lie about how much they contributed to the effort, but usually not the kind of people you'd care to have work in your home. Lots of people steal images on the internet and put them into their portfolios without having ever seen the job or owner at all. Those are just flat out liars and image thieves. I'd worry more about them, than the people who actually worked on your job.

No, your photos don't constitute an endorsement. Your endorsement does. If you wouldn't recommend the people, you can write and ask them to take down your pictures from the web because you think they did a bad job. Usually, that'll annoy them enough that they'll do what you want just for spite. You should definitely tell the person who did the bad job that you don't want him/her showing your picture--just don't get too bent out of shape if it doesn't help. If someone recognizes your project and asks you for a reference, you'll be honest. The bad worker did work on the job, however, and even though the picture is misleading about the quality of that work, it's not even a lie that he worked on it.

Example of how it's used: X wanted a big rectangular pool. He and I walked off the size and location. He wanted custom features. We talked to the contractor about what was possible. The features weren't right on the blueprints so I corrected them, having already learned the best way to do it from X and the GC. The GC had a brainstorm when we were discussing the steps, to center the spa. Then I, or he--it's hard to be sure, realized that having two sets of steps would work better, putting them on either side of the centered spa. I designed the tiles with X's color choices. X and the GC changed the borders before they were set because of small changes in how the pool was structured. The accent tiles were installed as I designed them, even though the GC had a different idea.

Whose design is it? Who cares? The GC had another potential client who wanted a similarly big, deep pool (not the current mode) and showed a pictures of X's pool, taken just that day, as an example of what they seemed to be talking about. It was useful to him to be able to show that he'd just done a similar pool, and how nice it was.

In another case, I did a one-of-a-kind design for myself. Highly unusual. It's in the portfolio of a tradesman who does excellent work, but didn't work on that. Rather, his sub-contractor made it a reality. The design and template were 100% mine. The craftsmanship was 100% the sub. But I think it's perfectly okay that the tradesman shows this as an example of what is possible, and what his sub can do.

At a certain point you just have to let it go, and know that the pictures are out there for people to admire.

Take a look at the contracts - in all likelihood, unless you had them remove the clause, they have a right to take photos.

I totally agree with you and concur. My DH and I practically made a career of designing and decorating our house, and in the end precious little of the creativity came from them. We are supposed to be featured in a magazine and I am against it. Of course, all of this presupposes they actually finish!

Worse yet, a few months ago we came across a full page magazine ad photo of our home ....the BEFORE! It was an ad for our design build firm?! How bizarre is that! It was a photo from the listing!

littlesmokie if you open a web presence and post a few small images, you get to write up a few paragraphs to go with the images. In that blog you can name all the parties and find ways to say good things about the one party you wish to recommend and congratulate. For the other parties, it's a gentle letdown as you indirectly pan them in your writeup. E.g. "While not the best, they are certainly not the worst. They seem to think they were behind the best parts but this feels to me like they are taking credit for my own best ideas. Overall I wouldn't take them to court over anything, but I'm not keen on seeing them use this project as one of their accomplishments." By naming names it is highly likely that future prospects find your text when they web search.

In my case, the (ex? fired!) junior (no degree) architect warped the project to fit her portfolio. She was forcing an attractive symmetry that would be beautiful on paper, but in real life could only be seen from underground.

But thanks for the warning - I'm not crazy about my before pictures showing up online.

I do find it amusing to see high dudgeon about photographing "my" kitchen on a site overrun with photos of other people's kitchens. Where do we think all those inspiration pics came from, oil paintings?

I understand fully what the OP is saying. Our gc had a sign on our lawn touting his firm while he was still working on our house. We all know that ended badly and I am really tempted to put a similar lawn sign up for a week or 2 saying that we were dissatisfied with their work.... I just think I may do that after any lawsuit is settled. No need to stir up more animosity until after the consumer complaint process is over.

I'm actually really happy to hear the suggestion several of you mentioned of distinguishing between posting photos of our home vs sharing before and after building plans/drawings etc. That is an interesting idea (beaglesdoitbetter and Mark12345-thanks)

To marcolo and mtnrdredux who asked about contracts/permission to photograph---good question--I will need to dig out the contracts and report back. (Actually I did not even have a contract with one of them, and ironically that is the one I am able to recommend without reservation!) I do not remember a clause about this in the other contracts though, and one of the individuals has verbally-and now sent a follow up email-asking when he could take photos. I guess I could decline. Awkward.

pllog--thank you for reminding us about the difficulty of giving credit for the creative process when so much of it---as you perfectly illustrated with the pool example---is so collaborative. There have definitely been a few things in our project that were collaborative in this way. I'm glad you specifically mentioned the presence of the tilework project you designed in the portfolio--with your blessing and support--of someone who didn't actually do the work! That was thought provoking to me (and, I think, generous of you.) Our tile setter was actually one of the fantastic craftsman on this project, I don't doubt that he's snapped some camera phone type photos of his work on our place and I have absolutely no problem with that. I realize I'm more concerned about the other 3 main remodeling "entities" here taking extensive photos of our whole project when they may have had little input into various rooms/details of the house and representing as though they did.

davidro-I really want to discuss your point too...and I hope others of you will chime in about this because I am very conflicted. The hardest thing for me about this is that I have no desire to hurt these businesses or these individuals livelihoods. But I also don't want unsuspecting potential clients to go into their own "4-6 month remodel" and find themselves in the poor house at month 16 (and still not done) like we have. The disorganization/delays have cost us dearly- 10's of thousands of dollars-dearly.

I still care about these folks-I've heard about their kids and families, they're around so much, some of them feel like family. Good people have done good work on our project-it's just taken an absolutely unacceptably long period of time to get to this point. There were weeks at a time-which added up to months on the project-where nothing was happening. Time is money. At the end of the day, I could only recommend the firm I worked with grave reservations because of the lack of project management.

dianolo-our contractor hung his shingle out in front of our place too, but once he reached the one plus year mark took it down, probably because it began to be negative advertising at that point for how long it had been up! ;)

Well clearly, the contracting firm is the one about whom I have the most ambivalence/reservations. Interestingly, my husband last night told me that he has no problem with the contractors' marketing our home as "theirs" because at the end of the day, they did the work and they've done a good job. But I'd absolutely HATE for neighbors to hire them thinking "oh they did a great job for littlesmokie! let's hire them!"

And marcolo-I hope I'm not the only one that had to look up the definition of "high dudgeon"---LOL--

high dudgeon: a feeling of intense indignation, offense, or deep resentment.

I didn't mean to communicate that. I have seen literally thousands of kitchen photos over the last few years, all of which probably influenced me in one way or another. Of course I have taken inspiration from specific kitchens--and when I get around to posting my kitchen-finally!-- you good people will recognize that influence. But I'll also be thanking those individuals by name. :)

Hi Littlesmokie,

Here are my best answers to some of your points.

>Are all of these professionals ENTITLED to use my home in their portfolio because they worked on it, or must they have my permission?

The drawings are their intellectual property and I'd be shocked if you didn't sign away all rights to them when you contracted with your contractors. The photos they took, if any, are also their intellectual property and while it would be nice for them to ask, they don't have to do so since you gave them access to your home.

>If our project appears in these professional's portfolios (2 of the 3 have websites that market their completed projects) does that constitute my reference/endorsement?
No and any informed consumer knows that a photo can come from anywhere--even a project that the contractor did absolutely no work on. If they love the look of your home, they will ask for a recommendation from you as the homeowner and many people even ask to see the home itself.

>Most importantly, I realize, I feel incredibly possessive of the home and kitchen that I designed! I had the vision, the concept for relocating the kitchen to the opposite side of the house, turning a sleeping porch into a bathroom, moving a wall, the entire kitchen layout (thank you kitchen forum!!), the colors, the "bling" etc.

I think this is really the crux of what you are saying here. You feel possessive and like the home is your brainchild, whether any particular contractor did a good or bad job and you don't want them to take more credit than you feel they deserve. In that case, I'd recommend you ask them all to sign non-disclosure statements statements stating that they will take no photos of your residence and not reference your home in any of their promotional materials without your explicit, written and limited permission. This goes double for any contractor who you think did not live up to their end of the bargain. Otherwise, it's essentially out of your hands.

>Obviously I could not have made all this happen single-handedly, so I'm not trying to take away from other's work on the project, but I consider that I was responsible for the architecture/design elements that are precisely what prospective clients might be drawn to reviewing portfolios looking to do their own remodel. Does that make sense?

These prospective clients are not hiring me, of course, so they're not going to get the creative input they expect (unless they just copy my home...) which doesn't seem exactly above board on the part of the remodeling professional nor is it fair to the potential client.

I understand what you are saying but here's a counterargument, for the sake of conversation---Clearly you chose these contractors because you thought they would help you bring your vision to fruition and you feel that, overall, they did. It's a collaborative process and the collaboration were successful. So what if all of the homeowners before you had just decided to opt out of sharing their homes...Would you have been able to identify these contractors? Would you have been able to see the potential of working with them? I think remodelers know enough, in general, to know that being a homeowner in that process requires a lot of oversight and input, not just handing the whole project off to hired hands.
My kitchen should---and will be---in the kitchen forum finished kitchen "portfolio" and I am perfectly comfortable sharing photos with all of you here, to help others in kind as I've been helped the last few years. And I don't mind so much if you copy me, but at least give me some credit ;)

I would phrase your concerns as a matter of privacy. Simply saying "I am not comfortable having my home used for any type of publicity. Thank you anyway" without getting into your satisfaction or lack-thereof. It is YOUR home, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy I think.

After I ignored his name on the Caller ID for several weeks, I ended up doing exactly as Beagles just suggested - said "I'm really not comfortable having my kitchen photographed since I can't say I was happy with the services provided."

Like the above poster, I designed 95% of the kitchen myself. The two craftsmen who installed, the faux finishes and the girls that worked with the local shop owner all told me it was their favorite kitchen they had worked on.

He ended up going under, so it's was moot point in the end. I disliked his service so much I postponed selecting tile for behind the range so that it wasn't finished - for 6 months after we moved in!

It is funny, but often people want to avoid an "awkward" conversation, like one that might contain the homeowner mentioning that they somehow were not satisfied, but if the contractor (or, fill in the blank) were professional/competent/diligent, then there would be no need for an awkward moment. I would hope that anyone who did not do a good job as hired, would be the one to feel awkward and not the homeowner who is honest enough to point it out.

only a web presence that you own and control will give you the ability to know what is being said about this project.

it sounds like you want to be both appreciative of some of the good parts, and warning or feedbacking about the parts that could be improved. You can write an evaluation that helps others assess risk and danger.

littlesmokie, I don't really think your OP was all that dudgeon-y, but some of those sentiments have come out in this thread.

Your OP actually raised two separate points.

First, do these people have any right to put my kitchen in their portfolio?

Second, how should I react if someone puts my kitchen in their portfolio, but I think they did a bad job?

Two different issues.

On the first issue, I think you now realize this is standard operating procedure in creative industries, and is not only legitimate but necessary. If you want to look at people's work before hire them, you have to let others look at the work done for you. If you want companies like this to exist when you need them, you have to let them market themselves. A few sentiments expressed here suggested this is some grand favor the queenly homeowner might graciously deign to bestow on her little subjects. This viewpoint is simply uninformed. A design-related firm may already have legal ownership of the intellectual property embodied in your kitchen, and certainly has ownership of their own photographs. But in any case, you should always expect that a designer will use your project for marketing. If you don't like that, you can specifically negotiate an exception, as long as you are aware many firms will not work with you under such conditions.

Your second issue is really more complex. Once you acknowledge that it is normal for them to use your project in their portfolio, what happens if they did a lousy job on it?

I think it makes sense to focus exclusively on this second issue.

I'm not sure that my comments will be germane to this conversation.
We had pics taken of our renos for competitions that our GC was entering. (He didn't win for our job - oh well) However, I was surprised to then find our kitchen being used in his advertising in various trade magazines. Was I upset - no - although he didn't get specific permission he already knew, as did the KD, that they would be getting recommendations from us if asked.
I'm confused - have these people actually used the OP's house in their portfolio's or is the worry that they might do so.

The one thing I am wondering about as to whether it is clouding the OP's opinion is the comment made about these people feeling like family, knowing about their kids etc. This may have created a sense of familiarity with the OP so that the various firms felt it would be ok to use the photos of the space in their marketing portfolios and that there would be no objections.

The people that we used are not/were not my friends. I know little about their personal lives. The relationship was client/GC and client/KD. I paid them a great deal of money to reno my house, not to be my friend. If there had been any disputes, such as this, it would make it much easier for us to deal with one another.

Years ago, when Spike the founder of this site still owned it, we had an email exchange about photographs. What he said to me was extremely straight forward: "once any photo of yours is uploaded to anywhere on the internet, you lose control of that image. If that's a problem for you, the safest thing is not to post it."

The ethics, legalities and everything else can be debated, of course.

In terms of usage, if you object to someone using a photograph of your home I'd write to them and ask to have it taken down. Nine out of ten times, there will be compliance to that request. No reason need be given.

Likewise, there is always an option of not allowing photos of finished work to be taken by others or not providing them.

> The drawings are their intellectual property and I'd be shocked if you didn't sign away all rights to them when you contracted with your contractors. The photos they took, if any, are also their intellectual property and while it would be nice for them to ask, they don't have to do so since you gave them access to your home.

I agree with the first part of the statement, that any artwork/drawing is likely considered intellectual property (IP) and as long as personal information is stripped, they can use however they like. Of course, the OP feels that the work represents their own IP as well, so what are the customers' rights to that? If all the KD does is translate pencil drawings to CAD, who owns what IP? Does it belong in a design portfolio? I'd call that false advertising - claiming someone else design as your own. However trying to fight that probably won't end well in the customer, and most likely the KD has something in the contract giving them rights. Similarly, could the customer take the drawings and publish them for their own financial gain? Don't think so.

The comment regarding photos in the home, I don't agree with. Just because I invite someone in my home does not mean they are entitled to take pictures of my home and publish it for their financial gain. It is a private residence and publishing photos of a private event/home for financial gain isn't usually allowed without permission. Even if the contractor assumes implied consent, I think they would be required to comply to any cease and desist request. However, check the contract - they probably put permission in there.

The comment regarding photos in the home, I don't agree with. Just because I invite someone in my home does not mean they are entitled to take pictures of my home and publish it for their financial gain.

With some matters, a learner's stance works best. I think the fact that design professionals legitimately expect, and often demand by contract, the right to publish photographs of their work has already been explained adequately.

A simple phone call from the OP to a contractor saying, "I think you did a bad job. I would appreciate you removing my photo from your website," will probably suffice, if for no reason other than the contractor would not want a prospect saying, "Great kitchen! Can I talk to the owner?"

I think that if someone were to have it in the contract, then that answers the question.
I also think that if the homeowner asked that their photos not be used, most of the time, the contractor would comply.

I do think that it should be common sense to ask to take photos of someone's home, even if you were the contractor who did the renovation. This is not a public building but a private residence. If the consent was not given in the contract, I can't see how someone could rightly assume it was ok without expressly asking. I don't care that they want to use it or expect to use it, they need some form of approval of the homeowner for it to be the ok thing to do.
If a homeowner is rebuffed when they ask that their photo not be used, I'd make it clear that I use Angie's list and will also post more legitimate reviews in other places after google searching the contractor, so they might want to reconsider. It would not help the contractor to come across publicly as an insensitive bully. That would negate the benefit of putting the project in their portfolio.
They can post your project but you can make your displeasure public too. What is good for the goose....

There's two discussions here. One question is what is specifically contracted and what litlesmokie can/should do in his/her particular instance. The contract will probably answer the specific questions in the OP case - but we don't have that information yet. And there's some great advice such as a polite request to not included in the portfolio - a request that still honors the contract yet will likely resolve the individual issue (though this assumes honesty in the KD... honesty from a KD allegedly touting someone else design as their own?).

The other discussion is more general and was one of the questions - such as what are the consumer rights vs what are the designers entitled to? Essentially, what if it isn't in the contract - and I am interested in this one. A designer can expect to be able to take photos and use them however they want, but if it's not contractually specified, what rights/entitlement to do such may there be? I know there's a legal answer and it probably varies state to state, but it's still interesting to discuss. The answer will allow me to enter a contract more knowledgeable and perhaps even prompt me to request an addendum prior to signing.

Marc, for the specifics of what you're asking, you really should get a legal opinion from an intellectual property lawyer in your area.

The reason designers, contractors and tradesmen expect to take pictures of your home for their portfolios is that it is accepted, standard practice. Everyone should always expect them to take pictures, unless you have a written agreement otherwise (they might forget an oral one that is kind of uttered by the by in a larger conversation). The internet, however, has changed the exposure level.

In the example I gave above of the artistic stone design I did, which was executed by a sub and in the portfolio of the contractor, I would not like to see it online. When he's showing it to a client as a way to say, "Look what complicated and tiny cuts my guys can do. See how they got it 100% right and could just drop it in as a flush inlay and have it fit perfectly," I think that's a totally legitimate use of my design, but I wouldn't want it to be online and just sort of out there.

I think that's the kind of feeling Littlesmokie was talking about; a jealousy of one's designs. Weird thing is, I don't think I'd mind as much if it were the fabricator who had it online (which they don't). As a granite installation among granite installations, even though it is truly unique (not one of those change one element kinds of "unique"), it would just be another example of great fabrication, rather than a "look at that!".

Which demonstrates that this is mostly an emotional matter. If you live in a small community where your safety or privacy might be compromised by having pictures shown, it makes sense to refuse. For the rest, I remember a story a fashion designer I knew told: She had designed a unique look when she was young. It not only caught on, it became a major fashion fad which still defines its era. She didn't get the credit or even most of the sales. Her attitude? "I'm a designer. I'll go design something else."

I get the emotional tug to keep one's best and most unique designs to oneself, but as an artist I'll tell you that art isn't complete until it is seen. Unlike art, design isn't a form of communication, but if it's all that good, why not share it with the world and let them enjoy the beauty you've created? If it's not, why worry about it? Having said that, I'm still not posting my stone installation. I did briefly and it made me uncomfortable. But if the guys who made it real did post it, I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

I'm not trying to get a full legal opinion, but do think this is a good (and possibly fun?) discussion.

I've diverted into two topics - The topic of IP ownership I agree is a question for lawyers and judges and is largely specific to individual cases. Additionally, a portfolio can be used for multiple reasons - sometimes your portfolio demonstrates skills, such as an ability to fabricate which is irrelevant to IP (disregarding methodologies), another is to show of artistic design, which is (subjectively) largely IP.

The second topic is perhaps more on-topic to the OP, and it's the separation of expectations and entitlements. And I don't think they're the same.

An example: You may go to a ball park and expect to take photos with your camera for private use. I'd say this happens all the time, and thus a reasonable expectation. But, if you go to the stadium and whip out a multi-thousand dollar camera setup, event staff might come around and issue a [hopefully polite] cease and desist. The expectation is that you can take photos for personal use, but the legal and official answer is that you're attending a private event on private property and the event organizers have the right to determine who can take photographs. So unless you have a contract stating otherwise, It doesn't matter if the photos are only for private use, they can tell you to pack it up or leave. Expectations mean nothing.

So to circle back to the OP's question, expectation doesn't equal entitled. Is being hired as a contractor synonymous with being granted rights to commercial photography of a private residence? I don't see that connection. As much as I understands the industry's desire, and perhaps expectations to do so, I don't think the entitlements are there.

Marc, using your quality of equipment example, no, being hired as a contractor doesn't mean being granted rights to commercial photography, as in bring in a photographer, a stager and umbrella lights. Because it is standard industry practice, however, for anyone who has worked on a project to take pictures of it with anything from a cell phone to a Nikon, and to use those pictures in their portfolios, I would guess that most of them do feel entitled to do so, and, while I don't know the law in this case, I do believe courts do look at standard practices for guidance. The workers certainly don't specifically ask. They just do it. Therefore, if someone wishes them not to do so, it is much better to say so ahead of time rather than trying to stuff the genie back in the bottle.

I would agree with you, however, that this does not imply an entitlement to use those pictures in advertisements and on the web. That's often in a clause that may be overlooked in a contract--a good reason to thoroughly read anything you sign--but no matter how entitled they may feel to document their work, that kind of public display benefits the one showing it off to the potential detriment of the person who owns it. If it isn't in the contract, I don't know if one could prove monetary damages in the absence of harm that can be proved to have followed from the distribution of that picture, however, so I'm not sure there's anything the law can do about it.

I'm pretty sure you don't own your house's image the way you do your own, and even if you did, the other side might have a case for the fame of that house (if it's gorgeous and known around town) and/or the public display of it (unless it's behind walls and gates and can't be seen from the road), would negate any privacy claim that might possibly exist. OTOH, for interior features, unless there's geo-tagging or some other identifying feature that is accessible to the viewers, the person showing it can claim that it's anonymous. They can also claim that while it's owned by someone else, it's their work so they have a right to display it.

Geo-tagging is actually an important issue if the photos are being shown online.

I'm not a lawyer and don't claim to know the answers, but the above is where logic takes me. What I do know is that if you want to be featured in a magazine, and they're showing your house, and they take a picture of you next to the art on your walls, they'd better compose it so the photograph is mostly of you. If it's a picture of the art on the wall, with you off to the side, it's a violation of the artist's copyright.

OTOH, I own the original of a piece that was published. I'm thrilled to own it. I do sometimes see it clipped out and stuck on people's studio doors and bulletin boards and get the "hey, that's mine" feeling. But it's not mine. It's the artist's. One doesn't ever entirely own art that one didn't create entirely on one's own. ... Speaking of which, it's an ethical no-no to enter a piece that was created in a workshop into a public show, or, if it's writing, to publish it without acknowledgements.

See. All of these issues are gnarly and the standards and precedents don't always make sense. Rather than worrying about it, it's better just to know that there will be photographs unless you do something to prevent it, and even if you say no, you have to trust that the people in question remember that you said it and don't cheat.

I am of the opinion that when you pay a designer or worker to perform work in your home, you own the tangible, physical results of that work and have the right to say what is or is not done with it. As a comparison, think about a scientist who works for a research lab and makes a discovery while he is working for that lab. He is doing it on someone else's dime and in most cases, the lab will own the rights to the patent.

The same should be true, absent a contract saying otherwise, when a contractor does work in a private home. The homeowner has contracted and paid for that job and the contractor should not automatically have the right to begin taking pictures of it.

Any drawings he did, any drawings the designer did, those are fair game because that is their intellectual property and ideas. But the tangible finished results, the kitchen that is standing, etc., that's not intellectual property that's private property that someone owns and has a right to exclusive use, possession and control of. The work done by the contractor/designer was paid for in full (presumably) and they have no rights to it at that point.

This may not be what happens in the real world in many cases, but that's what I think logic would suggest.

"...have to trust that the people in question remember ... and don't cheat..."
They are entitled to, or they can, use littlesmokie's home in their portfolio of pictures for private viewing, when in front of prospects.

littlesmokie can use their name in a web review.
littlesmokie can say a few things about general dissatisfaction.
"...have to trust that the people ... and don't cheat..."

Re "don't cheat": Considering that the people causing the OP's angst are ones who did a bad job, therefore considering that they did not live up to the the expectation of workmanlike fulfillment of their contract, what's to make one expect that if they agree to not post pictures, they'll do a better job of keeping that agreement?

ditto plllog

I think a big part of the original concern was whether photographs of the OP's kitchen implied her endorsement of specific workers who contributed to the finished product. Ultimately, I believe that it's the responsibility of the prospective client to do the homework of asking for references when they see finished products they like. I wouldn't worry about someone looking at a finished kitchen and assuming that the person showing them the picture was responsible for every aspect of it. If they do, that's their problem.

My GC, whose work I was mostly satisfied with but have reservations about recommending, asked for pictures of my finished kitchen, and I provided them. Upon reflection, I found it amusing that the pictures showed almost entirely the work of other people he had no hand in hiring--the cabinets and the soapstone counters, in particular. Yes, the GC's plumbing, drywalling, carpentry, and electrical work made the total kitchen possible, but the very few of the aesthetic aspects that make the kitchen appealing had anything to do with the GC. I designed the kitchen and I found and hired those craftsmen, and they did the beautiful work. Still, I'm fine with him using photos of my finished kitchen to show a project he has worked on. He doesn't present himself as a KD, cabinet maker, or counter installer, and few people want to see photos of plumbing and drywall anyway. Again, if the people he shows my pictures to don't understand all that, it's really their problem for not doing their homework.

Several people, after seeing my kitchen in person, have asked me who my GC was and if I would recommend him. I have always been honest about my reservations, but knowing how difficult it is to find someone good in my area, I have not said I wouldn't hire him again and, in fact, I have hired him for other projects. I just know better what to be careful about. Two friends have also hired him, based on my recommendation with reservations. One was completely satisfied and the other experienced the same issues I did, but at least she felt duly warned. Interestingly, I haven't had any calls from strangers asking for my endorsement of the GC. Perhaps he knows what I would say.

The people responsible for my cabinets and counters also have photos of my kitchen, and I assume they have shown them to prospective clients. When others ask whether I would recommend those two, I do so enthusiastically and without reservation. I can count at least seven people who have hired the cabinet maker as a result of my endorsement, and several others have hired my soapstone guy. Ultimately, though, it's recommendations that matter far more than pictures.

I am of the opinion that when you pay a designer or worker to perform work in your home, you own the tangible, physical results of that work and have the right to say what is or is not done with it. As a comparison, think about a scientist who works for a research lab and makes a discovery while he is working for that lab. He is doing it on someone else's dime and in most cases, the lab will own the rights to the patent.

Beagles, I love ya, but here, you don't have the right to an opinion because you don't know anything about this matter, any more than I have a right to an opinion about best practices for using cardiac stents or the proper angle of approach for a shuttle re-entry. Your comparison to someone doing work for hire proves that. No designer or architect will do work for hire unless you pay a very fat premium over their normal rate. And as far as your later statement about you owning the intellectual property once it's a physical object--it ain't necessarily so. Courts have held that in cases where the design of a building is distinctive, others can't even photograph it without permission--the original architect still owns the rights.

In any case, while specific laws matter in specific cases, in general and over the long run they won't, according to something called Coase's Theorem that I won't get into. The parties will bargain for the right regardless of who originally owns it.

Leaving littlesmokie's original question aside, what we need here is for people to adopt a learner's stance. This is how design industries work. Period. They're not going to change for anybody on this thread. A firm may occasionally make accommodations for an individual client, especially if they feel a particular project isn't needed in their book. But in general, the industry simply won't accept homeowners getting high-handed about photographing their kitchens. It's not going to happen because the economics won't permit it.

Stepping away from the OP's issues with her contractors, it's really hard to see what all the fuss is about. No real harm can come from having one's cabinets in a portfolio under normal circumstances. It is rather small and petty to deny something that a firm needs to make an honest living. It seems like people have just discovered a fire hydrant that they never knew existed before, and want to lift their legs on it.

If the contractors had done a very good job, then this thread would not have been started. Once they did work that was not great, then the OP was uncomfortable having them use their project as an advertisement for getting more work. I'd be uncomfortable with the implied endorsement.

This is not a commercial building or even the exterior of a private home that can be seen from public property. I think that because it is a private residence, then the rights to photograph is should be the owner's decision. I do not know what the laws are in every state (or any one for that matter, lol), but common sense would dictate that they not take pictures inside a home if the homeowner does not want it. I can see the argument if the h.o. did not express an opinion, but once they have stated their objection, that should be enough.

As I've pointed out upteen times, as a practical matter a firm may accommodate an individual homeowner here and there, especially if they're worried a prospect might ask to speak to the owner of a particular kitchen who might give a bad reference.

But this lady-of-the-manor, "private home" stuff is just fantasy. This is the way design professions work, and always will work. Stiff necks must sometimes bow to reality.

One is always free to insist that no one take photographs, and all the busy, well-respected KDs and architects are similarly free to say, "Take a hike." Which they will.

if anyone ever insisted that no one take photographs, those hearing the Order will say Anything (i.e. state a lie) and then go ahead and photograph it anyway a few minutes after the Order-giving person has left.

To help those whose work and ethics are subpar, one can write a serious evaluation which includes an appreciation of their strengths and a mention of their least-desireable aspects. Web-ify it with their full names, zip codes and keywords. Prospects who begin doing homework will read the + and - and get a sense of lukewarm feelings, things that are not hot.

This is the umpteenth time I've written this out.

There is no way to hinder anyone from displaying your beautiful kitchen in their portfolio.
There is no way to hinder anyone from getting a co-worker's wife to masquerade as that kitchen's owner.

There IS a way for you to associate your lukewarm feelings to YOUR images. Hint hint. It ensures that your images cannot be used fraudulently by those workmen who have underwhelmed you.

Ironically, as davidro1 points out, refusing permission will only affect honorable firms. The dishonorable ones will do it anyway.

The definition of commercial or professional photography has nothing to do with the equipment used. It is solely defined as the intended or actual use of the image, namely financial gain.

Also, portfolio's are not 'private.' They are advertisements used to draw future customers and thus are for financial gain. The size of the intended audience makes little difference.

In every situation I know of, commercial/professional use of photos taken on/inside private property require two things: The first is permission to enter, the second is permission to photograph. In many instances the consent can be considered implied, like photographing private grounds when hired to photograph a wedding... but that isn't the same as being granted permission. This is usually enough for one to use an image commercially, however it does not necessarily mean you can ignore cease and desist requests later on.

Personally, I'd say it is stupid for a designer to rely on implied consent here. A designer is hired to design - not photograph a home. Who has hired a designer so the designer can build to their portfolio? We don't hire them to photograph so I think an argument of implied consent is weak (in the hypothetical situation where it is not defined in contract).

Obviously it's in the designers' interest to place it in the contract. Also, the overhead in creating a portfolio otherwise would be astronomical, so their services otherwise would cost significantly more... so yeah, perhaps reasonable to expect a premium when removing the commercial photography clause.

I still don't get the arguments for what people think it should be. What is is is standard industry practice for architects, designers and tradesmen to photograph their work and to use those photographs to prove what they've done and to use them to garner new business. That's reality. If you don't like it you can ask for them not to do it. They may or may not agree and they may or may not comply with the agreement. They may walk away, they may charge you for the privilege of not taking pictures, or they may think you're a problem client and upcharge you for everything, while they're agreeing not to take pictures, figuring that you're going to be a PITA. Those are all individual instances and individual reactions to a situation.

What is general and enduring is that the standard practice in the design industry and the building trades is to photograph the work and to use it in portfolios, and if you're going to invite these people in you'd better expect it's going to happen unless you make not doing so a condition of employment and they agree.

BTW, if you cannot prove your contributions to the design--if all the drawings are done by the designer or contractor--you won't be able to prove it's your intellectual property either.

Marcolo is right about the subsequent photography of distinctive and artistic buildings being a violation of the creator's IP. OTOH, an artist can use photographs of that to create something new and distinctive, or commentary or satire of that same thing and call it fair use.

Marcolo, I never thought of this before: Is Coase's Theorem applicable to the internet mantra that the information wants to be free?

An Architect's contract will state conditions regarding photography. As a homeowner, you are free to negotiate those conditions prior to signing the contract. Once it's signed, the discussion is over. Either the professional has rights to photograph or they do not. Either the Owner allows for publication, or they do not.

Typically all Architectural drawings will be copy written, and Ownership and Use of the documents remain with the Architect.

The use of the title "Architect" is only for licensed professionals. You can't call yourself an Architect if you are not licensed, that constitutes fraud.

So you may be unhappy with the services your consulting firms provided, it only matters what the contract says. You can be as specific as you like with limitations to photograph, but once the contract is signed, it's done.