Photographer sues over stolen photo

[ourkind]

A photographer is suing 'Lowes' after they took a photo from her flickr photostream and printed it on t-shirts which were later sold.

It will be interesting whether she will win and be compensated accordingly.

Maybe she should have watermarked it, but would that have made a difference?

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/photographer-sues-over-stolen-photo-20130115-2cqh1.html

[ZeroID]

Good on her !!! :thumbsup:
I've had Motorsport and Rally pix pirated my old site off despite watermarks and warnings so she has my support for sure. :mad2:

You go girl !!

[BPO]

What an idiotic headline. Nothing has been stolen. She still has her photo. If it's anything it's copyright infringement, not theft. I wish people would be prosecuted for what amount to false accusations and misrepresenting charges.

Copyright infringement is formally defined in law, and it's not defined as theft. And no, I'm not condoning or supporting copyright infringement, even though copyright law is now insanely out of control. I'm merely pointing out the incontrovertible facts.

[hotspur]

hope the poor lady sees some satisfaction-not a good thing to happen,its not very nice have your work stolen like that,I've had that happen to me.'

But this is even worse-a larger company do that,and photography is her wok-pro photographers must not eat very much-its difficult enough to make a living,so this is really taking food from her.

Interesting to read the bit about website hosting etc.Another reason to have a good agent.

[BPO]

Unless they blowtorched her safe and ran off with the negatives, it wasn't theft. She still has the original, in whatever format.

We haven't heard their side of the story yet. Perhaps they found the copy they used on a public domain site. She herself may have uploaded it there. It may well be a case of non-deliberate, unwitting copyright violation.

But one thing we do know is that it wasn't theft, because nothing was actually stolen. Copying isn't theft. It may not be legal in many circumstances, but it's not theft.

[Octane]

Carlos,

Adding a watermark may have made them approach the photographer and discuss use of the image.

But, there's no need for copyright logos; copyright and ownership is implied.

H

[LewisM]

Intellectual theft is VERY real and VERY prevalent.

I have had a couple of my photos used by posers pretending they were theirs. A rather terse email or public ousting (like on a forum where they posted it) and the image, and the thief, usually disappears.

Lowes at least will be getting some much deserved negative feedback about this. Perhaps whoever designs the shirts -in China - just ripped an appropriate image after they were told ideas to create etc. No excuse though.

I watermark EVERYTHING I show online (unless it's bad :) ) and every photo I sell. My wedding shots get a watermark at 20% opacity (JUST see it), as do my portraits. I worked for 2 fashion labels last year at Melbourne Cup, and watermarked all images. Someone ripped one of the images, and tried posting it as theirs on Facebook... MOMENTARILY.

[tlgerdes]

It is speculation, but Lowes probably didnt perform the original copyright infringement. They just bought t-shirts with a picture on them, sold to them by some sweat shop in Asia that their buyer was doing business with. The assumption being, the company doing the manufacture has done things by the books.

[LewisM]

Exactly Trevor. Hopefully Lowes sends shockwaves through the Asian/Pacific Rim manufacturer

[BPO]

It's not theft. It's copyright infringement. Nobody has been deprived of their possessions. Copying is not theft, no matter the intent.

[Ausrock]

BPO,

Are you a lawyer/solicitor?

[BPO]

Why would I have to be either to know the law?

[Ausrock]

Good Lord, I asked a simple bloody question :rolleyes:.

[BPO]

Sorry mate, I wasn't being cranky. But no, I'm not a lawyer/solicitor, although it doesn't alter the fact that, in almost ever western jurisdiction, copyright infringement is not legally defined as theft, and in fact is usually explicitly defined as not being so.

[Ausrock]

Thanks mate.

That said, regardless of legal definitions, if someone creates a "work of art" be it a musical composition, painting, photograph, etc., they hold the copyright over that creation. If someone "takes" a copy of that creation for their own use/enjoyment most "artists" wouldn't object too much, BUT when it's being "taken" for commercial reasons it's a whole different ball game and it does equate to theft..........maybe another way to put it is "deprivation of income".

It's (the risk of theft) the prime reason I rarely put anything I record in our studio on the internet. ;)

[LewisM]

I studied Business Law and Ethics at University. I can assure you that if the intellectual property is commercially sold without the author's consent, then it is defined as theft, and punishable as such.

[MrB]

theft
the action or crime of stealing

steal
take (another person’s property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it

property
a thing or things belonging to someone

intellectual property
Intangible property that is the result of creativity, such as patents, copyrights, etc.

So, intellectual property is considered property, the taking of which without permission is considered stealing, the act of which is considered theft.
Seems to work.

[MortonH]

Well, I think we all agree that it's wrong, regardless of the strict legal definition.

Makes you think twice about posting any images online. Even if you think it's "rubbish" someone could turn it into a saleable image.

[LewisM]

Precisely.

Just as musicians and movie companies prosecute pirates, so you can with such things as photographs.

Proving original creation is on the author, so most photographers keep their original RAW images on file, indefinitely. I have 4 TB of RAW files for 2012 alone. Bought a new 3TB external a week ago, and it's already down 1 GB :)

[naskies]

I'm no lawyer, and have not formally studied law, but it appears that our laws clearly define this as copyright infringement?

From the Copyright Amendment Act 2006, Schedule 1 Criminal Laws:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/caa2006213/sch1.html

132AE Selling or hiring out infringing copy

Indictable offence

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person sells an article or lets an article for hire; and

(b) the article is an infringing copy of a work or other subject‑matter; and

(c) copyright subsists in the work or other subject‑matter at the time of the sale or letting.

(2) An offence against subsection (1) is punishable on conviction by a fine of not more than 550 penalty units or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.

Note 1: A corporation may be fined up to 5 times the amount of the maximum fine (see subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 ).

Note 2: If the infringing copy was made by converting the work or other subject‑matter from a hard copy or analog form into a digital or other electronic machine‑readable form, there is an aggravated offence with a higher maximum penalty under section 132AK.

Summary offence

(3) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person sells an article or lets an article for hire; and

(b) the article is an infringing copy of a work or other subject‑matter and the person is negligent as to that fact; and

(c) copyright subsists in the work or other subject‑matter at the time of the sale or letting and the person is negligent as to that fact.

Penalty: 120 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.

(4) An offence against subsection (3) is a summary offence, despite section 4G of the Crimes Act 1914 .

Strict liability offence

(5) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person sells an article or lets an article for hire; and

(b) the article is an infringing copy of a work or other subject‑matter; and

(c) copyright subsists in the work or other subject‑matter at the time of the sale or letting.

Penalty: 60 penalty units.

(6) Subsection (5) is an offence of strict liability.

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .

[Ausrock]

OK, accurately define "copyright infringement".

At the end of the day, if you "take" a "work" created by another person, (or replication of that "work") without the consent of the creator/rightful owner, for any form of commercial gain then it is a form of theft.

[BPO]

It's not theft though. This isn't opinion, it's legal fact. Copyright infringement isn't theft or stealing or "piracy".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying copyright infringement is a good thing (nor am I saying it's bad). What's important are the facts. No lawyer will represent you if you claim theft, and no judge will take you seriously if you claim copyright infringement is "theft", because the law says it isn't.

Theft is when someone is deprived of something tangible. Nobody has been deprived of anything that the law would define as tangible in this instance. A claim has been made that a copy of something has been made and sold without the permission of the copyright holder, and the law is clear: that is a case of copyright infringement.

Too many people try to twist and distort things using emotive language and claims, but the law doesn't care for that kind of thing. The law clearly states this is not theft or "piracy", but copyright infringement.

[BPO]

Nobody has taken anything. The person who claims legal ownership of the image says that somebody is selling copies of that work without her express permission. Copyright infringement.

[naskies]

I don't understand the angst? Infringement is also defined in the Act (which I linked to for easy reference).

I understand that "copyright infringement" (the legal term) may feel like, and for all intents and purposes be equivalent to, the theft of physical property for some people. I'm not disagreeing (or agreeing) with that.

However, our laws and those of many Western countries, treat the two as completely separate offences - but people often claim that they're the same (in the legal sense).

It's like astronomy versus astrology... to many people, they're effectively the same thing and they don't care one iota about the difference. Doesn't mean that they're the same ;)

[BPO]

Only if it cannot be proved that permission was given or copyright relinquished.

But that's not their problem. If you relinquish copyright by posting it to a site such as, say, Wikipedia (a site that will not accept copyrighted images) and someone makes a buck off it, you cannot complain. It's that simple.

It all comes down to ownership of the copyright. If in this case it's the complainant, then yes, somebody may owe her something if she didn't give them permission to reproduce the image.

But nobody stole anything. People need to get this into their heads. No theft has occurred, no "piracy". It's (as yet unproven) copyright infringement. That's the only cold, hard fact that matters.

[naskies]

From the information provided, it sounds like a fairly clear and cut case? If a Lowes employee downloaded the photo from her Flickr stream, made the T-shirt, and started selling it etc - then I would think it's a fairly cut and dry case. She'd be able to win back her legal costs, royalties, and possibly penalty costs (designed to discourage infringement).

On the other hand, what if some stock photo company took her photo from Flickr, posted it on their site, resold it to a fashion designer, the fashion design made the T shirt under good faith, sold it to Lowes who then produced the TV ad all in good faith? Clearly, the photographer's rights have been infringed, but I'd imagine that it would take a lot more legal untangling to sort out the mess...

[BPO]

"Corporations are people too, my friend."

The difference in this case is that, legally-speaking, Mitt Romney was quite correct, because under US law, corporations have the same rights as people, as disgusting as that law is.

In your example, you're entirely incorrect. Theft is defined as the act of depriving somebody of a tangible possession. Intellectual "property" is not defined as a form of property of which you can be deprived, and the law does not view IP in that way.

A judge will not accept the claim that "My IP was stolen" because you cannot steal IP, you can only copy it, and that makes it a copyright infringement if the copyright holder did not grant permission to copy, or did not relinquish copyright.

It doesn't matter if that makes you angry. What matters is the law. The law quite rightly views copyright and IP as being something that cannot be stolen, only copied without permission of the owner.

Here's an example I used elsewhere:

If somebody takes your bike without your permission, the act is legally defined as theft, because you have been deprived of your property, namely the bike.

If somebody creates an exact duplicate of your bike - a perfect copy in every detail - and rides it around they have not stolen your bike. You still have it, you've not been deprived of any property.

Even if you designed and built your bike, it's not theft. If you have a patent on it, or copyright of the colours and markings, etc, and you did not give the person permission to reproduce it, then it's a case of patent and copyright infringement.

You have your bike. He has a copy of your bike. It is not stealing, theft, or "piracy" as clearly defined by current and existing law.

[BPO]

Yes, If Lowes cannot prove they have permission to use the image. If the complainant cannot prove copyright then Lowes and all others involved are in the clear.

It's only clear if she can prove copyright and those accused of infringing copyright cannot prove they had permission from the copyright holder to use the image, or cannot prove that the image is public domain.

[mithrandir]

Is NZ law the same as Australian law? This is an Australian citizen/resident with an Australian photo allegedly being infringed by an Australian company in Australia.

[Poita]

You watermark the final wedding photos that you sell to your wedding clients??

[LewisM]

On the CD, yes. There was a case recently where someone was selling wedding photos - arty ones - for putting into store photo frames etc just as art... weird, but true. The opacity I use is 20%, so you have to look HARD to see it. My contract stipulates they remain my property, sharing printing and display rights with the purchaser.

On prints I DO, no, but they get my stamp on the back :) Advertising :)

[BPO]

Any differences will be trivial.

[lacad01]

It's a crap photo anyway - if the photographer really wanted it to look vintage the surfer should have had a longboard ;)

[BPO]

Agreed.

:D

[Ausrock]

I hope your comment was tongue in cheek:). Longboards were being replaced by shorter boards long enough ago for the term "vintage" to apply (disregarding board design issues in the image which may be a giveaway), however, the habit of surfer's wearing full wetsuits may be another matter............as an aside, I was known to be astride a shortening longboard at that particular beach in the mid 60's :D

In any case, the photographer is entitled to call the image anything she wants.

[alan meehan]

After working in the tshirt printing business for 40 years i assure you this sort of thing happens everyday,i have done work for corporate stores like lowes best and less big w etc now always done in china and have been
involved in copyright disagreements ,they probably at worst will withdraw the stock from the stores if any left by the time anything happens .China is
ripe with this it happens all the time ,if you change the original design by
10% then it is not a copy
AL

[BPO]

There it is. Flip it in Photoshop; Change the colours; Add a new/different background/foreground, or just about any element, anything that makes it noticeably different and the problem of infringement essentially goes away.

[Kunama]

A rather large assumption ................... but seriously ........




I am a little bemused by your reaction, why attack the thread author merely because the title is technically not correct, surely the point of the thread is that we should beware that this could happen to any images we post here. Being pedantic about the OPs choice of words really is probably not the sort of response the OP expected.
And for those that want to b-anal about it, copyright infringement is no longer defined as theft, case law Dowling vs USA (1985).

[mithrandir]

Not really. Excerpt from:
Australian Copyright Council INFORMATION SHEET G052v11 August 2012
The "6 notes" refers to the case against Men at Work over "Down Under" which the plaintiffs won. Later in the same document:
If the two parties can't agree it can wind up in court and then the judges get to decide if it infringes.

[Kunama]

Infringing on the copyright occurs regardless of whether the infringer adapts or varies the work, such action are known as 'derived work' and the original owner of the copyright has the legal right to object to such use and if the infringer has benefitted financially from the derived work the copyright holder has a rightful claim in relation to such monies.

Edit: Andrew I was typing too slowly, darn two finger hunt and peck !!!

[BPO]

Where did I do that? I attacked the headline.

[Kunama]

Maybe I just got the wrong impression and your post was friendly. You have my sincerest apologies bro.

[Octane]

BPO was attacking the article's headline/title. Not the original poster's.

I can see why he's not amused.

H

[dmizen]

what incontrovertible facts are they BPO ? there is plenty of academic discussion regarding copyright infringement as theft as its the appropriation of the labours of another, whether the police see it that way is another matter as they retain discretion to prosecute, theft defined as the taking or conversion of the property of an other whether tangible or intangible, the link posted by naskies follows what the IP academics have been saying for the last 10 years

Morton H turning it into a saleable image may result in a new image that is the copyright of the new creator - its a grey area and depends in the eyes of the court on the nature and degree of what is taken

[alan meehan]

Iam sorry copyright means nothing if the said tshirt print was done overseas ,china ,we spent $10,000. paying for copyright of a logo and it was copied in BRASIL unless you you have a world copyright worth heaps ,it not worth the paper its written on,good luck to the girl if she
gets anything from it.
AL

[ourkind]

Agreed that's a good point H.

[BPO]

It's not a grey area at all. Reproducing a copyrighted image without the permission of the copyright owner is copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is not theft. I'm not a practicing lawyer, but the first one of those you ask will confirm it, even an IP attorney. As much as the latter would dearly love to tell you it's theft, (s)he won't, because it would be false to say it.

People get purple faced and steam comes out of their ears and they rant and rave about "Bloody thieves and pirates". The kneejerk irrationality is borderline insane and much of the reason this idiotic copyright issue still exists.

Had the likes of slimy Disney executives (born after Walt was already in the ground) been prevented from copyrighting everything in sight until the end of time via bribes and threats and pet politicians, the world would be a lot better off.

That said, if copyright violation can be proven in this case, I hope the complainant is satisfied with the resolution.

[MrB]

Could your harping on the issue not bee seen the same way?

[TrevorW]

All I can say is thank goodness for the pirates

Example Windows 8

I downloaded the preview edition to test it on my PC, knowing it was a touch screen tablet passed OS thinking if I didn't like it I could just un-install it and go back to Win7

No big flashing warnings to say:

You cannot un-install it once installed

It will self destruct on a this date and you will be forced to buy the product\

companies like Microsoft are the pirates in this case

IMO she's making a mountain out of a molehill especially 4 years down the track

[bojan]

I think not.

Law says it is not a theft.

But some people here still insist it is, despite repeated demonstration that it isn't.

He is just stating the facts (citing the law), and others don't (they insist it's the theft despite the facts).

[Paul Haese]

I was a practicing solicitor many moons ago and I studied intellectual property at uni during my bachelor. It is more complicated than both sides are arguing but that is to be expected, non of you are trained lawyers. Everything depends on which Act you are talking about. I'll leave it at that.

I do not use water marks at all. I don't see the point. Photography is for showing people things, emotions and history. If you want pretend my images are yours. I don't care, I know who has the originals and I can prove it if necessary. If you want to use my images for commercial purposes do so. If you make a contract with my to use them and don't pay up as per contract then I will take it up with my dogs of law. I find making a deal better than trying to sue. You get things you might want and so does the person using your image. Besides it is free advertising.

Anyway, copyright is just there to protect the wealth of people, not to protect the interests of the person who first made the property.

[bojan]

Totally agree ! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[1987A]

Sums it up nicely.

[CJ]

My 2 cents worth.
Copyright is a very big deal if you're a songwriter/composer.
And in many other "ideas" industries.

[LewisM]

I reckon BPO works for Lowes :rofl:

Just kidding.

So long as the photog doesn't get hit with a gazillion dollar legal bill (likely), then I say she TRY at least.

[Colin_Fraser]

Taking something that does not belong to you is stealing.
Call it copyright infringement if you like, but it still is stealing.
Because she still has the photo does not mean it's not theft.
You may not be charged with 'stealing' but it is what it is, theft.
Just like a victim of identity theft. They still have their identity and it's still theft.

[Ausrock]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Too frequently, the word of the law ignores basic morals, ethics and plain common sense............unfortunate as it is.

[bojan]

I disagree.

Identity theft can do you a lot of harm (this is why people are stealing identity - to ultimately steal your money, or to hide their own).
However, copyright infringement will not necessarily result in any harm - it may theoretically cause a loss of income (but then again, who knows if she would ever make any money out of that photo herself.. ).

Obviously, your definition of theft is different from legal definition we are talking about.. and while you have every right to think whatever you want, this right would not help you in the court, me thinks.
Moral is one thing, law is another one, like it or not.

[MrB]

I've just been trying to figure out since when has the legal fraternity dictated how we use the english language?
Sure, some words and phrases come from the legal profession, but not how we actually USE the language.

So let me get this right... at one time you could say that something intangible was 'stolen', but since case 'blah blah' where the judge said it wasn't stealing, nooooo you can't say it is stolen anymore? Bugger that!

The Oxford English Dictionary says intellectual property is property, it also says taking property is stealing, the act of which is theft. There is no mention of tangible or intangible.

It was a news article not a legal document! So for everyday common english usage, taking something that is not yours without the owner's permission, tangible or intangible, is stealing.

[ourkind]

What a great outlook :thumbsup: Thanks for sharing Paul!

[hotspur]

+1

I think this thread should be an eye opener to all here,not a legal debate.
There was one poor IIS member here-in NZ I think that takes photos of racing cars,a car team at the races used one of his images in their business-he even approached them about it-and never got any acknowledgement.So just makes one think a bit more about their images,and how they might handle them,I know I think about this NZ members' story when handling certain images.

[Barrykgerdes]

Yes this thread has degenerated into a legal v moral argument. The real point is that the courts deliver the law not justice. Although both are often served at the same time, the law will always take precedence.

In regard to photo copyright at one time all photos were taken and stored on film. If you had the original negatives you had a pretty air tight case for copyright ownership. However with digital photography ownership will be much harder to prove and when it gets to the courts the person with the most money to interpret the law will win.

Barry

[Barrykgerdes]

This is an interesting point for example you will see a sign on the gates and fences of schools that refers to being on "inclosed" land whereas the accepted spelling is "enclosed". If you get charged with this offence the case will use "inclosed" with the legal meaning of "inclosed" and if any of the documents spell it as "enclosed" the case will be dismissed.

Barry

[Octane]

This is why we shoot RAW.

The likelihood of a RAW file making its way into someone else's hands is very remote, unless a contract stipulates that a RAW is to be handed over to a client (typically in cases where they wish to process the image themselves). Much like handing over your negative to someone to enlarge.

H

[AstralTraveller]

Good idea. You would achieve the same with a jpeg if you cropped the original before posting. I also imagine rescaling the original and keeping the hi-res version would prove that you took the shot.

[Octane]

Precisely, David. :)

There's all manner of things you could do the file that's posted online -- such as rotating the full frame by a degree, or less, or by posting a crop, as you suggested. Not always, possible, I know, but, another safeguard.

But, as long as the RAW is in your possession, you should be OK.

I understand there's caveats to every rule, though.

H

[Colin_Fraser]

How have you came to that conclusion?
If a person steals from someone else, that is theft. I see little difference from the legal definition.

[Ausrock]

This thread clearly shows that pedants are alive and well in our community ;).

[LewisM]

I said about authors keeping RAW's on file indefinitely in post #19 :P

[Octane]

I know, mate. :)

My earlier post was to address what Barry was saying. :)

H

[BPO]

By knowing the law.

Absolutely. But what matters is the legal definition of theft, not your definition, and the legal definition of theft is clear that reproducing copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder is copyright infringement, not theft, or stealing, or the ridiculously named "piracy".

It doesn't matter what you see. It matters what the law states, and, as above, this is copyright infringement, not theft.

Jumping up and down and calling it theft just because you don't like it, doesn't make it theft. The law trumps emotion.

[mithrandir]

The law has nothing to do with common sense or morality.

[OzEclipse]

In the months leading up to the last eclipse, I found people borrowing very liberally from my solar eclipse web site. By that I mean they borrowed and republished my eclipse description on their web site in whole without permission. In general, professional publishers always write and ask permission. For example David Reneke, the Port Douglas eclipse festival site, and Cairns Japanese language magazine etc all wrote and obtained permission from me before using material. I gave permission and I even proofed the republished material for them.

Major infringements I discovered included

A Cairns based booking engine who republished my entire 2012 eclipse article complete with photos with my copyright watermark as a hook for their booking engine.

A religious whack job in the USA bible belt used the eclipse article of my site with my name clearly visible to add credibility to her theory that the eclipse marked the beginning of the "Great Tribulation," the return of the anti-Christ. She posted a 14 min YouTube video with her voice over her scrolling around my site pulling bits out of context. I couldn't get her video pulled because I didn't agree with it or because it was untruthful but I got her on the copyright infringement.

The day after I got her video shut down, she posted another using someone else's eclipse site. I wrote to the owner and he too put in a copyright infringement complaint. Game over.

Another religious whack job here in Australia - another end of the world guru cashing in on peoples fears published some of my material then had the audacity to write to me afterwards to tell me he'd done that and hoped I didn't mind.

There were numerous other violations I discovered. I quickly evaluated each one and decided how much I wanted to pursue each one.

It is theft but theft of intellectual property as has been pointed out. There are a series of articles on the Australian Copyright Council Site that are very informative.

http://www.copyright.org.au/find-an-answer/

Joe Cali

[JethroB76]

Bet the OP will think twice about starting a similar thread next time.
Fancy getting uptight about a standard poor journo/subed whatever

[badabing82]

theft / stolen / copyright infringement who gives a poo about the semantics it is what it is, hardly worth a whole page of arguing about the semantics or law of it!

[ZeroID]

T'was me, I shut down the business, Rallyshotz, not long after, no money to be made. If people are just going to 'borrow' your pix without paying whats the point of a business. basically it was stealing my income and justification for being there. Not to mention expenses, I flew Auckland > Dunedin for one event plus rental car and accommodation and drove thousands of kilometers covering various Rally stages, even interview pics with Petter Solberg and Marcus Gronholme.

I still take motorsports pix but for my own pleasure now. If someone asks they can have a copy. If they want to pay for better then I am happy to oblige but if my livelihood depended on photography under some of the stated reasons against copyright on here then I would starve to death.

Legal or moral definition, I regard it as theft.

[Barrykgerdes]

I am not a photographer although out of thousands of snaps that I have taken over the years I have got the odd publishable picture and one or too that could have been used in court as evidence of negligence.

I suppose that any of the photos I display on web sites will only be used to show how not to do it. I do collect astronomical photos for stellarium, Some from IIS but in all cases I have approached the owners for permission and duly acknowledged them.

There are many amateur (professional) photographers charging astronomical prices for wedding photos. They all expect the money before you get to see them.

If you take pictures professionally The only way to avoid problems is to sell them before you publish them. Once they are published they will be fair game to the "bad guys". As Brent found out I expect that many of the spectacular rally shots that are published in magazines are in fact technically copyright infringements using enthusiast's material that is gleaned from many places without acknowledgement.

Barry

[LewisM]

Many, but not all. I charge $500 for my weddings. That includes as many photos as I take, all on CD/DVD, with 20 edited versions. If I have to travel more than 50km for the wedding, I require fuel costs and food.



Nope - I give previews. The customer comes to me, or I to them, and I show them on my laptop.They chose which they want. If we cannot meet, I send a set of personal choice ones in email or host on my site, with a HEAVY, uneditable watermark over the centre of the picture, with a cross through the whole thing in 35% grey. Only ever had ONE person TRY to edit and publish the photo, and I quickly saw end to that - they did not get their images. Cheapskates!

Had another model who I shot her wedding TRY to tell me she had paid me by modelling for me. I beg your pardon Little Miss Up Yourself? I had done 3 photo shoots with her before, as she wanted to see MY pictures to see if I was good enough for her wedding. I gave her every single shot. When it came to the wedding, she did NOT provide food or even drink, but expected I shoot everything. And then when it came time to select which she wanted edited, she expected EVERYTHING on an external HDD, so "she could choose at home with her husband". Yes, I came down in the last shower...

It took a LOT of arguing to get the $500

[Barrykgerdes]

Yes Octane

You are so right If you take digital photos you must keep the original raw data and only publish a processed version if you want to establish ownership. Any one doing professional work will. However there are so many people these days taking spectacular shots with iphones and pads who publish the pictures straight off the camera and don't keep originals. These are the ones who so often have their work abused. I hope this thread helps these people to take better care of their work.

Barry

[Barrykgerdes]

Yes Octane

You are so right If you take digital photos you must keep the original raw data and only publish a processed version if you want to establish ownership. Any one doing professional work will. However there so many people these days taking spectacular shots with iphones and pads who publish the pictures straight off the camera and don't keep originals. These are the ones who so often have their work abused. I hope this thread helps these people to see through the hype on legal v moral and take better care of their work.

Barry

[bojan]

Maybe they don't care about IP.. personally, I wouldn't.

Like Paul mentioned earlier, if I publish a picture of anything, my (almost) only wish is that people that I know (and who know me) see it as quickly as possible... it is not "work".. it is sort of my message to the world.. and yes, it is nice to see my name as an author below (my peers WILL notice and that is what really matters here).. and that's about that. I don't believe in commercialisation of everything and anything. And I hope/believe many people are the same in that respect.

We can widen the field of our discussion and say that the same goes for any discussion on this forum, especially threads with technical advice offered - I am sure 90% of that may be commercially useful for someone.
Should we all stop giving technical advice here and start charging for it (or, start to communicate via PM with only people we want to tell certain things)?
Could any advice about products (for example, mounts and associated issues) turn into infringement of IP of manufacturer? Should we seek the permission from Meade for example when discussing the software that controls their mount?
I think that wouldn't be a good development.

If someone uses my shot(s) for commercial purpose (not that this ever happened), so be it and I don't care to know about it. This of course doesn't mean I don't value my own work, on the contrary - that is why I publish (when I do)

[Barrykgerdes]

At $500 a shoot (+food and transport) is about half the last wedding shoot my family had. (Serves them right for looking like they could afford it :P) and it took ages to see the previews.

Pity you live so far away

I used to do videos for my family members (no charge of course). 30+ years ago with a home made colour video camera recorded on a 1/4" tape. The camera was a two vidicon device that I converted from NTSC to PAL. I still have some video from that camera and boy is it terrible compared to modern stuff.

Barry

[BPO]

And "common sense" is usually just nonsensical mob opinion, and the enormously varied claims of what constitutes morality seldom better, and often if not usually worse.

This is why we have Law.

[Barrykgerdes]

Yes Bojan
I feel the same about assistance where I can give. There are three or four people on this forum who have needed technical assistance in repairs to LX200's and DOB mounts etc. I get them to bring the stuff too me and be prepared to spend the day here while I repair or redesign to solve problems. I do not charge (except maybe I say bring along a six pack if they wish to contribute). It lets me keep my machining skills and avoid SWMBO for the day.

Barry

[LewisM]

For sure - I have a friend who's minimum wedding shoot cost is $1500. I have NO IDEA how they justify this, as weddings are honestly one of the easiest damned things to shoot. Everyone is already dressed and made up, everyone (mostly) looks pretty, usually in a nice location. Pfft. What's hard about it? Photogs that charge more are just hoping for that one person who thinks paying more = better photos, which 99% of the time is incorrect.

Longest I have stayed at a wedding has been 5 hours. At $100 per hour, that's still $80 per hour more than most jobs. Processing takes little time if you planned your shots to a theme properly - maybe 20 mins per shot MAXIMUM. Longer than that and you know the shot is NOT good! (usual per photo is 5 mins max).

I refuse studio work. Don't like false settings, and to me a studio is false. If I cannot do it indoors or outdoors in a natural setting, i won't do it. Sure, there is a time and place for studio, but not for me. ALL my model portfolios I do outside or inside (we have a long elegant hallway with PLENTY of natural light that looks INCREDIBLE in photos) Portraits and nudes done in a studio to me are absolutely grotesque - humans are natural, don't stuff them in with snoots, softboxes and barndoor lighing, especially not with purple gel backlight... YIK!!!

Anyway.

[Octane]

Wow, Lewis...

If you think $1,500 is more than enough for a wedding, I don't know where to start.

Wedding photography is the most difficult and stressful photography there is.

Talk about devaluing an entire industry and hundreds of thousands of people in one paragraph.

I'm insulted by your comments.

H

[LewisM]

H, I find them easy. Plan it well in advance with the bride and family, take it from there. I have done now 17 weddings, and all except one went flawlessly (weather changed, and changed everything. Improvisation saved the day).

Sorry if that insults you, but that's how I feel.

This is the one where it went awry - in the end, she wanted the images high key with sepia toning. Not my favourite style, but she got what she wanted...

[LewisM]

H, devalue? No, it's called competition.


Every man and his donkey has a camera phone these days, and most have amateur DSLR's... if you want to keep up with Mum and Pop with the DSLR but offer at least some added value, you price accordingly.

If you wish to charge $1500, then that is your prerogative. I willkeep charging my $500 per 5 hour wedding. Sure keeps the bank manager happy.

[Octane]

The ease with which you photograph an event has no bearing on how much you charge for it.

I could write a long-winded reply, but, this is not the thread to post it in, so, I will just leave you with this:

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/01/26/why-wedding-photographers-prices-are-wack/

Perspective.

If you were doing that full time, how would you live on $500 or $1,500 a job?

H

[Octane]

Yes, and all those people with cameras are not photographers.

They're just that -- people with cameras.

H

[LewisM]

How H? By doing frequently.

I did school photos recently. Charged $5 per portrait, $5 per class shot. That kept the wife happy a while.

Wedding 2 weeks ago, another $500.

3 x Model portfolio shoots last week, $100 each. Got 2 more this weekend.

Cafe advertising late December - $250

Daily online sales is not much, but enough. I pay $79 per year for an offshore website (hosted in Israel!), so doesn't take much to cover it :)

I go for the reportage style more so than the staged photos that I try vehemently to avoid. That does not always pan out.

[Octane]

We're talking specialising in just weddings.

A couple of hundred here and there is not a guaranteed way to run a business.

I guess people get what they pay for.

Sorry for the thread diversion, Carlos. I'm bowing out of this one now.

H

[LewisM]

What differentiates a photographer from a regular "human being"? The ability to take GOOD photos and process them well. The ability to SEE a scene.

And? Is that worth $1500? Maybe to you, yes, but not to me.

As I said, you keep charging $1500, and I'll keep charging $500. Whatever keeps you happy and justifies doing the job. I cannot see getting insulted over it.

It's what you make of it. No insults are ever intended, but if you perceive it as one, then that is surely only in your own mind.

[LewisM]

Then you surely will go broke :)

JUST wedding photog, and NO other style? Bit narrow track these days.

[LewisM]

Very true.

I have seen $2500 worth of absolute rubbish photography, and I have seen $250 worth of brilliant photography. Depends on the photographer.

More often than not, the utter GARBAGE photography I have seen has been studio stuff, and some photogs charge big money, especially the "arty" types.

Artistic ability and professionalism does not equate a large price tag.

[AndrewJ]

Gday H

I just read the link,



and think its a little distorted. ( Unless i am misreading the analysis )

I noted all the ongoing "costs" used are based on a full >year< of living,
but the income was quoted for 20 shoots.
Even allowing for say 3/4 week per shoot ,
she is saying that she has trouble surviving for a year,
whilst only working the equivalent of say 15 weeks in that year???
I would also have trouble surviving on that.

Andrew

[LewisM]

The article (more a rant) is VERY distorted, especially equipment and supply prices. She was justifying her prices.

I give my customers a CD / DVD (costs CENTS each, not what this lady supposes they cost, especially if you buy in bulk). They can print it at their own cost. If they want me to print it, I charge them the actual cost plus $20 for my time to go and get it done, wait, and collect etc. Mounting/framing I won't touch.

Where I get prints, they charge me $1.75 per 8 x 12 print on Fuji paper (less $ if in bulk). More naturally if I want metallic paper like Endura etc.

[Octane]

In latest news, terrorists sick of being treated like photographers...

Seems like it's a sin to try and make a living doing wedding photography. If not a sin, then, we should be ashamed of what I /others charge, because apparently it's really easy work and because it's easy, we should be giving our work away.

Very rarely do people call to question the rates that other professions charge to the same extent photographers charge. But, when it comes to photography, because anyone can buy a DSLR nowadays, it's open season. Like, no-one will be able to tell the difference between someone who bought their first DSLR yesterday, with someone who's been shooting 15+ years, not withstanding savants and naturally-gifted artists.

I often wonder whether the people who deride photographers earning a decent living, talk dentists or mechanics or plumbers or lawyers down in charges?

The $500 client wants a disc of images and will usually ask a relative or a friend to photograph their wedding. The one day in their life that everything should be perfect. The person who is spending a sizeable amount, is paying for ability, reliability, consistency/style, experience and a good product.

It is true that some of the most highly paid photographers in the world aren't the best photographers. They're good business people. And, vice versa. I've seen examples of both.

If you're happy servicing the $500-odd base, more power to you.

In the end, it suffices to say that I value my craft and feel no wrong in charging accordingly. There will always be $500 clients, and, there will always be $5K+ clients. I must be doing something right, as I've now got bookings six months in advance. And, every half-a-dozen bookings, I will raise my rates accordingly by a small percentage. It is how I value myself. 2013 is my year. I hope to give away my career by the end of this year to be self-sufficient off what I consider my favourite hobby: making beautiful pictures.

I'm meeting a couple at 10 tomorrow morning. I'm hoping they choose a package with an album; I'm now getting my albums printed by a boutique in the US that makes gorgeous products.

Sorry, Carlos!

H

[Colin_Fraser]

Absolute rubbish :screwy:

[MrB]

+1

[iceman]

Wow hasn't this thread degenerated.

[TrevorW]

Have you closed it yet, seems to have gotten way off track into a slanging match

In wedding photo's and I've seen a few in the last 40 odd years IMO it's not about what you pay it's about how good the photographer is at their job, you both have valid points

[AndrewJ]

Gday H



Just to clarify my post, i dont personally care what you charge.
You charge what people will pay, just like any other freelancer.

My point is the article you linked to appeared to be very distorted
in how she tried to justify her prices.
Ie, if she could do only one shoot per week for a year
her income would have been ~120k ( not bad for the time invested ).
To whinge about doing it tough based on funding a years existence
from say 15 weeks of working time is just not helping her cause.

Andrew

[LewisM]

H, like I said from the start, you charge as you feel, I charge how I feel. Why the angst? It almost seems you are trying to forgive yourself for charging what you do?

I have no ill will towards you whatsoever. We disagree over a price and some other small points. Is it worthy to get all insulted and bent out of shape over?

I have and will never put fellow photogs down for charging as they do. I cannot personally see why, but that is MY perception of it. Yours is entirely different. If you want to earn a living as a wedding photog, go right ahead - no one is stopping you and be prepared for competition. Being competitive in price does not "devalue" the profession we are both in.

[LewisM]

Agreed entirely. (But we surely have no need to apologise to Carlos, as I think the original topic is well and truly flogged to death.)

I really don't mind servicing the $500 crowd. I expected Thongs and Stubbies crowd, but I am getting the Volvo and Saab crowd. Happy with that :) Not Mercedes or Rolls Royce yet, but working on it. I find the $500 crowd to actually be VERY pedantic and picky too, so I wouldn't pigeon hole any of them. 3 of the models I shot have come back for weddings to me.

[hotspur]

Few fire ships here.:scared3: although H is right doing weddings takes a very special talent.

Thought I'd cheer things up a bit,my son has no problems with stolen photos,he put this image in a posh looking photo comp-now the head organiser has contacted him from Nethalands,they want to use his image to promote comp,and other things.

So thought this might cheer the thread up a bit.

[Pinwheel]

I am a retired professional Photographer with over 30 years under my belt.

We did a job for Colgate-Parmolve with a studio shoot of Colgate toothpaste using a pretty female model. We did the shoot, paid the model & sent in the invoice. We were paid and that was that...........Then one day we discovered our studio shot appeared in magazines all over the world. They airbrushed the image to change the toothpaste box in the models hand into 80 plus languages but keeping the original image. We could have shot that model holding 80 odd boxes of Colgate toothpaste in Arabic to Zulu however it was not to be and we got screwed. True story.

Ps We also shot 1000's of weddings (on film) however nothing under $1500 plus album. We were booked 2 years in advance........Digital killed us in the end.

[RickS]

Speaking of "stolen" images, Josh Lake's winning entry from the Hubble's Hidden Treasures (http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/08/hubbles-hidden-treasures/100358/) comp has just started appearing on iPhone cases: http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=p5197.m570.l1313&_nkw=blue+space+dust+iphone&_sacat=0&_from=R40

[BPO]

My last post in this thread and on this topic (honest, Mike!) is this: So many of the people I know of - not pointing any fingers here, mind - who are the first to leap screaming and frothing at the mouth about "bloody pirates!" etc are people running cracked or otherwise "pirated" copies of Windows, as well as apps such as Adobe Photoshop, and games, and have hard drives filled with music and movies they've ripped or downloaded.

As I said, I'm not suggesting anyone here is a hypocrite like those people, and I'm sure every one of you only has "legal" copies of software and multimedia, with no "illegal" copies. It's tough to be legal like that, what with the fine print on everything. (Read it and discover just how hard it is to truly remain legal, and how nigh-impossible it is to actually legally own something for which you've paid.)

Anyway, that's it. sorry to have bored you.

[TrevorW]

To true and do you think anyone in China gives a rat about copyright

[adman]

Lewis, I could be wrong - but I suspect that it was these comments that raised H's hackles.

The way I see it is that photographers are free to charge whatever they like to shoot weddings, and clients are free to pay that charge or not.

The onus is on the client to do their homework. To have a clear idea of what they are after, to look at photographers portfolios, and maybe contact people they have previously done weddings for, and decide whether they are worth the fee they are asking. And if not, move on.

The flip side of the fee is the clients expectations. I would suggest that clients who pay higher fees will have higher expectations of the quality of not only the delivered product, but also the levels of service given by the photographer before, during, and after the wedding.

It is possible that the reason you find weddings so easy to shoot, is that the fee you are charging, in general, attracts clients with lower expectations. I am not saying that the product you deliver is lower in quality, nor am I trying to denigrate your skill as a photographer (of which I have no knowledge). Setting a low price, then exceeding expectations is certainly one way to create happy clients.

If I buy a chinese $20 cordless drill at bunnings, and it gives up 1 day after its warranty I would be less inclined to raise a stink than if it were my $350 german made equivalent. A poor analogy, but anyway...

Adam

[blink138]

very cleverly and diplomatically put adam!

[LewisM]

I certainly don't think that the model I shot 4 sessions for prior to her wedding - as she was "checking me out" (and using the photos too) had low expectations :)

In fact, none of the ones I have shot do. Most actually come to me after being disgruntled by high charge photogs that show their portfolios and they do NOT like what they see (like all those cheesy "photographers" who troll Model Mayhem for the lingerie or nudie shots and take abhorent pictures and still charge the noob models money!). One client told me a photog wanted to take 20 photos only, charge her $3000, and demanded to be put up in a hotel etc., and yet her photos were flat, staged looking and melancholic.

99% od the time, the planned ideas I throw out the window. I like candid, not puppet shows. I will do the staged, but most of the time, the staged ones I shoot candidly (shooting when they are not ready etc) and it is THOSE pictures they usually decide on. There is NOTHING on earth like a real smile vs a posed smile.

I have had couples comment after wedding shoots that they didn't even know I was there, or forgot I was. My work then, is complete :) If I can do it all, not be noticed, everyone totally natural, then...win win win. Of course, there are time for the group portraits etc.

As I said, I prefer a natural reportage style than a scripted wedding.

[Ausrock]

So what you're saying is that you take candid "snaps" of the people at a wedding (something anyone with a mobile phone, etc., can do) and charge $500 for it ;).

Lewis, true photography is an art, if, as you have done in your comments, you denigrate studio and/or other styles of photography to bolster your choices, then one has every reason to question anything and everything you say on the subject.

[LewisM]

I would hardly call them snaps... there is a complete art to reportage... and one that will usually bring better $ than staged stuff. Canid does not equate "snaps" from Maand Pa.

Candid means not posing someone. People at their natural best, without forcing expressions or emotions. If that is what you like, then go for it.

I have done a lot of studio work. I don't like the look. Many do.That is their choice. I have done a lot of natural photographs with the only light source ambeint light or reflected ambient light. THAT is the style I like, and also the style 99% of GOOD wedding photographers use.

That's me. To call candid properly composed photographs "snaps" is insulting :) :D :LOL: I take offence, let me slap your cheek... PFFFT

[Kunama]

Amazing where this thread has gone, just now finished catching up with the latest. Some interesting points raised about wedding photography.

Here is my 2 cents: (come on, you knew it was coming !)
Great wedding photography does not happen by accident.
Not everyone should even attempt it.
It is the most demanding form of photography although these days it is a little less so due to the ability to review the shot immediately.
It requires someone with excellent attention to detail.
It requires someone who can deal with people at their level, whatever that level may be.
You have to be a diplomat and sometimes a magician to get people to do the things you know will give them excellent images even when they do not want to co-operate.
You need reliable, high quality equipment for the job, and you need 2 complete sets of it.
You need to stay 'focused' the whole time you are there.

I know people who will do the job for $500 and have friends who charge several thousand for the coverage.
I am not the most experienced by a long shot but I have shot in excess of 400 weddings and would not take on one for less than $1500.

I shot almost all of the weddings on film, using Nikon F4s, F5 and Mamiya 645Pro equipment (about $ 30,000 in equipment went to each wedding)
I also had an assistant to almost every wedding to whom I gave an F5 with an 80-200 F2.8 to shoot candids.

I looked at it this way:

With landscape photography I was very happy to get 3 great images out of a roll of 36 Kodachrome. With wedding shoot I was cross if I ended up with 3 rejects out of a roll of 36.

[LewisM]

This is what I mean by candid.

Not posed, they didn't know it was happening. This is the shot they chose on the wall of their home (and that also won me a local award). It's not the best quality here, as this is my facebook page version. Taken on a stormy day (at Coolum, Matt) - the whole shoot was "planned" but that went out the window right quick!


I am not talking candid as in bride's brother getting drunk in the corner, or cheesy grin shots... I mean spur of the moment, off guard stuff.

[Kunama]

Lewis, I too like the 'candid' approach but with weddings I found you had to give the people what they wanted and then add those images that you knew they would love.

The styles have changed so much that I would not pretend to be up with current trends having been out of it for 12 years now. In fact my daughter who is getting married this winter, is after a totally different style to what I was asked to shoot.

[blink138]

methinks thou doth protest too much!
pat

[LewisM]

Probably. Just bored on a rainy day. Trying to edit some pictures for an advertising shoot I just did for a local aviation company, and too unenthusiastic to get cracking at it. They'll get their photos on Tuesday (5 days ahead of schedule). I had to succumb and do the cheesy counter and office shots... ah well...not much scope there.

Got some free flying out of it - that was my charge for the shoot. Looks like that flying will have to wait in this weather, as not much point doing aerobatics in cloud :) :) :)

[LewisM]

Matt, the style right now seems high key, sepia toned (like my shot above). NOT my desired toning, but they got what they wanted. They flat REFUSED B&W (though I snuck in 3 free), and demanded one composite shot (I may post it later). I just do what is asked, but offer MY version of events in the bargain - if they don't want them, they just stay in my portfolio - no harm, no foul.

Out of all the scripted shots the bride planned with me meticulously over 5 days (including location scouting etc), only 8 shots held to that script. The weather ruined her entire plan, but she could not be happier with the end result.

[Stardrifter_WA]

I can't believe how long this thread has been going and how some try so hard to defend their position. I have read this thread with a certain degree of amusement, I must admit, but wasn't going to weigh into the debate, until now.

Some here seem to think that photography is so easy. If so, why do I find it so hard to take quality images? As far as I can determine, it takes considerable talent and technical knowledge to take decent photographs, something I have tried to attain for 30 years and still haven't done so. And frankly, I know I am no dummy! I just don't have the necessary photographic talent, but I keep trying.

I spend my working hours trying to build student confidence in themselves and to value their knowledge and skills, so it pains me to see people who devalue their skills so easily. Having said that, yes, I do realise that many people find things come to them very easily (natural talent), however, many do not find it so easy; and some find it downright hard.

Nothing has come easily to me and I have had to work hard to attain the considerable skills that I have, which is why I value them, probably? I have never had much faith in myself, but I have never doubted my abilities; and I value them accordingly.

I have just moved to a digital SLR (Canon 60D) about six months ago and it is taking me a long time just to work out how to use this camera, let alone learning to use the processing software (Corel Photoshop). I use Photoshop as it came with the CorelDraw suite of programs, which I have used for years.

It does take talent to take decent photographs and that talent should be valued accordingly. If taking photos was so easy, why aren't we all capable of taking photos of the same quality and subject matter as Ansel Adams?

Cheers Peter

[Ausrock]

Very well said. :thumbsup:

OK, we're away from the original subject of this thread BUT it has generated some interesting debate.

At the end of the day, if a person is content with the photos they've taken and someone else is prepared to pay for those photos, then so be it. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean the person with the camera has the "talent" or ability to "qualify" as a photographer any more than it means the person forking out $$$ knows what a "good" photograph really is and whether they're really getting value for money...............this is where I believe a lot of the problem begins...........people's standards have degenerated as we've become a "throw away" society.

A few weeks ago we attended the wedding of a girl my wife works "above". I had met the bride only once before so she didn't initially recognise me walking around with camera bag over the shoulder wielding my 40D, there were two young guys looking as though they'd just walked in off the street who were they "official" photographers. All of a sudden, she realised that I was one of her bosses' husbands and her comment was "Oh sh*t, I thought you were another photographer"................all because I had an DSLR. God knows what she would have thought if I'd still been using medium format gear :D.

The fact is that these days it's all too easy to.......1) buy a camera that produces good quality images, 2) manipulate images on a PC to (hopefully) bring them up to a standard and 3) call yourself a photographer just because you have a DSLR, software and a facebook page or website. None of these things make a good photographer any more that having experience in a studio or darkroom and I've seen little (written or illustrated) in this thread to convince me otherwise.

Regardless of what experience (or equipment) I've had, I don't regard myself as a photographer and I sure as hell wouldn't consider taking money from someone, especially for taking candid style snaps.

[adman]

Lewis, if you put all this work in, you really do need to charge more than $500.

[LewisM]

She was an exception "time" wise - my wife's friend, so....

THe model shoots I did prior to the wedding sort of make up for it :eyepop:

[Barrykgerdes]

Interesting thing about wedding photos. We had studio photos done 55 years ago, because it was considered part of getting married, paid the going price. I don't think I have looked at them since. Certainly don't have any framed anywhere. What a waste of money!

Barry

[TrevorW]

Too true Barry, a trip down memory lane every now and then, thats all. Often save you money ask your friends with good digital cameras to take snaps and you can have all the shots you need for free.

[LewisM]

Studio has, for the most part, started to become VERY passe for wedding photos. And thank goodness I say.

[Stardrifter_WA]

:eyepop:

[Stardrifter_WA]

Barry, I don't have any of mine framed anywhere either.......but that only is because I don't want to be reminded :lol: