Last evening, I had a long conversation with a valued client about what rights he got when he purchased a show print from me. The genesis of the conversation was my asking him to purchase a photo that he was using on his website but had not yet purchased from me as a print (yes, this one is different from the one who said he didn't want to purchase a print). Ironically, it is the guy who owns the dog that went Best In Specialty Show.

I told him I was delighted that he wanted to use the image for promoting his dog; I told him that I loved the dog and that he was a valued client and a good friend. I then explained what had happened with the other BOW guy and told him is was a bit hypocritical for me to allow him to use the image un-paid for and not allow the other guy to do the same.

We then discussed usage rights for more than an hour. He still doesn't get it. He thinks I'm being too fussy because I know he's going to order. I told him I was delighted that he was going to order and that he should do so promptly. The show ended 2 months ago.

After this type of conversation, it's clear to me that it would be easier for me to get my Juris Doctorate and prosecute the cases than try to explain usage violations to dog show exhibitors. They simply don't get it.

Frustrated in Orlando,

Jim

"We then discussed usage rights for more than an hour. He still doesn't get it. He thinks I'm being too fussy because I know he's going to order. I told him I was delighted that he was going to order and that he should do so promptly. The show ended 2 months ago.

After this type of conversation, it's clear to me that it would be easier for me to get my Juris Doctorate and prosecute the cases than try to explain usage violations to dog show exhibitors. They simply don't get it. "

Hey Jim,

What part did he not get? Were there places of agreement, or did he generally feel you were making too much of the issue?

James

James,
basically, like everyone else I talk to, he doesn't understand that I own the images and I grant him certain rights to use it for which I charge a fee. He thinks that once he gets a photo, it's his to use any way he wants. Period. Twenty five bucks and you can put it on the side of the Goodyear Blimp!

The other part he doesn't understand -- and I've had this conversation with a couple of webmasters which really curled my hair (at least that which hasn't fallen out) -- is that he shouldn't use images from another website. Under any circumstances. The fact that he hadn't paid for the image never even entered his consciousness. He told his webmaster to go to the ARC site and copy the image onto his website. And she did it!!!! Try to explain piracy to people who think you can take anything you can get to on the web.

As David has said, you try to be nice and reasonable but when people are purposely stupid and refuse to acknowledge that you have a right to make a living, it's hard to be sweet. I never lost my temper with this guy but he'll never get another favor from me. Maybe someday when he realizes that the air has gotten a lot colder he'll understand why. But I seriously doubt it.

Cheers,

Jim

Hey Jim,

That is a sad statement - perhaps a few, actually. Do you feel that it is worse now professionally, or do you feel that attitudes are consistent over time?

James

That's frustrating, I guess people might think since it's their dog they have all rights?

Someone from Canada wrote the following...is this true and if so is it also true in the US? She is saying that since she was hired to take the photos, the client owns the rights to use them:

Don’t know how it is in the US, but in Canada it is definitely work for hire and the default position is that copyright goes to the person paying for the job unless stated otherwise.

Dee Dee,
if the club hired and paid the photographer to take the photos and the contract agreement was that the club owned the images, then fine.

But just the opposite is true here in the US: we pay an incentive to shoot the shows and all the marketing, billing and fulfillment activity is our responsibility. We own the images and sell/lease usage rights.

And that's the way it's always been. Of course, before digital and the internet, the game was pretty clear-cut: you bought a print which the photographer had made from a negative. You never bought the negative. If you wanted to use the print for advertising, you bought another print and sent it to the publication. If you wanted to have 10 prints in your stud packages, you bought 10 reprints from the photographer. There were no websites and therefore no web usage issues. There were no scanners (at least in most homes) and therefore nobody copied the print to have additional prints made. You had negatives, prints and life was simple.

Now, life is anything but simple and files can be copied easily, prints can be scanned easily, there are websites that are primary marketing tools for selling stud services and puppies, magazines accept hi rez files for advertising. We're still selling prints but our customers want our negatives. Twenty years ago, no photographer would ever sell his negatives. But that was 20 years ago.

As for copyright law, in the US it has never gone to the person paying the bill. It goes to the person who owns the intellectual property, in this case the initial image. Maybe it's different in Canada -- almost everything is -- but I'd have to see the law before I believed it to be true.

James, things are getting more frustrating and technology has made usage rights and the enforcement of them almost an anachronism. I'm thinking of going to a small show with my computer, taking the photos, proofing them on-screen, dropping in my sign and then burning a CD with the preferred image on it. Sell it for $50 and never worry about it again. No back-end costs. No fulfillment. If you want a great print, you can order it through me but you don't have to. I think I'll test drive that at one of the small Specialties I have coming up and see if it flies. I'll let you know.

Jim