So, let's talk about ethics

OK, guys, I need feedback on this one. I shot the American Rottweiler Club's National Specialty last month. The Winners Dog/Best Of Winners (WD/BOW) was handled by a particularly notorious handler who, along with his wife, I know very well.

Because of the importance of this event, I managed to get out all the major proofs within one week of the event. Just after the last set went out, I drove to Perry GA to shoot an advertising client's dog and I ran into the wife of the handler. She asked, rather snottily, whether I had gotten the proofs out yet. I told her (truthfully) that they had mailed the day before. Impressed, she told me the WD/BOW client had committed for several ad placements and would be ordering both prints and files for advertising within the next week.

The next week, I received word from the owner of WD/BOW that he would not be ordering any prints or files but wanted to pay for the proofs. I informed him that I would be delighted to sell him the proofs but that he could not use them for anything but an ordering device since they were low-res prints and did not include the official signage. He was somewhat offended that I would inform him of this but I explained the reality of usage rights and my conversation with his handler's wife and that ended the discussion.

Last week, I went on a web search and found the owner's website and, lo and behold, there were the images from the National with signs obviously stolen from the ARC website. And, I also found the same images on several websites of owners who were breeding to this dog.

So, my question to the forum is this: what would you do given the above circumstances? Clearly, this guy is trying to use the images from the National for his benefit (stud services run from $1,500 to $2,500) without paying for the images. What are the next steps for me from your perspective?

Jim

I am so sorry you had this situation. I have shot specialties and sending out proofs is one of this industries oddities that I feel may be in for a change. My best friend shoots more specialties and some National Specialties and I see them fight with this same delemia. Although they have switched to printing at the show and having the breeder/owner/ or handler pick photos at the show from monitors.

Horse shows and dogs shows have set themselves up for being treated like the enemy and the attitude that is given to the photographer is beyond what I feel is fair.

I have also found that when that same attitude creeped into wedding and senior photographers business, they choose to use other ways of selling their work. It seems strange to me that we are treated (by a few) as a person they feel they can steal from and keep coming back to us again.

I am changing my way of showing work and selling to dog people. I love this business and many of the people. That is why I asked you about the next Rottie National as I would like a vendor space but am selling a different product. It seems that now everyone with a digital camera thinks they no longer need great images. They can shoot their own. They also have no clue how much our equipment costs.

Wow, thanks for letting me get that off my chest. It is so sad to think people can just steal and have no problem with it. I guess the music industry has had this longer than we have.

tough to say what to do. Your reputation is important, so you dont want to come across as mean. On the otherhand, they are your images. I'd call him and remind him that reproduction of those images is prohibited without your consent and ask that he take them down. He paid for the shoot, and the proofs, but not for the rights to advertise, or republish the shots on the www . . . You still own the rights to them, he just purchases a few proofs, but he did not purchase the rights to reproduce them. did he credit you on his website for the photos?

That said, you may just want to chalk it up to a lesson learned, dont let anything out of your hans without a copy right splashed across the face of the image. . .

I would be very mad about it, but I would also keep it in persepective. People who cheat like that cheat like that!

Correct me if I am wrong but you do not get a fee for photographing these dogs and you send the proofs out with the hope that they will order. Seems like a win win for the exhibitor and nothing for the photographer.

So photographers send an image (their choice) and then send it with a bill.

Please tell me how this way of shooting ever got started. I do not know many people that work that hard, send out images and wait to get paid!

Just to make things clear, I don't get paid to shoot the show; I pay for the right to shoot the show. The exhibitors do not pay a dime until they purchase their win photos and my copyright says very clearly that the only right I'm providing is the right to keep the print as a momento of their win. If they'd like to use the image in advertising, that's a different product (file) and a different sale and release.

The standard way of doing business when we started in dog shows 8 years ago was to send out finished prints with a bill. That only works -- in terms of collection -- if you're shooting shows every weekend because then exhibitors can't afford to stiff you. Unfortunately, newcomers only get a few shows a year including Specialties so there is no leverage to force exhibitors to pay their bills. And the collection process takes a lot of time, effort, patience, perserverence and, most of all, personality to make sure you are firm enough to get the payment but nice enough not to piss people off.

Most of the photographers went to proofing when the collection problem really became intolerable. From a business perspective, it also makes sense to only go out of pocket on proofs and let the orders pay for the final prints.

Initially, I put "proof" across the proof prints. Folks complained about not being able to see the dog's/handler's/judge's expression. I went small with the proofs without the word "proof". Folks complained they couldn't see the image without a magnifying glass. Now I do 4X6 proofs without the signs and only put the "proof" on those I know will be a problem. Of course, I don't know all the exhibitors and there are new winners every show.

Tony, you've put your finger on my dilemma -- I could go after this guy legally but to spend lawyer money to collect $25 simply doesn't make sense. BTW, I DID warn him about usage so he put those images up knowing fully that it was not allowed. The only action that makes sense is something that would get me paid for the usage and I can't think of what I could do to accomplish that. Anything else is simply a waste of time.

I've been toying with on-line proofing/ordering and it looks like I'm being driven to that alternative. The issue of folks taking the images off of websites is something I'll have to deal with in my contracts with the clubs asking them to ensure that the photos can't be saved by folks accessing the sites.

My point in posting this -- beyond getting suggestions from people I trust and respect -- is to point out that as "ethical" as we all try to be on the photographers end, we can't do much about the folks on the exhibitor end whose mindset seems to be that because their dog won, they deserve to have those photos and not have to pay for them. As an exhibitor, I can't understand how anybody could actually believe that but I've seen it often enough to know it is absolutely true.

I'll let you know what I decide to do (or not do as the case may be).

Thanks,

Jim

Hi Jim,

This sort of thing really frustrates me. It is very much the same thing as when a couple scans images from their proof book from a wedding...I don't know how often it happens, but I am sure that it happens all the time. I have gone out of my way, as part of my service, to make things friendly and not write the word 'proof' throughout the images, but I also know that I have gotten hammered in the process. As I mentioned earlier, after-sales at weddings has dropped significantly.

From a larger view, you cannot stop the human nature to be greedy. I think that it is asking to much. However, you can limit your exposure to this sort of thing. I think that on-line proofing, as you mentioned, is a very effective way of doing this.

However, the issue - to me - is the idea that you have to divert the way you do business because you cannot trust major players that you deal with on a regular basis (if I am seeing this correctly). It is not like petty shop lifting at a store, but a small family of people whom you cannot trust. That is sad to me.

James

I think people just believe it is their "right" to have the photos and just don't want to pay. I would probably send them a bill for what you charge for the advertising file. Put a note in there that nicely states, "I am sure it is just an oversight and your bill for the advertising file is X$$$. Thank you for your business".

This will give them a way out of what they KNOW they have done. Don't know if it will work, but, it is a shot.

Very few people are honest these days

Jim, here is what I would do. I would get a screen capture of the stolen images. I would send a bill to the thief for the use of those images. I would make the price high and then let them know that you are willing to negotiate. then I would immmediately register those photos with the Library of Congress and I mean all forms of the images (with & without signs).

If they do not negotiate with you, then I would send them a letter explaining that you will take them to small claims court for 3 times the high price that you offered in your letter. I would also inform them that you will notify their ISP about using stolen photos on their web site. Notify their ISP and they will boot them off the internet. Be sure that you send copies of the web page capture with the stolen photos.

Jim, you and I are both nice guys and neither of us wants to do something like this, but this kind of stuff is happening way to much and our future to make a living depends on how we treat the thieves and I say start off being nice and then get tough and see it through. Remember, you are not the criminal, they are.

Good luck and I am truly sorry this has happened to you.

PS, even when you get tough, still be nice.

Quote:

---

PS, even when you get tough, still be nice.

---

David,
I thought your suggestions were all very good up until that statement . Yes, I understand the difference between being tough and being over-bearing and, ultimately, I'd like to give the guy a way out without him losing face entirely. At least I think I do .

I think those are good ways of dealing with this particular situation but I need to ensure that I'm dealing with the inevitable next ones as well. I hate to take it out on my clients but unless they can guarantee that the images cannot be copied from their websites (which, unfortunately, they cannot) I can't see providing web images until after all my orders are in and making it clear that I will not provide images that have not been paid for.

It's truly unfortunate that we have to spend time doing things like this instead of trying to get better at our craft. But such is the reality of our digital age.

Thanks David,

Jim