Illegally copying from proofs - Poll result

[redpoint]

Um... I am going to leave that one alone but I would expect flames for that statement here. It might have gotten by in the original forum the poll was posted but I would be surprised if it gets by here. You cannot judge photographers by the idiot that shot for your brother though no matter how much you don't like your photographer though copying images is stealing. And by the way I imagine there are 2 sides to that story.

Go ahead and flame away. I never said I condoned stealing. It might have been my first post, but I've been reading these forums for a while, and I've been around photography long enough to see this topic come up time after time. To me it's like listening to the music/movie industry whine... ok, maybe not that bad. I just don't understand the business model a lot of people use. It's time to adapt to the technology and what's available to the consumers. Stop whining about it all the time. No matter how much technology changes, one truth will always remain. People will always steal. I'm not saying it's right, but it happens... You might be a great photographer but if your business model, personality, etc stink it doesn't matter... if your customers like you and your work, they will support you, refer you to their friends, etc.

 

[Alex_B]

To me it's like listening to the music/movie industry whine... ok, maybe not that bad.

While theft is theft in principle, I still feel more sympathy for the struggling wedding photographer who just about survives inbetween his investments and return of investments (often with a ridiculously low income per hour) ... than for a quite rich music and entertainment industry where lots of people earn much more money anyway.

if your customers like you and your work, they will support you, refer you to their friends, etc.

wrong, those who steal, steal exactly the work they like! It is totally disconnected from the photographers personality.

 

[redpoint]

than for a quite rich music and entertainment industry where lots of people earn much more money anyway.

I have couple of friends in the music industry. Believe you me they are not rich. I wonder how many photographers steal music.

wrong, those who steal, steal exactly the work they like! It is totally disconnected from the photographers personality.

Ok, I never tried to make a living off my photography 100%. So maybe I'm way off, but I never worried about people copying the proofs or running off and making their own prints. They knew they would get the extra attention and personal touch by getting the package through me because majority of my customers were from referrals. If they needed couple extra prints, I provided them at almost cost.

My approach was that my pricing was for the service not the photo. I didn't act like I owned the rights to their life. Ok, I took the photos, but it's your memories! Do you want me to take photos, bind it nicely, framed, and presentable or do you want to go to the convenience store and get sub-par prints and then frame it yourself? I found that most people it was about the convenience and willing to pay for the service. Seriously majority of the people rather have someone else with the skills to do it rather than run around themselves.

Is it really about being cheap? Some people spend more time and effort on circumventing the copyright protection rather than just buying it. Is it really about the money or is it something else? If people didn't get the sense that they were able to beat the system or getting screwed by the system, would they really go to that level of effort?

Remember people are coming to you because they seek a level of skill they don't have and willing to pay for. They hire you to document their life and what's your response? I own it, it's mine, I have copyright on your memory. Is that all you do, push a button with some skill? Do you provide a level of service that's convenient or better than what they can do themselves? I don't think it's as much about people stealing copyright material as the approach people are taking.

Movie industry fought bitterly against the VHS citing how easy it would be for people to steal movies. It was one of their most profitable mediums. Sure people made copies, but the companies made tons of money!

 

[BlackDog's]

I think the biggest problem is the lack of knowledge the public has on copyright laws as they pertain to photographs. A lot of people simply don’t know it’s wrong to copy a picture taken by someone else without their permission.

I know the PPA (Professional Photographers of America) is trying to raise the public’s awareness regarding copyright laws. Any professional photographer can go to the PPA photographer’s registry website and sign up. http://www.photographerregistry.com/ The thought behind this site is that if someone finds a photo they want to copy – it will be easier to search and find the photographer who took the photo and get permission. Also, PPA does offer help to professionals regarding protecting copyrighted material. http://www.ppa.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=16

 

[Alex_B]

I have couple of friends in the music industry. Believe you me they are not rich. I wonder how many photographers steal music.

OK, I sort of saw this reply coming, but then I tried not to complicate my post even further.

Of course you are right that in the music industry not every artist earns heaps of money. And if someone steals from those not richt, I bleed with them.

Ok, I never tried to make a living off my photography 100%. So maybe I'm way off,

OK, I'm not even good enough to sell images.
So I was not speaking for myself here anyway. It is just that I know people who struggle, and for them every loss of income is a pain.

I agree, however, that there is also the other side to it, in particular what you said about memories.

If both sides stay sensitive and sensible reasonable about it, things usually work out well. But what I do not like is this total unawareness of copyright issues.

 

[jstuedle]

I see this sooooo much. And no, the poll results didn't surprise me in the least. The modern mindset is making this worse than ever before. And at least in the short term, I don't see this getting any better. There is legislation pending to loosen copyright laws here in the US to be more like the UN position on copyright. I don't have it at my fingertips, but I have received email notices from the PPA on the issue.

 

[Sideburns]

Well...it's no surprise really...but I suppose photographer's business model and pricing schemes will have to adapt to the change.
ie - precharge for prints (like they do at high schools), or charge more per hour and just give them the digital files with rights to print....

Something will work out for us all...

 

[astrostu]

Until about a year ago, I had the same mindset as most of the people polled. Especially when it came to my high school senior photos:

The company basically had a monopoly at our school district. They were hired for everything, and we were required to use them for everything (I'm guessing the school district had some sort of kick-back contract with them). So I went to get my senior photos done, and for 30 minutes they charged $200. Then, the cheapest package they had was $500 for the photos, though they sent one "free" one to the school for the yearbook. Any small touch-ups were $10 a pop ... for 20 seconds in PhotoShop.

I thought it was a HUGE racket and so told my mom to just get the minimum package, my dad could scan the photos in, and we could re-print them if we needed. We never ended up doing that, but that was my mentality.

Now-a-days, I still have something of the mentality that if the "evil photographers" have such a monopoly and over-charge people for things (since their regular fees were half that), then they "deserve" to be taken advantage of. But on the other hand, now that I've actually sold a bit of stuff (just 3x), I would HATE to be taken advantage of like that. However, I charged pretty much just 2x cost - $45 for three large prints and shipping - which I thought was extraordinarily reasonable.

Anyway, if you're following this stream-of-consciousness reasoning, I guess I'm still conflicted on my views here. Yes, legally it is wrong. But I think photographers need to adapt to the times, safe-guard their work appropriately, and ensure that their pricing isn't so unreasonable as to almost encourage people to try to illegally copy. Even sitting down with the client for 2 minutes and explaining everything you do to actually make the finished product, including stuff like rent for your business, equipment, etc., I think would help.

As to the subject of, "I own my face, NOT the photographer," I also generally agree with that. Which is why I think you also need to explain to the client - be it in a signed contract before the shoot or just verbally explaining it - that you're not saying you're copywriting their face, you're copywriting the photograph of the pose. You are the artist who created the photograph, it just happened to be of their face, body, etc. Photographers who shoot a cityscape own the photograph. All because it's of a city doesn't mean that the city owns it and can claim rights to it. Same goes with portraiture.

I hope you don't all flame me for this ...

 

[jstuedle]

As to the subject of, "I own my face, NOT the photographer," I also generally agree with that. Which is why I think you also need to explain to the client - be it in a signed contract before the shoot or just verbally explaining it - that you're not saying you're copywriting their face, you're copywriting the photograph of the pose. You are the artist who created the photograph, it just happened to be of their face, body, etc. Photographers who shoot a cityscape own the photograph. All because it's of a city doesn't mean that the city owns it and can claim rights to it. Same goes with portraiture.

I hope you don't all flame me for this ...

No, no flames, just that the whole "face is mine" concept is simply contrary to US law. At least for the moment. Explain to the client as you must, but duplication of © material is against the law. I fear that as we copy music and photos off the web with abandon, the laws will be as enforced as were the laws concerning CB radios. (ya, I know, I'm old and this is ancient history that most don't know/remember) CB radio operators were "supposed" to have a FCC ticket and use call signs when using a CD radio. They never did and the laws were never enforced. The FCC gave up on enforcement and changed the law. Copyright laws might soon follow that template as they aren't being enforced either.

 

[astrostu]

No, no flames, just that the whole "face is mine" concept is simply contrary to US law. At least for the moment. Explain to the client as you must, but duplication of © material is against the law.

I'm not saying that I don't realize that, I'm just saying that I don't think the client realizes you're not trying to claim copyright of their face. It's a matter of semantics that lay people don't understand, and I think if the photographer were to explain it to them they'd be less inclined to get up in arms about it.

I know it's illegal, but I think consumer education would help a little. I think I own my face and the rights to it. But I understand that the photographer isn't ©ing my face, they're ©ing the "work of art" that my face happens to be in. In high school I didn't understand the difference, and I'm willing to be that most people don't know the difference, either.

 

[fido dog]

We have a saying............

"It's good enough for who it's for".

Many people just don't care. If it isn't going in a frame.....who cares? It's just for uncle Bob!

C'mon people......How many here download music to have on their computer to listen to? I do all the time, but don't use them for broadcast or share. It's the same thing. If not, then how many have copied a tape in the 80's or 90's? People can still enjoy an inferior product. Happens all the time. Remember when they tried to copy a car and ended up with the YUGO??

It doesn't matter if you have a big fat "PROOF" in pink across the front. People will copy and have since they could.

It's good enough for who it's for.

 

[monkeykoder]

If you don't think it is worth it to pay a professional photographer you should get your portraits done at... WAL-MART! And on the music downloading issue I long ago realized that any band whose music I would let take up space on my hard drive was worth giving enough money to to buy a CD I just wish more of the money I spent would actually go to the artist.