Pixtus - Photography Forum, Photographers, Photo Tips

jon_k · **ILLEGALLY copying from proofs -** 11-18-2007, 01:13 AM

Someone in another photography forum posted about how he made a poll in a non-photography forum where the general public frequents.

The subject of the poll asked about what they deem ethical if they have access to a photo 'proofs' section from a photographer, and if they'd use those 'proof's' for certain things.

The exact question on the forum was:
"So, you go and get your picture taken for a small "sitting fee" and the photographer presents you with a website containing your images so you can decide which ones you want. You take a look at the site and notice that the quality is good enough to print them out nicely at a 4"x5" size. There's a watermark in the bottom corner, easy to crop out on any home computer, as it doesn't cover anything major in the photo. Would you print out the images yourself?"

Results:

Yes, there's no harm in that. [*********************] (15 votes, 53.5%)
Yes, but I'd feel guilty. [ ] (0 votes, 0%)
Yes, the photographer already made money off of me [*] (1 vote, 3.5%)
Yes, they're pictures of me and my property. [*] (1 vote, 3.5%)
No, I don't know how to crop. [*****] (4 votes, 14.2%)
No, it's wrong. [**********] (7 votes, 25%)

Poll Totals:
Total Votes: 28
Total Voters: 28

jon_k · 11-18-2007, 01:14 AM

Here are some memorable quotes from the general public about it.

* Yes, I would, I see no harm in that. It's not like It would hurt him if I printed a copy out to put it in an album, would it?
* Well if the photographer did not do a full photo watermark then it is his mistake . I believe watermarks are placed to prevent the photo from being altered or used without the consent of the photographer . But I think for personal use it would not be illegal ( I may be wrong ) but I'm assuming it is like graphics , If it is watermarked or has a registration mark then you can use it as long as you do not alter it in any way .
* My dad used to do the same sort of thing with my school photos years ago, i dont think its that wrong
* One reason was because it was my cousin's senior pictures, and they could only afford the $200.00 package (Wich was not enough copies for immediate family, let alone friends and such!) I figured that we paid the photographer $200.00 + sitting fees to have pictures taken. I found one of their Non Seinor year flyers, and a simular package was only $75.00. So they were taking advantage of the fact that the school was sending everyone to them.
* Here's how I look at it. Places that offer to take your picture should not own your face. It's your face, not theirs. Yes, they took the time and energy to take the picture, but to say that YOUR face is THIERS to copyright... well, I would punch them in THEIR face and say "copyright that, you losers" and then run away.
* Seeing as how I've not gotten my picture taken by a studio in quite a long time, if I were to go in I would print off my picture in any size I could manage. I'd edit out any watermark and go from there. My face, my property, my will to do with as I want.
* That places have the nerve to say that they own a picture of my face is wrong.
* But they do not own your face, they own that exact photo that they took. And you are susposed to go to them whenever you want more copies. (That is how they make money) However with high end digital cameras becomming more and more affordable, this is becoming less and less common. Many people are taking their own pictures. My aunt recently got a Digital Rebel camera. And she took my picture the other day, and it was soo good that it could have been taken at a professional studio.
* yeah I would, I mean WATERMARK IT BETTER NEXT TIME LOL!
* Sure, its ok...as long as they don't find out, right?
* If I had a photographer take a photo of me and for me, he or she would not watermark it. It's mine as I paid for the product and not just snapping the shot.
* My thoughts exactly! So, yeah, i'd print out the images myself though i'd be peeved about the watermark and having to act like a criminal.

MarcFromTheDark · **hmm -** 11-18-2007, 04:25 AM

Just post this somewhere in your html page:

Code:

<body oncontextmenu="return false;">

Now, they can't right click / save as. That helps a bit.

tc82742 · 11-18-2007, 07:36 AM

wow.

print their images on pebble or linen texture and make their scans look terrible.

jagphoto · 11-18-2007, 07:45 AM

They are not even talking about scans here. This is for online galleries. I think I need a better watermark.

tc82742 · 11-18-2007, 08:01 AM

the person who commented on the 200.00 package is who i was thinking of.
i always watermark my website across the very middle of images for my blog or gallery just so people wont do this. it may look tacky.. but i dont want someone doing just this.
i think we should be doing a better job of educating them on how much work goes into their images. it isnt just snap a pic.. here you go.
it is the photoshop work, the marketing, the ordering, the packaging, software, hardware, etc.
i dont think most people realize this.
...and after all of that, we hope to make a little profit too..

jonnydonut · 11-18-2007, 08:40 AM

eh, you just have to accept it. i hate the disregard but it's just something that happens. it's like artists havin their music downloaded, or software developers having programs stolen. People don't even realize they're doing wrong.

I try to charge more for the service than the prints, I realize depending on the assignment, that's not always possible.

brad · 11-18-2007, 08:50 AM

I've redone my business model so that I don't make my money because of prints... I sell the service of the photography and they get all the finished, hi res versions on CD (no, they don't get every one from the session.. and I pick them unless they sit with me after the session and proof them with me). I don't have to worry about them not coming back to me for prints -- I don't want to be in the printing business. I want to be in the photography business.

billbunton · 11-18-2007, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonnydonut

People don't even realize they're doing wrong.

That's where I disagree -- they realize it very well, they just don't care. It's not hurting _them_ to steal from _you_, so what's the problem? And it's the exact same thing when photographers use a "borrowed" (i.e. stolen) copy of Photoshop, or people download pirated music or videos. They all know very well they're violating the law, they just don't care because that particular crime isn't hurting them.

jonnydonut · 11-18-2007, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billbunton

That's where I disagree -- they realize it very well, they just don't care. It's not hurting _them_ to steal from _you_, so what's the problem? And it's the exact same thing when photographers use a "borrowed" (i.e. stolen) copy of Photoshop, or people download pirated music or videos. They all know very well they're violating the law, they just don't care because that particular crime isn't hurting them.

really? See, I truly think people are just idiots. A large majority of people. Maybe that's just what I'd rather think, then think people so bluntly steal from photographers.

carrbowl · 11-18-2007, 09:35 AM

It's the generation...it's all about me and what I can get for free to better myself...even if it hurts someone else. How many ads do you see that say "you deserve it" it's ridiculous.

billbunton · 11-18-2007, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonnydonut

really? See, I truly think people are just idiots. A large majority of people. Maybe that's just what I'd rather think, then think people so bluntly steal from photographers.

Well, I agree that a large majority of people are idiots :-). Unfortunately, that doesn't exclude them from the group that knows what they're doing is wrong. I also know the maxim "Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity". Unfortunately, when it comes to stealing photos and software, I've asked too many (including good friends) if they know what they're doing is unlawful, and they always say yes. But they figure that they can't afford what's being charged, so that means they deserve to be allowed to take it.

It's largely like Renae said, and there is a bumper sticker that actually says it: "It's all about me".

laawaaris · 11-18-2007, 12:47 PM

since i'll have the picture of the person who punched me in the nose, i would use that as visual proof to ID the person who caused me such pain and harm !!!

Cope · 11-18-2007, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonnydonut

eh, you just have to accept it. i hate the disregard but it's just something that happens. it's like artists havin their music downloaded, or software developers having programs stolen. People don't even realize they're doing wrong.

I try to charge more for the service than the prints, I realize depending on the assignment, that's not always possible.

Accepting this type of theft just allows the theft to get worse. When I was a kid there was no way to steal things like this, but the advent of the mimeograph, coper, scanner and pc has made such theft too easy

jonnydonut · 11-18-2007, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cope

Accepting this type of theft just allows the theft to get worse.

I don't like it just as much as any professional photographer, but how do we stop it? What can we do other than watermark and bitch on forums? Just keep doing what you know is right and have faith that things will work out for you. With that said, I have confronted people who've stolen my photos, but it didn't do much good and I have bigger things to worry about than taking legal action on a portrait client.

Pixtus - Photography Forum, Photographers, Photo Tips

ILLEGALLY copying from proofs