I finally get you use the old Zero Wing reference.
Personally, I think it's really appropriate as the original phrase makes about as much sense as the latest move from Time, Inc. UK
The company has initiated a new contract for photography freelancers that goes into effect January 1. Any photography working on assignment for one of the 60 niche publications owned by Time Inc. UK will have to surrender all rights to those images to the company. (The weekly Time news magazine is not effected by the new contract terms, at least not yet.)
This is just the latest trend in big companies showing little respect for professional photographers. Yahoo's CEO annoyed photographers with her comments, Getty engaged in blatant copyright theft as well as other actions that annoyed contributors and various media outlets have laid off part or all of their photo journalists staff.
Now, Time, Inc. UK is telling freelancers they are going to treat them like employees in regards to copyright, (as a general rule, the work product of employees belongs to the employer) but treating them as an independent contractor for all other purposes. Meaning the photographer must take care of expenses, taxes, etc.
What professional photographer will be willing to work freelance if they have to take all the risks and except all the expenses if they then have to tuen over all rights to the images produced?
That's the worst of both worlds.
I think all this stems from the prevalence of camera phones. With everyone taking pictures with their phones, all these CEOs have a mentality that there is nothing unique about being a professional photographer.
They're wrong.
It's the same distinction between someone that plays baseball with the boys on the weekend and someone playing for a Major League ball club. There is a reason those weekend warriors don't get paid $20 million a year and some professional baseball players do.
The professional brings a level of talent and a dedication to the profession that separates them from those that don't.
The most annoying thing is that many of the companies involved are media companies that make money by producing a professional level product. (Magazines and stock photos). How do they expect to continue doing that if they don't treat the people that actually take those photos as professionals?
Showing posts with label photographers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label photographers. Show all posts
Thursday, December 18, 2014
Monday, September 8, 2014
Rod Stewart Sued for Copyright Infringement
Hat Tip: SLR Lounge
Celebrity Photographer Bonnie Schiffman has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Rod Stewart seeking $2.5 Million in damages.
Stewart wanted to use one of the photographs the Schiffman had taken of him for a billboard ad, and offered to pay Schiffman to license the photo. Schiffman refused the amount offered. (Apparently wanting more money)
Stewart then had a photo taken by another photographer and used that photo in the ad.
The Problem?
The photo basically recreated the original photograph and Schiffman is suing based on "substantial similarity."
She'll probably win the lawsuit, but I doubt she'll get anything near the $2.5 Million she's asking. She may not even get enough to cover her legal fees.
Personally, I suspect the problem may stem from an Schiffman placing an unreasonable valuation on the image in question. She apparently turned down $1,500 for the image being used on a single billboard, and the only reason I can see fo Stewart taking the actions he took is if Schiffman's counter-offer was unreasonably high.
The only reason I can see Stewart risking a potential copyright lawsuit is if the amount being asked by Schiffman dwarfed the legal fees and penalties he would face if he lost a lawsuit.
Otherwise, he would have just paid the licensing fee being asked by Schiffman.
Granted, this is speculation on my part. Schiffman may have acted in a completely reasonable manner and have been willing to license the image at a reasonable price. But I can't see this happening if that was the case.
Celebrity Photographer Bonnie Schiffman has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Rod Stewart seeking $2.5 Million in damages.
Stewart wanted to use one of the photographs the Schiffman had taken of him for a billboard ad, and offered to pay Schiffman to license the photo. Schiffman refused the amount offered. (Apparently wanting more money)
Stewart then had a photo taken by another photographer and used that photo in the ad.
The Problem?
The photo basically recreated the original photograph and Schiffman is suing based on "substantial similarity."
She'll probably win the lawsuit, but I doubt she'll get anything near the $2.5 Million she's asking. She may not even get enough to cover her legal fees.
Personally, I suspect the problem may stem from an Schiffman placing an unreasonable valuation on the image in question. She apparently turned down $1,500 for the image being used on a single billboard, and the only reason I can see fo Stewart taking the actions he took is if Schiffman's counter-offer was unreasonably high.
The only reason I can see Stewart risking a potential copyright lawsuit is if the amount being asked by Schiffman dwarfed the legal fees and penalties he would face if he lost a lawsuit.
Otherwise, he would have just paid the licensing fee being asked by Schiffman.
Granted, this is speculation on my part. Schiffman may have acted in a completely reasonable manner and have been willing to license the image at a reasonable price. But I can't see this happening if that was the case.
Monday, July 21, 2014
Tips on Dealing With Stolen Photography Equipment
PetaPixel has an article today on a woman dealing with having her camera stolen. The camera has been tracked to a local Pawn Shop, which refuses to turn the stolen property over absent payment or an arrest warrant for the thief.
So, how exactly do you deal with a situation like this?
The first step for dealing with theft needs to occur in advance: keep the proper records.
Keep the sales receipt. If you use a credit card, keep the statement that shows purchase. When you fill out the manufacturer's registration form keep a photocopy of the form. The form probably has a spot for the equipment's serial number. Write down the equipment's serial number if there is no other record of it.
Take pictures of the equipment. You can include a a picture of the equipment next to a newspaper for date purposes. Including a picture of yourself holding the equipment helps establish ownership if questions arise in that area. If the equipment is a camera and you don't have another one, try using a mirror. (This will only capture the front of the camera, but will show you holding it.)
Make sure to capture legible photos of the serial number.
Records need to be kept separate from the equipment. They don't help if the thief takes them.
Keeping the records in your home is fine for dealing with theft. Store records off-site if the equipment is covered by fire insurance. (You don't want the fire to destroy the records along with the equipment.)
Digital copies can be stored online. Digital records should be in addition to the hard copies, not substitutes. (There are websites that offer a service storing equipment information. Try Lenstag.com.)
When the equipment is stolen take all the above records with you when you file a stolen property report with the local police. Make sure to get a copy of the report when it is filed. You'll may need this later.
Contact the Insurance Company if the equipment is insured against theft. You'll need the police report when doing this. (Note: you may not want or be able to file an actual claim at this point. You'll still need to give them notice as soon as possible.)
Contact the credit card company if a card was used to purchase the equipment. Credit Card companies may offer coverage for theft if it occurs within a certain amount of time following the purchase. The police report will be needed if the company offers this type of coverage. The card company may prove a valuable ally when attempting to recover the stolen property even if the theft isn't covered.
Try an Internet Search for the stolen property. Include the serial number in the description. You can also use a free equipment database site like Lenstag.com.
But What if You Find it and the Person Won't Return it?
The actions you can take if the equipment is actually found in someone's possession is going to depend on the exact circumstances.
Think about getting legal advice. Paying for legal advice from an attorney may be worth it when dealing with expensive equipment. It makes less sense if the equipment is of moderate value. (At a certain point, the legal fees will be higher than simply purchasing a replacement.)
You can always try doing things yourself, relying on the free advice that can be obtained online. There are legal sites that will offer advice. Photography forums are another potential avenue for free advice.
If you want one-on-one advice, try the local law school. Third-year law students may be allowed to engage in pro-Bono legal work as long as they are monitored by an attorney licensed in that jurisdiction. This includes oversight by faculty member at the law school. This provides the student with valuable experience and provides a service to those unable to afford legal fees.
Talk to the police department. They may be able to walk you through the steps needed to recover the goods yourself. They may also be in possession of information you will need to recover the stolen equipment.
One step that will probably be mandatory: establishing "Notice". Notice means that the person in possession of the goods knows that the goods are stolen property. You may have to contact that person and give them notice before taking any legal actions.
(There is something called "Constructive Notice". This means there is evidence that the person knew or should have known the goods were stolen. In the article, the Pawn Shop bought the camera from a person with a felony record and the Pawn Shop had that person's fingerprints.)
Bring in the Big Guns
Contact the Insurer or Credit Card company and give them all the relevant information. The Insurer has a vested interesting in the stolen goods being recovered. That prevents them from having to pay a claim.
Contact the media. (Why do you think you're reading this?)
No business wants bad publicity. In the case of the Pawn Shop, there is a chance people will stop shopping there because they realize the goods may be stolen. Nobody wants to get a visit from police because the bought stolen property. Plus there is a chance they will be forced to turn the property over to the rightful owner.
Threaten to contact the media first. Then actually do so if the threat fails to work.
Threaten to sue.
Lawsuits are expensive to defend. If the cost of the equipment is low, giving it back may be less expensive than paying an attorney. A letter threatening to sue, with all the relevant grounds, my result in quick return of the property.
Make sure all potential legal claims are spelled out to the person holding the equipment. Remind them that Intentional Torts carry the possibility of punitive damages.
Off-hand, I can name two Intentional Torts that the woman involved in the PetaPixel article could use as legitimate threats when negotiating with the Pawn Shop for the return of the camera. I believe Florida caps damage for Intentional Torts at $125,000.
If you're a Pawn Shop and you're told you face a potential $250,000 legal judgement if you don't turn over property you paid $190 for, have been informed was stolen (and probably knew was stolen when you purchased it), what would you do?
If all else fails, file a lawsuit.
This gets the defendant's attorney involved. If there is a chance of the defendant facing a large settlement or large fees, the attorney may advise to settle by turning the equipment over.
Filing a lawsuit does require filing fees which may make this step impractical unless dealing with expensive equipment (or outrageous behavior by the defendant that could result in large punitive damages).
So, how exactly do you deal with a situation like this?
The first step for dealing with theft needs to occur in advance: keep the proper records.
Keep the sales receipt. If you use a credit card, keep the statement that shows purchase. When you fill out the manufacturer's registration form keep a photocopy of the form. The form probably has a spot for the equipment's serial number. Write down the equipment's serial number if there is no other record of it.
Take pictures of the equipment. You can include a a picture of the equipment next to a newspaper for date purposes. Including a picture of yourself holding the equipment helps establish ownership if questions arise in that area. If the equipment is a camera and you don't have another one, try using a mirror. (This will only capture the front of the camera, but will show you holding it.)
Make sure to capture legible photos of the serial number.
Records need to be kept separate from the equipment. They don't help if the thief takes them.
Keeping the records in your home is fine for dealing with theft. Store records off-site if the equipment is covered by fire insurance. (You don't want the fire to destroy the records along with the equipment.)
Digital copies can be stored online. Digital records should be in addition to the hard copies, not substitutes. (There are websites that offer a service storing equipment information. Try Lenstag.com.)
When the equipment is stolen take all the above records with you when you file a stolen property report with the local police. Make sure to get a copy of the report when it is filed. You'll may need this later.
Contact the Insurance Company if the equipment is insured against theft. You'll need the police report when doing this. (Note: you may not want or be able to file an actual claim at this point. You'll still need to give them notice as soon as possible.)
Contact the credit card company if a card was used to purchase the equipment. Credit Card companies may offer coverage for theft if it occurs within a certain amount of time following the purchase. The police report will be needed if the company offers this type of coverage. The card company may prove a valuable ally when attempting to recover the stolen property even if the theft isn't covered.
Try an Internet Search for the stolen property. Include the serial number in the description. You can also use a free equipment database site like Lenstag.com.
But What if You Find it and the Person Won't Return it?
The actions you can take if the equipment is actually found in someone's possession is going to depend on the exact circumstances.
Think about getting legal advice. Paying for legal advice from an attorney may be worth it when dealing with expensive equipment. It makes less sense if the equipment is of moderate value. (At a certain point, the legal fees will be higher than simply purchasing a replacement.)
You can always try doing things yourself, relying on the free advice that can be obtained online. There are legal sites that will offer advice. Photography forums are another potential avenue for free advice.
If you want one-on-one advice, try the local law school. Third-year law students may be allowed to engage in pro-Bono legal work as long as they are monitored by an attorney licensed in that jurisdiction. This includes oversight by faculty member at the law school. This provides the student with valuable experience and provides a service to those unable to afford legal fees.
Talk to the police department. They may be able to walk you through the steps needed to recover the goods yourself. They may also be in possession of information you will need to recover the stolen equipment.
One step that will probably be mandatory: establishing "Notice". Notice means that the person in possession of the goods knows that the goods are stolen property. You may have to contact that person and give them notice before taking any legal actions.
(There is something called "Constructive Notice". This means there is evidence that the person knew or should have known the goods were stolen. In the article, the Pawn Shop bought the camera from a person with a felony record and the Pawn Shop had that person's fingerprints.)
Bring in the Big Guns
Contact the Insurer or Credit Card company and give them all the relevant information. The Insurer has a vested interesting in the stolen goods being recovered. That prevents them from having to pay a claim.
Contact the media. (Why do you think you're reading this?)
No business wants bad publicity. In the case of the Pawn Shop, there is a chance people will stop shopping there because they realize the goods may be stolen. Nobody wants to get a visit from police because the bought stolen property. Plus there is a chance they will be forced to turn the property over to the rightful owner.
Threaten to contact the media first. Then actually do so if the threat fails to work.
Threaten to sue.
Lawsuits are expensive to defend. If the cost of the equipment is low, giving it back may be less expensive than paying an attorney. A letter threatening to sue, with all the relevant grounds, my result in quick return of the property.
Make sure all potential legal claims are spelled out to the person holding the equipment. Remind them that Intentional Torts carry the possibility of punitive damages.
Off-hand, I can name two Intentional Torts that the woman involved in the PetaPixel article could use as legitimate threats when negotiating with the Pawn Shop for the return of the camera. I believe Florida caps damage for Intentional Torts at $125,000.
If you're a Pawn Shop and you're told you face a potential $250,000 legal judgement if you don't turn over property you paid $190 for, have been informed was stolen (and probably knew was stolen when you purchased it), what would you do?
If all else fails, file a lawsuit.
This gets the defendant's attorney involved. If there is a chance of the defendant facing a large settlement or large fees, the attorney may advise to settle by turning the equipment over.
Filing a lawsuit does require filing fees which may make this step impractical unless dealing with expensive equipment (or outrageous behavior by the defendant that could result in large punitive damages).
Monday, July 14, 2014
ACLU Lawsuit over Suspicious Activity Reporting Program
Hat Tip: SLR Lounge, Wired
The ACLU recently filed a lawsuit over the Federal Governments Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) Program.
Two of the plaintiffs in the ACLU lawsuit are photographers.
I'm a bit conflicted when it comes to the lawsuit. Neither of the photographers actually did anything "wrong". It was the subject matter of their photographs that brought them to the attention of the Federal Government.
The first was taking pictures of a Natural Gas Storage tank, and the second was taking pictures of oil refineries. Both are obvious targets for terrorists. The Federal Government does need to monitor these types of installations for suspicious activity.
The problem seems to stem from the lack of common sense when it comes to determining what activities are actually suspicious.
Standing on public property and taking a picture of something that is a local landmark is not suspicious activity. This includes the natural gas storage tank above due to how it was painted.
Standing in the open, on public property and taking photos at night (with a tripod) also fails the common sense test when it comes to "suspicious activity". Is a terrorist really going to go through all that trouble and stand in the open for a long period of time while taking pictures of a target?
Hello? Cell Phone? (Or telephoto lens used where the photographer can't be seen.)
This seems to be the problem with the program. The people responsible for reporting suspicious activity have no clue as to what that actually entails. They don't seem to be asking themselves whether it is activity an actual terrorist would be engaged in before reporting it to the Federal Government.
If it's not something a terrorist would be doing, is it really "suspicious"?
The ACLU recently filed a lawsuit over the Federal Governments Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) Program.
Two of the plaintiffs in the ACLU lawsuit are photographers.
I'm a bit conflicted when it comes to the lawsuit. Neither of the photographers actually did anything "wrong". It was the subject matter of their photographs that brought them to the attention of the Federal Government.
The first was taking pictures of a Natural Gas Storage tank, and the second was taking pictures of oil refineries. Both are obvious targets for terrorists. The Federal Government does need to monitor these types of installations for suspicious activity.
The problem seems to stem from the lack of common sense when it comes to determining what activities are actually suspicious.
Standing on public property and taking a picture of something that is a local landmark is not suspicious activity. This includes the natural gas storage tank above due to how it was painted.
Standing in the open, on public property and taking photos at night (with a tripod) also fails the common sense test when it comes to "suspicious activity". Is a terrorist really going to go through all that trouble and stand in the open for a long period of time while taking pictures of a target?
Hello? Cell Phone? (Or telephoto lens used where the photographer can't be seen.)
This seems to be the problem with the program. The people responsible for reporting suspicious activity have no clue as to what that actually entails. They don't seem to be asking themselves whether it is activity an actual terrorist would be engaged in before reporting it to the Federal Government.
If it's not something a terrorist would be doing, is it really "suspicious"?
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Website Desgined to Help Get Stolen Photography Equipment Back
Hat Tip: DP Review
Lenstag offers a free service where photographers can upload information on the equipment they own. If the gear is stolen, you can then inform Lenstag and they will post a notice online with identification information.
Lenstag recently discovered (by accident) that the database can be used to identify stolen images as well. The service matches the information in its camera database to the EXIF information contained in the image. It only works if the EXIF remains intact when uploaded online. Some sites eliminate that data when images are uploaded and it can always be removed manually by the thief.
Camera equipment can be very expensive, especially professional level equipment. While Lenstag only increases the chance of getting stolen equipment back by a small amount, it does provide a useful service. If nothing else it provides a record trail for insurance purposes.
Having a record of what equipment you own with the serial numbers stored online is very useful if you ever need to file an insurance claim, as the reason for filing a claim can also destroy the records needed to file a claim.
Lenstag offers a free service where photographers can upload information on the equipment they own. If the gear is stolen, you can then inform Lenstag and they will post a notice online with identification information.
Lenstag recently discovered (by accident) that the database can be used to identify stolen images as well. The service matches the information in its camera database to the EXIF information contained in the image. It only works if the EXIF remains intact when uploaded online. Some sites eliminate that data when images are uploaded and it can always be removed manually by the thief.
Camera equipment can be very expensive, especially professional level equipment. While Lenstag only increases the chance of getting stolen equipment back by a small amount, it does provide a useful service. If nothing else it provides a record trail for insurance purposes.
Having a record of what equipment you own with the serial numbers stored online is very useful if you ever need to file an insurance claim, as the reason for filing a claim can also destroy the records needed to file a claim.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Photographing Tonight's Lunar Eclipse
For those of you thinking about shooting tonight's lunar eclipse, I suggest you check out Imaging Resource's Moon Photo 101 article and the Moon Photography blog post by photographer Ryan Zimmerma.
The eclipse itself last from 1:00 to 6:00 am (Eastern Time). The full eclipse occurs roughly 3:00am.
The Zimmerman post suggest how you can prepare in advance using an OpenSource software program, Stellarium. The Imaging Resource article gives some additional tips on using the software.
Of course, neither can help much if the weather fails to cooperate.
The forecast for my area calls for clear skies.
And freezing temperatures.
P.S. DP Review has some tips for shooting the eclipse as well.
The eclipse itself last from 1:00 to 6:00 am (Eastern Time). The full eclipse occurs roughly 3:00am.
The Zimmerman post suggest how you can prepare in advance using an OpenSource software program, Stellarium. The Imaging Resource article gives some additional tips on using the software.
Of course, neither can help much if the weather fails to cooperate.
The forecast for my area calls for clear skies.
And freezing temperatures.
P.S. DP Review has some tips for shooting the eclipse as well.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Fantastic Take on Sunset Photography
Hat Tip: DIY Photography
I just had to share this after coming across the article at DIY Photography on Bing Wright's Broken Mirror/Evening Sky project.
The series combines projections of sunset photographs with photographs of broken mirrors. (The sunset photograph is projected on a wall or screen. The projected image is reflected in the broken mirror. A photo is then taken of the broken mirror.)
The end result is a spectacular image that is reminiscent of stained glass.
The images were shown at the Paula Cooper Gallery in NY last winter.
Here's one of the images from Wright's website:
Check out his website to see the rest.
I just had to share this after coming across the article at DIY Photography on Bing Wright's Broken Mirror/Evening Sky project.
The series combines projections of sunset photographs with photographs of broken mirrors. (The sunset photograph is projected on a wall or screen. The projected image is reflected in the broken mirror. A photo is then taken of the broken mirror.)
The end result is a spectacular image that is reminiscent of stained glass.
The images were shown at the Paula Cooper Gallery in NY last winter.
Here's one of the images from Wright's website:
.jpg?format=500w)
Check out his website to see the rest.
Friday, March 21, 2014
Wedding Photographers Acting Badly: Lawsuit Threats and Non-Disparagement Clauses
It's interesting how two different websites will cover similar subject matter on the same day.
DIY Photography has an article covering Non-Disparagement Clauses in Wedding Photography Contracts and SLR Lounge has one on Couples Threatened By Their Wedding Photographers Over Bad Reviews.
I'm not a wedding photographer, so I don't have any personal experience in this field. (My father did act as a wedding photographer when a couple of my cousins got married. That's not exactly the same thing since he was taking pictures at a relative's wedding for free.)
Barring unforeseen accidents, a wedding involving rational people and a competent photographer should never result in any sort of legal action.
The problem is, not every wedding involves rational people. You're talking about an extremely emotional situation and some people just don't handle the emotional stress well. The photographer can make a convenient target to blame when it comes to the Bride's "ruined" wedding, even if they did nothing wrong.
The photographer is just as capable of being the source of a problem. The photographer's duties include more than just producing good wedding photos. They have a responsibility not to negatively impact the wedding ceremony. A bad attitude or intrusive actions can do just that. Unfortunately, photographers can only control one side of the equation. They have no control over the actions of the people that are part of the wedding, including the one paying for their services.
Even the best wedding photographers can encounter completely unreasonable clients. The question they have to answer is how to handle this type of client. Legal responses are usually the last resort that should be considered.
Non-Disparagement Clauses
I suspect that the photographers that include these clauses may have encountered one of those completely unreasonable clients. Including the clause in the service contract does provide some additional legal ammo when it comes to addressing defamatory statements made on social media or review sites.
These type of clauses don't really prevent bad reviews in general. The client is the only person covered by the non-disparagement clause. The rest of the party is free to post bad reviews if the photographer provides poor service.
They can also prove counter-productive. Prospective clients may see the clause as a red-flag (if they actually read the contract) and can result in lost business.
The photographer is faced with the situation of balancing the effect of having that clause in the contract against the effect of not including that legal option in the contract. I suspect most photographers will choose not having that clause in the service contract unless they have encountered "The Client from Hell."
Any photographer or company that includes this clause without having encountered an irrational client first, is probably one best avoided. Including a non-disparagement clause proactively is a clear sign of a photographer or company that is going to be far to quick to threaten legal action in order to "protect" their reputation.
Someone that concerned with their reputation is not going to be concerned with the needs of the client.
Non-disparagement clauses also provide an opportunity for some very bad publicity. Threatening to sue over an honest review can be a very bad idea if the tactic becomes public knowledge. The attempt to control negative press may itself generate an even worse problem.
It will eventually get out that a company or photographer is constantly harassing clients with lawsuit threats. That may negatively impact business far more than the honest reviews would have. Especially if those reviews include the photographer's attempts to rectify any problems that occurred.
DIY Photography has an article covering Non-Disparagement Clauses in Wedding Photography Contracts and SLR Lounge has one on Couples Threatened By Their Wedding Photographers Over Bad Reviews.
I'm not a wedding photographer, so I don't have any personal experience in this field. (My father did act as a wedding photographer when a couple of my cousins got married. That's not exactly the same thing since he was taking pictures at a relative's wedding for free.)
Barring unforeseen accidents, a wedding involving rational people and a competent photographer should never result in any sort of legal action.
The problem is, not every wedding involves rational people. You're talking about an extremely emotional situation and some people just don't handle the emotional stress well. The photographer can make a convenient target to blame when it comes to the Bride's "ruined" wedding, even if they did nothing wrong.
The photographer is just as capable of being the source of a problem. The photographer's duties include more than just producing good wedding photos. They have a responsibility not to negatively impact the wedding ceremony. A bad attitude or intrusive actions can do just that. Unfortunately, photographers can only control one side of the equation. They have no control over the actions of the people that are part of the wedding, including the one paying for their services.
Even the best wedding photographers can encounter completely unreasonable clients. The question they have to answer is how to handle this type of client. Legal responses are usually the last resort that should be considered.
Non-Disparagement Clauses
I suspect that the photographers that include these clauses may have encountered one of those completely unreasonable clients. Including the clause in the service contract does provide some additional legal ammo when it comes to addressing defamatory statements made on social media or review sites.
These type of clauses don't really prevent bad reviews in general. The client is the only person covered by the non-disparagement clause. The rest of the party is free to post bad reviews if the photographer provides poor service.
They can also prove counter-productive. Prospective clients may see the clause as a red-flag (if they actually read the contract) and can result in lost business.
The photographer is faced with the situation of balancing the effect of having that clause in the contract against the effect of not including that legal option in the contract. I suspect most photographers will choose not having that clause in the service contract unless they have encountered "The Client from Hell."
Any photographer or company that includes this clause without having encountered an irrational client first, is probably one best avoided. Including a non-disparagement clause proactively is a clear sign of a photographer or company that is going to be far to quick to threaten legal action in order to "protect" their reputation.
Someone that concerned with their reputation is not going to be concerned with the needs of the client.
Non-disparagement clauses also provide an opportunity for some very bad publicity. Threatening to sue over an honest review can be a very bad idea if the tactic becomes public knowledge. The attempt to control negative press may itself generate an even worse problem.
It will eventually get out that a company or photographer is constantly harassing clients with lawsuit threats. That may negatively impact business far more than the honest reviews would have. Especially if those reviews include the photographer's attempts to rectify any problems that occurred.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
There is a Difference Between Taking Pictures and Being a Photographer
This is in response to an article on the Amateur Photographer website.
A U.K. based media chain is in the process of eliminating many of its staff photographers. There plan to rely heavily on pictures sent in by readers or taken off of Social Media sites. A huge kerfuffle arose as a result of an article that appeared in the Guardian defending the move.
The articles stated that newspapers (especially the weekly newspapers run by the media chain involved) should only employ freelance photographers. They had no need for staff photographers, and could get by largely using photographs from other sources.
The professional photography community excoriated the author.
The very idea that a news organization can rely on outside photographers is ludicrous. How are they supposed to guarantee that anyone photographs a subject if they don't send a photographer to take photos?
Not having a staff photographer forces a newspaper or media chain to rely on dumb luck when it comes to having pictures to run with a story, especially for events that are scheduled in advance. Relying on dumb luck is not a sound business model.
The idea that "everybody taking pictures" means that the professional photographers are redundant when it comes to new is also extremely demeaning to professional photographers.
There is a difference between someone that takes photos and a professional photographer.
A Professional photographer knows how to do more than simply record events as they occur.
Saying that staff photographers are redundant because everyone takes pictures is akin to saying that staff reporters are redundant because everyone can write a report.
This is ironic since the author of the article defending eliminating staff photographers happens to be a journalism professor. If the ability to write a report was all that was needed to be a reporter, the author of this idiotic article wouldn't have a job. His job relies on there being a different between writing a report and being a profession reporter.
It is telling that he fails to recognize the distinction when it comes to the other branch of journalism.
There is also a certain amount of risk involved in this move. Media outlets can only guarantee an image's copyright status when dealing with the photographer on a personal basis. Relying on images sent in from unknown individuals or taken off of social media prevents this.
Ask Getty why this matters.
A U.K. based media chain is in the process of eliminating many of its staff photographers. There plan to rely heavily on pictures sent in by readers or taken off of Social Media sites. A huge kerfuffle arose as a result of an article that appeared in the Guardian defending the move.
The articles stated that newspapers (especially the weekly newspapers run by the media chain involved) should only employ freelance photographers. They had no need for staff photographers, and could get by largely using photographs from other sources.
The professional photography community excoriated the author.
The very idea that a news organization can rely on outside photographers is ludicrous. How are they supposed to guarantee that anyone photographs a subject if they don't send a photographer to take photos?
Not having a staff photographer forces a newspaper or media chain to rely on dumb luck when it comes to having pictures to run with a story, especially for events that are scheduled in advance. Relying on dumb luck is not a sound business model.
The idea that "everybody taking pictures" means that the professional photographers are redundant when it comes to new is also extremely demeaning to professional photographers.
There is a difference between someone that takes photos and a professional photographer.
A Professional photographer knows how to do more than simply record events as they occur.
Saying that staff photographers are redundant because everyone takes pictures is akin to saying that staff reporters are redundant because everyone can write a report.
This is ironic since the author of the article defending eliminating staff photographers happens to be a journalism professor. If the ability to write a report was all that was needed to be a reporter, the author of this idiotic article wouldn't have a job. His job relies on there being a different between writing a report and being a profession reporter.
It is telling that he fails to recognize the distinction when it comes to the other branch of journalism.
There is also a certain amount of risk involved in this move. Media outlets can only guarantee an image's copyright status when dealing with the photographer on a personal basis. Relying on images sent in from unknown individuals or taken off of social media prevents this.
Ask Getty why this matters.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Buying Prints Online - Magazine Prints and Fine Art America
I have added a link list that lists places where prints can b purchased online. Some of these sites cover images that are used in magazines as well as prints offered by well known photographers.
These sites can be good sources of art at a reasonable price. These sites also offer the option to purchase copies of well known photographs. The price varies base on size, artist and the size of the print purchased.
Fine Art America
Fine Art America offers a huge variety of prints from a large number of photographers and artists. Fine Art America offers prints of works by Anne Geddes, works seen in National Geographic, and Rolling Stone Covers. I do have my own Fine Art America store where I offer prints of my photographs and occasional piece of art.
Magazine Prints
Magazine Prints, offers prints of images used in various nature magazines including Arizona Highway, Birds & Blooms and Country Magazine. The site currently only offers online sales of prints for images used in magazines issued this year (2013). Prints can be ordered by phone (the number is listed on the site). Older prints can be ordered this way.
Check back issues at the library to see what is available.
Magazine Prints does cover one non-nature magazine at this time, Reminisce. This magazine is dedicated to nostalgia. The prints offered by this publication are vintage in nature.
Links to other sites that offer prints will be added on a regular basis.
These sites can be good sources of art at a reasonable price. These sites also offer the option to purchase copies of well known photographs. The price varies base on size, artist and the size of the print purchased.
Fine Art America
Fine Art America offers a huge variety of prints from a large number of photographers and artists. Fine Art America offers prints of works by Anne Geddes, works seen in National Geographic, and Rolling Stone Covers. I do have my own Fine Art America store where I offer prints of my photographs and occasional piece of art.
Magazine Prints
Magazine Prints, offers prints of images used in various nature magazines including Arizona Highway, Birds & Blooms and Country Magazine. The site currently only offers online sales of prints for images used in magazines issued this year (2013). Prints can be ordered by phone (the number is listed on the site). Older prints can be ordered this way.
Check back issues at the library to see what is available.
Magazine Prints does cover one non-nature magazine at this time, Reminisce. This magazine is dedicated to nostalgia. The prints offered by this publication are vintage in nature.
Links to other sites that offer prints will be added on a regular basis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)