Jump to content

Is it ethical...?


marnifinder

Recommended Posts

Hi. I have a quandary that I have been debating for quite some time. I was a second shooter for one particular photographer for over 6 weddings. She said she loved my work... yet she always had a reason for why she'd pay me the next time. I was naive enough to keep shooting for her until the 6th one. I realized she wasn't going to pay me. When I confronted her about this, she made up more excuses about shortage of funds. She had taken my raw files for all the previous weddings except for the last two I shot. She didn't even ask for them. I believe she thought she'd have to pay me in order to get the raw files. I am under the assumption that she told the clients that her second shooter ruined the photos that she took and cut her losses. It has now been 3 years later, and the file folders of 100's and 100's of great shots from these last two weddings haunt me. My question is.... would it be ethical of me to approach the two couples that didn't get my shots in order to sell them my shots at a very low rate? I would think that they would still want the pictures of their bridal party that I took and the countless candid shots of friends and family celebrating their special days at their receptions. I know I would have loved for a treasure-trove of shots to be unearthed from my wedding. But I guess ultimately, even though the photographer I shot for was a real unprofessional jerk to me, I still do not want to step on her toes. Thoughts? I have attached a shot as an example of my work from some of my weddings as a second shooter.....

 

IMG_1012-3.thumb.jpg.85d3fba0579e64de2140d87ef1a29fbc.jpg

 

IMG_8101.thumb.jpg.e853c27a7dfc7ff26c51ff9cd8263aa1.jpg

Edited by marnifinder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her actions were more than an just being an "unprofessional jerk". What she did was a breach of contract and you could have sued her for lack of payment. Both you and her last 2 clients you shot for were damaged by her actions. I would not concern myself at all with any negative impact to the deadbeat who did not pay you, and at this point, I would simply send those 2 couples the images you have without any request for payment. The damage was done 3 years ago and it may make you feel better sending the images to be enjoyed by someone than leaving them on your hard drive.
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her actions were more than an just being an "unprofessional jerk". What she did was a breach of contract and you could have sued her for lack of payment. Both you and her last 2 clients you shot for were damaged by her actions. I would not concern myself at all with any negative impact to the deadbeat who did not pay you, and at this point, I would simply send those 2 couples the images you have without any request for payment. The damage was done 3 years ago and it may make you feel better sending the images to be enjoyed by someone than leaving them on your hard drive.

I think you're right. The best thing to do would be to get the photos to their rightful owners and cut my losses. I would much rather them get to enjoy the pictures instead of as you said just sitting around in my hard drive. Thanks... I guess the ethical thing to do is to just give them to the couples. Thanks... I needed that push.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get over it.

Her actions were more than an just being an "unprofessional jerk". What she did was a breach of contract and you could have sued her for lack of payment. Both you and her last 2 clients you shot for were damaged by her actions. I would not concern myself at all with any negative impact to the deadbeat who did not pay you, and at this point, I would simply send those 2 couples the images you have without any request for payment. The damage was done 3 years ago and it may make you feel better sending the images to be enjoyed by someone than leaving them on your hard drive.

I am over it. I guess I just thought the pictures should go to their rightful owners. And the best thing for me to do would be to give the couples the photos without any request for compensation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . I would simply send those 2 couples the images you have without any request for payment. The damage was done 3 years ago and it may make you feel better sending the images to be enjoyed by someone than leaving them on your hard drive.

 

I concur.

 

Not debating the ethics, on the face of it, this appears to the best practice Business Choice that you have available.

 

BTW, on the matter of business: depending upon where you work and what was contained in your contract with the Primary Photographer, you might not own the copyright to those images and you might not own the right to publication and you might not own the right of passing on publication to the Clients.

 

Personally, if what you state in your OP is correct in its detail, these points above wouldn't worry me, however it is relevant to bring them to your attention, especially considering that you have published them here.

 

WW

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . I think it's OK for you to approach the couples and sell them your pictures. I have no problem with that ethically.

 

Again I concur: noted this response does directly address the OP's question of gathering opinions on the ethics, and my first response didn't, as it was my opinion of the best Business Option to pursue.

 

WW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not at all in this business but what i would do is give the couples the pictures with an explanation of why they hadn't received them beforehand and ask them for a voluntary donation for your efforts with a suggested monetary sum to compensate you for the time and effort. You could even offer to post process the photos for a nominal fee. It would make you and them feel better, I think.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not at all in this business but what i would do is give the couples the pictures with an explanation of why they hadn't received them beforehand and ask them for a voluntary donation for your efforts with a suggested monetary sum to compensate you for the time and effort. You could even offer to post process the photos for a nominal fee. It would make you and them feel better, I think.

Thank you. I just keep thinking that if anyone had wedding pictures of mine that I had never had or seen... I would most definitely want them. They are not bringing anyone joy in my hard drive. Thanks for your response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi there. What an unfortunate situation you found yourself in. I guess we all have to learn some way, even if it takes 6 times not to get paid.. I was thinking about your question if it would be ethical to approach the couples. I actually do not have an answer to that, as in comparison, what she did was far beyond unethical - it was unlawful.

As someone here already mentioned, I'd be more concerned about your rights you actually have in relation to those pictures (mentioning all that - I totally don't agree with posting them over here).

If I'd find myself in your shoes, I might want to approach them with gift of the images and my own business details to pass on to their friends and family :)

 

Keep us updated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the couples in question got no pictures at all or just a few?

 

I'm not sure I'd contact them unless you're sure they were unhappy with what they got. It would seem strange to me as a customer of a wedding photographer to suddenly get offered pictures of my wedding from one of their past associates three years later. I'd be suspicious and I'd assume it was a ploy to extract more money. Be very careful how you approach them and how you explain your reasons for doing so. Wedding photographers don't typically give away photos.

 

I'm not sure how these arrangements typically work. Do the customers sign over rights to these photos? Would they be surprised and maybe bothered that you're still hanging on to them 3 years later?

 

On the other hand, if the primary photographer really failed the couple as well as you, then your contacting them might be very welcome. I'm just not sure how you'd communicate your reasons for doing so. Your business dealings with the primary photographer aren't their problem and you shouldn't drag them into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be suspicious

A lot of people operate out of suspicion, and I understand that. I try not to, and I'm not motivated either by my own suspicions of others or by suspicions I project onto others. I think being genuine in the actions I take is the best way to avoid suspicion. If there is suspicion nonetheless, there's not much I can do about it. But I try not to let the possibility get in the way of doing what I think is right or may be beneficial to others. The OP comes across as a genuine person, at least in the communications here. I think the same would be true in communications with the couple in question.

  • Like 1

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thinking about this some more, I'm probably too many years removed from my own wedding to give much feedback but I tried to think of something equivalent that would give me some insight as to the reaction of the couple.

 

My concern is that your motivation for doing this is to exorcise some demons. You were cheated and are rightfully unhappy about that. Perhaps your professional reputation was harmed if you were falsely blamed for ruined photos? I can understand wanting to set the record straight.

 

But if the couples got perfectly decent shots from the primary photographer and you're just unhappy that they didn't get an opportunity to even see yours, then I'd be inclined to just let it go and destroy the photos. Exorcise them from your mind that way.

 

It might seem wrong in a way to throw out perfectly good pictures that someone may want but hear me out. Perfectly good photos get discarded all the time and life goes on.

 

For many years my daughter was a gymnast. And at every meet, professional photographers were hired to sell photographs when the meet was over. You could have an image of your cute little daughter perfectly executing a dismount put a T-shirt for Grandma, - or any number of other expensive ways to sell photographs.

 

Pictures were quickly cataloged so you could pick from the 25 pictures of your daughter right after the meet and for a limited time, you could buy the photos online.

 

This could run into a lot of money really fast. There were multiple gymnastic meets every month. So we set a limit of one or two pictures from each meet and that was it. Some perfectly good pictures got discarded. My daughter and maybe even we parents may have wanted some of the other ones, but we let them go and are fine with it.

 

And that's my point. Our lives aren't any less rich for not having those photos. If someone were to offer us a bunch for free now, I guess we'd take them but if they were delivered on a USB drive with 100s of photos? Maybe we'd look at them. Maybe not. She's not a gymnast anymore.

 

And those weddings are long since over. They may have a kid or two that's the focus of their lives now. Hopefully they had fun at the wedding and so did their guests. Hopefully their marriage is a happy one. But sometimes I think we put too much emphasis on capturing these moments and not enough on living them.

Edited by tomspielman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people operate out of suspicion, and I understand that. I try not to, and I'm not motivated either by my own suspicions of others or by suspicions I project onto others. I think being genuine in the actions I take is the best way to avoid suspicion. If there is suspicion nonetheless, there's not much I can do about it. But I try not to let the possibility get in the way of doing what I think is right or may be beneficial to others. The OP comes across as a genuine person, at least in the communications here. I think the same would be true in communications with the couple in question.

 

I think being genuine is the key. I agree. What is the real motivation behind this? To get these photos into the hands of the couples for their enjoyment, or to somehow, even in a small way, get back at the other photographer?

 

If it's the latter, then I don't think approaching the couples is the way to go.

 

Getting paid was the motivation for taking the photos in the first place. Nothing wrong with that. But why give them away now? Are they going to give free photos to other couples that aren't any less deserving?

 

If they had gotten paid for their time would they still be upset that the photos were never shown to the customers and feel the need to contact them now?

Edited by tomspielman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last comment on this (probably).

 

To the OP: Often times when you find yourself asking the question if something is ethical, it's because there is something inside you telling you it's not.

 

I've offered some opinions but in the end I really don't know what the right thing to do is. Imagine yourself 5 or 10 years from now looking back at this decision. What do you think an older and wiser version of yourself would have wanted you to do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the real motivation behind this?

I take the OP’s explanation at face value. I have no reason to question it.

I would think that they would still want the pictures of their bridal party that I took and the countless candid shots of friendsand family celebrating their special daysat their receptions. I know I would have loved for a treasure-trove of shots to be unearthed from my wedding.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take the OP’s explanation at face value. I have no reason to question it.

 

Sometimes my own motivations turn out to be something other than what I thought after some self examination. Definitely might not be the case here.

 

Besides, you left something out:

My question is.... would it be ethical of me to approach the two couples that didn't get my shots in order to sell them my shots at a very low rate?

 

The important thing is that whatever they decide to do, they can do without regret. I'm not necessarily saying they'd regret giving away the pictures, but it's worth asking themselves why they really wanted to do this. In the original post, there was the hope that they could get a little money. It wasn't just to reunite the couples with these lost photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . My concern is that your motivation for doing this is to exorcise some demons. You were cheated and are rightfully unhappy about that. Perhaps your professional reputation was harmed if you were falsely blamed for ruined photos? I can understand wanting to set the record straight. . .

 

By your own example that you gave to the OP

Your business dealings with the primary photographer aren't their problem and you shouldn't drag them into it.

that's your concern not the OP's concern. I see no evidence the OP is attempting to exorcise anything.

 

Good photos are discarded every day, true enough and the OP is simply giving the B&G the opportunity to choose whether or not a particular set of photos from their wedding are discarded, nothing more nothing less: My view is that is an honourable gesture.

 

The question of ethics, which the OP raised: is a question of business ethics pertaining to the fact of selling images direct to the Client when one was not the Primary Vendor. On that question, considering the nonpayment of services to the OP by the Primary Vendor, doing so would be ethical in a business sense, but IMO, would be a poor business choice.

 

As this is a The Business Forum, even though the OP asked a question specifically about Business Ethics, it would be lacking if those with business experience did not give an opinion based upon the the best practice Business Choice: on that point, there would be an argument to leave well enough alone and simply trash the images, however, it seems to me that the quandary for the OP has is, if the OP trashes the images, then by so doing the B&G might be deprived of images that could bring them joy.

 

This quandary does not speak of the OP needing to exorcise anything; rather it speaks to me of the OP being a Vendor who shows care for his/her Clients and wants to provide them with Ultimate Customer Service.

 

If this is so then (as advised by Ken Katz) simply send the images to the B&G as a gift, with no caveat.

 

I think this does not require three thousand hours of over thinking, dissecting and motivational psychoanalysis: it is a pretty straightforward situation of a Second Photographer not being paid and holding onto the image files which (unfortunately) occurs too often in the Photography Businesses.

 

As a lesson learnt going forward, the OP might consider always having a contract stipulating the that the hand over of files to the Primary Photographer is strictly COD (Cash on Delivery), there should be no issue with those arrangements if the Primary has a solid business and the Second is an accomplished Photographer.

 

WW

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . I'm not sure how these arrangements typically work. Do the customers sign over rights to these photos? Would they be surprised and maybe bothered that you're still hanging on to them 3 years later? . . .

 

"how these arrangements typically work" varies and depends much on the location (what country/state) and also the specifics of the Contract between the B&G and the Photographer.

 

"Do the customers sign over rights to these photos? also varies depending upon the same criteria as mentioned above. Additionally, "rights", is a non specific term, there are many "rights" to consider, the main ones being, but not limited to: Copyright; Publication Rights; Printing Rights.

Also, the "Customer", (i.e. usually the Bride and Groom), often do not have any "rights" to the images, until there is payment in full - and - it is common in many jurisdictions, the Customer never holds the Copyright, the Photographer does, but that is not universal, either.

Another layer is, in the topic of conversation at hand, depending upon the contractual arrangements between the Second Photographer and the Primary Photographer, the second Photographer may not have Copyright: (as I have previously mentioned).

However, the foregoing is supplied only as providing a rough answer to your question, intending to highlight the complexity answers to such a question, and, hopefully highlighting the fact that none of that really matters after 3 years, because the Primary Photographer's business has probably folded anyway, as most businesses of malpractice generally do.

 

"Would they be surprised and maybe bothered that you're still hanging on to them 3 years later?" Probably surprised.

I think most genuine people would be appreciative, certainly not bothered, to be given additional photos of their wedding, gratis. Additionally, if accompanied by a short note of explanation, something written with candor outlining the facts, such the Opening Post here, most people would say, "thank you, what a nice gesture."

The point at issue is not whether or not the B&G would treasure these new photos, or even look at them more often than you might look at an additional 100 photos of your daughter's gymnastics, the point of this conversation is what is the best action for the OP to do with these photos.

 

***

 

If we are going to delve into this situation a bit more deeply, one aspect has not been mentioned, unlike sports specific images of one child, a Wedding Coverage amasses a Portraiture array individually and and in groups. It would be not uncommon for the Second Photographer to be given the duty of the general Group Portraiture of Family and Guests whilst the Primary Photographer was attending to the Main Bridal Group Portraiture: additionally, the Second Photographer often would attend to second tier Family and Close Friends Bridal Portraiture - it depends how the coverage was structured.

 

In any case, the salient point is, the images from the Second Photographer will contain unique groupings and unique situations, not in the Primary Photographer's coverage. That may be irrelevant, but often this is not the case: as just one example, the Second may have the Portrait of Aunt Molly with the B&G and the Wedding Cake in shot, now Aunt Molly made the Wedding Cake, and has since passed away, and that image may well be a treasured addition, now.

 

That's an example based on fact and I can relate many other examples which would be relevant.

 

Our studios having shot over 1500 Weddings, the majority on film and at a time when we had "print orders" (as opposed to nowadays a common practice is to sell the image files), I can say we were rarely contacted after about 18 months for any additional images, but when we were, it was almost always for a sentimental reason concerning a Group Portrait containing a Friend or Relative; an image not bought at the initial print purchase but much later it being much valued.

 

Who knows - it the images the OP has made may well bring great happiness or may be trashed and never looked at - but if the OP gives the images to the B&G, it is the B&G's choice to do as they like - that's the key point here.

 

WW

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that this gift of images would require some explanation.

 

If I were the couple I'd want to know why I hadn't seen these images before. Marnifinder can certainly provide an honest answer, - which could tarnish the image of the primary photographer. And that's perhaps well deserved. But it is a potential consequence Marnifinder should recognize going in and make sure that's not going to come back to bite her.

 

Was the couple charged for 2nd photographer? Are they going to feel cheated?

 

Do they have a personal relationship with the photographer? How many wedding photographers serve this community? Do they cross paths?

 

Could this impact Marnifinder's opportunities to get work in the future if the primary photographer finds out and decides to retaliate?

 

To me it does not hurt to think this through to see if perhaps it might have some unintended consequences.

 

Again, I'm not saying that giving the photos away is the wrong choice.

 

Marnifinder would not have posted the question if she didn't have some internal doubts about approaching these couples. And when you have some internal doubts I think it is worth asking the questions:

 

What is my real goal here?

 

Are my actions going to achieve that goal?

 

Now, it is very likely that the couples will be appreciative, the primary photographer will be none the wiser and Marnifinder will feel good about their choice. But it's worth 5 minutes to think it through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no evidence the OP is attempting to exorcise anything.

 

 

The OP described themselves as being haunted by the images.

 

And as I tend to do, I try to put myself in their place to understand why. And it's not hard to understand.

 

As a professional photographer they'd likely want:

  1. to have their work be appreciated
  2. get paid

Neither of which happened with these images, - and it bugs them to this day !

 

And as a human being they might also want to:

  1. stick it to the photographer that screwed them over.

And yes they'd like to do something that kills the negative feelings caused by these pictures. I chose to call it exorcising. You can call it something else if you like.

 

I would be mad. And when emotions come into play it can cloud your judgement. That's why I'm asking them to think it through.

Edited by tomspielman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I chose to call it exorcising. You can call it something else if you like.

It’s not a matter of “calling” it different things so much as a matter of seeing and understanding it differently.

 

Even if I were to emphasize the negative feelings the OP had, I’d still see the proposal of reaching out to the couple now as a gracious act, wanting them to have access to photos they might appreciate. Getting paid (minimally, as was stated) for something doesn’t negate a desire to do something nice for or in the interest of others.

 

Ethics, which the OP brought up, are involved not just in how we handle business relationships but also in our motivations (which are often multi-dimensional), not only those we have but those we attribute to others.

 

As you’ve noted, you would have had certain motivations. That doesn’t necessarily translate to others in similar situations.

 

I generally think empathy (which can aid in assessing the ethics of others) is about putting myself in others’ shoes rather than putting them in mine ...

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...