Jump to content

Is it ethical...?


marnifinder

Recommended Posts

Assuming you have a way of contacting the subjects, I'd simply drop them a line and explain that you were a second shooter at their weddings, and came across their photos while cleaning out your drive. Suggest that, if they'd like them, they can send you a flash drive, and you will download the photos for them and return it (you might want to include a photo in any correspondence you send initially so they know your are genuine).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ...

 

Empathy draws on personal experience. If I'm "putting myself in others' shoes", I'm still me trying to imagine how I would react in someone else's circumstances. I believe that's what I'm doing. It may not result in a true understanding but it's all I can do.

 

I believe it's important when trying to understand or empathize, to consider all of what someone said, not just portions. Again, - while recognizing that communication is imperfect and open to interpretation.

 

I believe I'm being as empathetic as I can be while acknowledging that "I" would be mad. The OP may not be mad at all but they are "haunted". "Exorcising" seemed a fitting term for becoming "un-haunted".

 

Anyway, if the intention is to be gracious, - to do something good, then "I" would want to make sure that "my" multi-dimensional motivations didn't prevent "me" from seeing a potential negative outcome. And that would be for me or for anyone involved.

 

 

So a simple question: Do these couples have a personal relationship with the primary photographer? Are they friends?

 

It's not at all unusual in my social circle to have a professional wedding photographer be someone that has a personal connection to the couple.

 

I would not want my gift, which was intended to do good, end up causing a rift. Is that worth the recovery of a lost photo of little Timmy dancing with Great Aunt Jane or of another angle of the bridal party eating dinner. Maybe.

 

I don't expect the OP to research the relationship between the primary photographer and the couples. But they might already know.

 

FWIW my wife's take on it would be that if this ends up straining a happy relationship, that is not my fault. It would ultimately be because of the unethical behavior of the primary photographer. Which is true. But I would end up still being haunted by those photos when my goal was to be un-haunted.

 

An alternative would be just to delete the photos, but I acknowledge that may not result in the desired un-haunting either. So a gift of the photos might be the best choice. But it should be an examined choice.

 

As another aside, my wife often doesn't like it when I think this way. She sees it as "overthinking" too. :)

 

At the same time, she will often have me read an email before she sends it, or talk to me before having a difficult conversation with someone precisely because I do think this way.

Edited by tomspielman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the same time, she will often have me read an email before she sends it, or talk to me before having a difficult conversation with someone precisely because I do think this way.

 

And she may incorporate some of my suggested edits (if any), decide not to send the email at all, or decide to send the email as originally written. ;)

 

The OP is in the best position to decide what is best, just like my wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm "putting myself in others' shoes", I'm still me trying to imagine how I would react in someone else's circumstances.

I understand that's what empathy means to you. All I'm saying is that empathy for some of us is NOT trying to imagine how "I" would react in someone else's circumstances, but rather trying to imagine what it's like for THEM.

I believe it's important when trying to understand or empathize, to consider all of what someone said, not just portions.

I agree. I also think it's important not necessarily to connect various aspects of what someone says in a way that may not have been intended. Therefore, I don't causally connect the situation with the deadbeat main photographer to the idea of offering the couple these photos. I took them as two ethical issues. Do I have the right to do with these photos as I wish and get paid for them since the job wasn't originally contracted in my name? Can I contact the couple on my own since I did the job under the auspices of another photographer? There is NO direct connection made between the deadbeat-ness of the main photographer and the desire to do something nice for the couple, other than the one you are making about exorcism.

I believe I'm being as empathetic as I can be.

That may be so, for you.

"I" would want to make sure that "my" multi-dimensional motivations didn't prevent "me" from seeing a potential negative outcome.

It seems to me that's one of the reasons the OP asked for input. The one you pointed to is a projection that the couple could become suspicious. That's been dealt with by many who've posted comments here.

As another aside, my wife often doesn't like it when I think this way. She sees it as "overthinking" too.

You have much more reason to pay attention to your wife than to me, even though she and I seem to agree! :)

 

This will likely be my last word on the subject. Suffice it to say that I think you're well-meaning and being genuine in your comments. I consider this an amiable disagreement between two well-meaning people. We've given the OP diverse views of how to consider the situation. It's now the OP's choice to do with all this input what the OP thinks will work best.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that's what empathy means to you. All I'm saying is that empathy for some of us is NOT trying to imagine how "I" would react in someone else's circumstances, but rather trying to imagine what it's like for THEM.

Interesting.

 

I guess what I'd say is that I am trying to imagine what's like for THEM as best I can. But I'm not them and shouldn't pretend that I can imagine their circumstances as if I were. I can't fully remove my own history and experience from that process. I can only recognize that their life experience will be different and try to account for that. And also recognize that there is some commonality among all of us. My feelings as I imagine they might be in the same circumstances may give me insight into what theirs are.

 

 

You have much more reason to pay attention to your wife than to me, even though she and I seem to agree! :)

 

This will likely be my last word on the subject. Suffice it to say that I think you're well-meaning and being genuine in your comments. I consider this an amiable disagreement between two well-meaning people. We've given the OP diverse views of how to consider the situation. It's now the OP's choice to do with all this input what the OP thinks will work best.

 

Fair enough. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
As I said in earlier post I see no problem ethically with trying to sell or giving them away. With that said if it was my wedding I would ask the OP to erase all the shots. I don't want pictures of me in other people hands although the OP has the right to keep those pictures.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I concur.

 

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.

 

(snip)

 

IANAL, but it looks like the primary broke the contract.

 

If you sell a car, and they buyer doesn't pay, you reposes it.

 

From what is said above, we don't know that the primary was paid by the wedding parties,

or if they were given any pictures.

 

As above, I believe that supplying the pictures along with an explanation is the best way.

If they did not pay the primary, they are more likely to feel like paying for them.

They might feel like it, anyway.

-- glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why the endless roundabout battle of virture signalling here everyone? The op was contracted to be a second string shooter at a wedding. OP did the work, got the photos, never got paid. THe people who paid the primary photographer HAVE NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PAY the OP.

 

The ONLY person with an obligation to pay, and a legal requirement to pay the OP is the primary photographer.

 

IF the people want to pay for the photos the OP took THATS GOOD.... but who cares at this point?

 

For so many people "in business", there has been so much horse manure drivel about empathy, the relationship between the primary photographer and the people who paid them to do the wedding shoot, yada yada yada..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(snip)

THe people who paid the primary photographer HAVE NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PAY the OP.

 

(snip)

 

Many people do things because they want to do them, not because of any legal obligation.

 

As far as we know, the photographer has no legal obligation to give them any photos, either.

 

Even more, as far as we know, the primary never gave them any photos, and may

not have gotten paid. (If the primary didn't get paid, cash flow problems would make

it harder to pay the OP.)

 

One possibility, since it has been the business model for many photographers for years,

is to give them smaller prints and offer to sell them larger ones. (Most have a studio charge

for the smaller ones, though.)

 

We assume that the bridal party would like some of the shots.

 

Given COVID restrictions, it is likely that the OP has reduced work hours (especially as

a wedding photographer) and could use the money.

-- glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people do things because they want to do them, not because of any legal obligation.

 

As far as we know, the photographer has no legal obligation to give them any photos, either.

 

Even more, as far as we know, the primary never gave them any photos, and may

not have gotten paid. (If the primary didn't get paid, cash flow problems would make

it harder to pay the OP.)

 

One possibility, since it has been the business model for many photographers for years,

is to give them smaller prints and offer to sell them larger ones. (Most have a studio charge

for the smaller ones, though.)

 

We assume that the bridal party would like some of the shots.

 

Given COVID restrictions, it is likely that the OP has reduced work hours (especially as

a wedding photographer) and could use the money.

 

 

As someone who understands business, the customer was supposed to pay the primary, who was then supposed to pay the OP to play second string. the only one with any obligation to pay the OP is the Primary. To think otherwise is to contradict all established laws and legal rulings.

 

Also, the amount of people putting in bizarre things like empathy, supposed relationships between the customer and the primary shooter, all stupid and bizarre and not signs of someone who understands business

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who understands business, the customer was supposed to pay the primary, who was then supposed to pay the OP to play second string. the only one with any obligation to pay the OP is the Primary. To think otherwise is to contradict all established laws and legal rulings.

 

Also, the amount of people putting in bizarre things like empathy, supposed relationships between the customer and the primary shooter, all stupid and bizarre and not signs of someone who understands business

 

Yes.

 

But we already know that one of the things that was supposed to happen, that would ordinarily be part of a successful business, didn't happen.

 

It doesn't seem so far to wonder if the other things also didn't happen.

 

Maybe the primary really doesn't understand business, we don't really know.

 

The OP has some photographs that could be valuable to some people.

As a successful business person, he could sell them.

-- glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, the amount of people putting in bizarre things like empathy, supposed relationships between the customer and the primary shooter, all stupid and bizarre and not signs of someone who understands business

 

And someone who claims to understand "business" should also understand the non-monetary aspect of good will.

 

I'm not someone who ever plans to make a living on photography, but it's also not something I'm above earning a bit of money on as a hobby to offset the monetary hole it also sometimes makes :) . I've run actually successful and profitable sole proprietor small businesses in other areas, though, and I tend to over-deliver on what I contract to offer(including in COVID times extending some contracts by several months of my own volition). My statements/invoices often itemize specific things covered and not covered, but I still often chip in my "not covered" items. Even if it costs a bit of money in the short term, I'm making sure my delivered results are the best quality I'm capable of and generating a lot of "Hey, we used this guy for this and he was amazing-you should give him a call."

 

To me, the OP giving the photos would fall into that category. Maybe they would forget right away, maybe it might turn into "Hey, we want a family portrait-why don't we call up that great photographer who was nice enough to give us our "lost" wedding photos."

 

BTW, in pre-COVID times, I'd often spend Sunday afternoons roaming around the grounds of my state's capitol. I was there because the state spent a lot of money keeping the entire grounds nice and presentable, and it was a great spot to get some interesting and always-changing photos. For that reason also, it's also a popular spot to bring their kids/families for impromptu photos in front of particular landmarks in their Sunday best or whatever. More than once, "friendly guy with big camera" has been asked to snap a few photos on their cell phone. I've then offered to take a few on my camera, spent some time posing and doing other "better photo" tricks. I'll exchange contact info, work up a few, and send them over that afternoon. More than once, that sort of thing has generated paid jobs a few months or years later. It doesn't cost me anything other than a bit of time, and maybe it earns me a few bucks down the road...

 

If I were making a living on this, it might be different, but I'm not.

 

Reading your posts here, you seem to have a rather jaded view of this kind of stuff. I'm sorry for whatever has happened that's given you that perspective.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it was just hoping that the

photos were meant to go to their rightful owners.

And the best thing for me to do will be

to send the pictures to the couples without any reimbursement request.

Her conduct was more than

just being an 'unprofessional jerk.'

A breach of contract was what she did and

you should have sued her for lack of payment.

Her behavior hurts both you and her last 2 clients with whom you fired.

I would not worry at all about any negative effect on the deadbeat who did not pay you, and at this stage, without any request for payment, I would simply give those 2 couples the pictures you have.

The harm was done 3 years ago and it might make you feel better than leaving them on your hard drive to send the photos to be enjoyed by others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm

accepting.

I also think it is important that different aspects of what someone says

are not necessarily related in a way that might not have been intended.

Therefore, I do not relate the situation with the deadbeat key

photographer to the concept of offering these pictures to the couple.

I've taken them

as two ethical questions.

Do I have the right to do as I want with these pictures and get paid for them because the work was not originally contracted on my behalf?

Since I did the job under the aegis of another photographer, can I contact the couple on my own?

There's NO clear link between the main photographer's deadbeat-ness and the urge to do something good for the pair, other than the one you make about exorcism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

In my opinion, the answer to the ethical question is yes, it is ethical. You do no harm.

 

You worked, did not get paid. The one asking you to do that work had no apparent intention to pay, so would only have the feeblest possible claim to the results of your work. And she is not harmed by you providing these photos to the couples concerned.

 

The people who would receive your photos would receive a momento to an important occurance in their lives. No harm there either.

 

It would also be ethical if you would not give the photos for free, but the opportunity to buy them from you. Provided you ask a reasonable amount.

But i can imagine (a bit of nudging here...) that you would like to offer them for nothing (or for only a cost covering fee).

 

You do not have to hand over the raw files. It is also perfectly acceptable to let them know that they are available for more prints, at a reasonable price (including profit), should they want that.

Edited by q.g._de_bakker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
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.....

 

[ATTACH=full]1358430[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=full]1358431[/ATTACH]

Your work really awesome. I think she must take a positive decision.

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...