No good deed goes unpunished...

<p>I am posting this as a cautionary tale, and don’t need any specific advice, but I am very interested to hear everyone’s feedback, similar stories and/or opinions.</p>

<p>My wife and I consider ourselves semi-professional photographers. We don’t make our living with photography, but we do get paid for the occasional fine art print or agree to shoot the rare event and have a registered legal business. Twice now, we’ve done photographic favors for different neighbors.</p>

<p>Last year I spent three nights shooting an adult amateur hockey league championship series for my neighbor who plays for one of the teams. I was asked to shoot this event and I thought: “here’s a great opportunity to work on my action/sports shooting with my long lenses in controlled light and get great access to the ice”. I agreed I wouldn’t charge a fixed price for the work (my neighbor said they’d take a collection in the locker room), publish the results to an easily accessible website and that if he or any of his teammates wanted prints of the work, they’d pay me for that effort. I took about 4500 shots of the games, the subsequent celebration (their trophy is a replica of the Stanley Cup, so a great deal of hoisting and kissing was involved) and team shots.</p>

<p>For post production, I culled the lousy shots, making sure there were at least 3 or 4 action shots of each player and a complete set of the celebrations, added our watermarked logo and copyright information and posted them to Flickr. There were about 600 shots posted. Within hours of my posting I got a ton of complaints that using the Flickr website was “too much trouble” so I made a DVD of the shots and gave it to my neighbor. That wouldn’t read on his older computer, so I made a set of CDs for him. Those wouldn’t read on his computer, so I did another two sets (with the same method and settings).</p>

<p>A few of his teammates asked me to remove our logo and copyright info and e-mail them the shots because they didn’t want “fancy prints”. In the end I spent more time doing post production work than shooting and never saw a dime – and somehow I was vilified as an opportunist for spending my time documenting and producing photos of their games for free because I had posted the photos with a watermarked logo and copyright statement. Lesson learned, I still got some great experience both on the ice and in dealing with people, and the neighbor and I are still quite friendly.</p>

<p>A few weeks ago, another neighbor invited my wife, daughter and I to their son’s first birthday party. She and her husband had admired our work previously and we thought as part of our gift to them we’d both shoot the party so they could focus on their kids and still get some great memories. We had no intention of getting paid for anything, we were just trying to do something special for them. To be totally fair, we didn’t tell them we were doing this, we showed up with our cameras and they were thrilled that we were going to shoot. We shot the party for two hours, and got some good shots of all the children, and even some of the parents. There were no objections or concerns raised at our documenting this event while it was happening.</p>

<p>A week afterward we got a thank you card from the neighbor in the mail, stating she couldn’t wait to get a link to see the shots. We did our usual post production, culling the bad shots, adding our watermarked logo and copyright information and posted the shots to Flickr, about 120 in total. The neighbor originally asked us to just put the shots “on our website” so her friends wouldn’t have to “join” a particular photo service to see the shots. The neighbor loved the work and forwarded the Flickr link to the party-goers telling them to let us know if they’d like any of the files sent to them without the logo and watermark for their own use.</p>

<p>Yesterday we got an e-mail from the neighbor that one of the other party-goers is concerned because “she wasn't aware that photos of her and her kiddo were going to be used commercially and the copyright and watermark logo concerned her” and that they want us to take down the Flickr gallery, strip our logo and copyright information from the photos and then post the images on the Internet some other way that was “not a link in the general public’s domain where they might be considered as commercial”. Again there are unsubtle implications that vilify my wife and I as opportunists for spending our time documenting and producing photos of this child’s first birthday for free and posting the photos with watermarked logos and copyright information.</p>

<p>My wife replied to the neighbor that the logo and watermarks were there as protection to deter unauthorized use of the images and that the use of the logo and copyright statement don’t imply commercial use at all and that we’ll remove the photo sets at their request. I can’t wait to see what kind of extra work is going to be requested in order to appease the mob on this one.</p>

<p>We’ve reviewed the legalities of shooting a party and have found that we’ve not violated anyone’s rights by posting these photos for their own consumption and that the use of our logo and copyright statement on the photos is in fact a great way to protect the party-goers from any unauthorized use of their images.</p>

<p>I find that I am very frustrated by both of these circumstances because in both cases what were being done as favors, at no cost to anyone, have resulted in a great deal of unanticipated effort, hassle, and most disturbingly, vilification of my wife and I for trying to protect our work. My initial reaction is to say “we won’t ever do that kind of favor for anyone ever again”, but we’re not that kind of people and I know we’ll inevitably be in this situation again.</p>

<p>Am I missing something here? <br />Ty Robbins</p>

<p>The title of your post says it all. ... yes you <em><strong>are</strong></em> missing something.<br>

<br />* Never post anything on the internet like that unless it is a password protection site.<br /><br />* Unfortunately, you must tell people UP FRONT what you are doing and have them sign a release. If they don't want to sign the release, don't take any photos.<br /><br />Too bad society is going in that direction</p>

<p>Flickr offers a solution to making private images viewable by selected people. It's called a Guest Pass.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/help/sharing/</p>

<p>I really don't understand why a gift of photos would include your logo and copyright info. It doesn't protect them from anything. </p>

<p>This is, without fail, due to ignorance (well, and some bad manners). To the extent that the average Jane or Joe know <em>anything</em> about copyrights, they have made a complete mental hash of it. Combine that with the fact that many young parents (or hockey players) are of the age where they've personally pirated much of their own music collection for "free" off of the internet, and you begin to understand why none of it matters to them until it in some way inconveniences them, or involves something that's important to them personally (shots of their kids, or of that spectacular check they made during the game).<br /><br />The sense of entitlement to entertainment and creative works is getting worse by the moment. I find, now, that my best customers are those who - in their own daily lives - also produce and create things. They <em>get it</em>. Those who earn their livings in less creative ways are so detached from the concepts and costs (in time, equipment, and education) that they can't wrap their heads around <em>why</em> an artist or skilled professional would want to protect their work ... and because it's not important to them, they've never bothered to take five minutes to understand the practicalities and customs/legalities surrounding the issue. They just want stuff, and they want it on their terms.<br /><br />So: the biggest challenge facing the photographer in this situation (and, Ty, I've been in <em>exactly</em> those situations, more than once - my fatal flaw is being an optimist, and always giving the next person the benefit of the doubt) is to educate the audience. In advance.<br /><br />Sometimes, I'm able to adequately do that by simply putting up a splash page with some well-tuned prose that the visitor sees before they wander into whatever gallery I've put up. Sometimes I make the viewing of the gallery contingent on a "yeah, I understand that the photographer is simply protecting his work" button. Yes, most people just click such things reflexively, but it provides for something to refer back to in later conversations. Not in a "gotcha!" sort of way, but in the sense that the crass, real-world issues of rights and licensing and costs have aready been put out on the table. It takes some of the social discomfort out of broaching the topic, later. <br /><br />In a social situation, I sometimes use a buffer. The host of the event, for example, gets a solid education on where the boundaries and obligations are, and then I allow that person to field some of the more wildly off-the-mark expectations from the other attendees. I've actually heard a person in that role say, "Yeah, he'll charge you for some prints if you want 'em, and might be a good sport and let you use some copies just for emailing to family and stuff, but do me a favor, OK? He's here as a favor to me, not as a favor to <em>you</em>, so no fair asking him for free stuff for yourself." Half the battle is just arming your friends with some words and concepts they can use when they talk to <em>their</em> friends.<br /><br />It can also help to use an analogy. If you had a friend over to a dinner party, and your friend was a professional chef who offered to help prepare an apetizer as a favor to you, would the other guests be comfortable asking if he'd also come by their house and cook their breakfast the next morning, or write down all of his recipes and e-mail them around? Whether or not an analogy like that is perfect, it can stop the clueless leeches long enough to get them to think. Without that effort up front, most of them don't get past the part where they also "know how" to take a picture and put it on Flicker, so what's the big deal?</p>

<p>I have shot a few amateur sporting events and never made a dime from print sales to competitors. After each event about 10 people ask me to email them full resolution shots. No athlete has ever offered me money. I even had one of the shots printed in a magazine so they were pretty good.</p>

<p>Did I care? Not at all. I expected nothing and got nothing except for the magazine usage.</p>

<p>I did it because I thought it would be fun and it was. I've shot friend's kid's birthday parties and just burned everything to a CD and gave it to them. Let them handle the website. </p>

<p>If you want to shoot for money then shoot for money and spell everything out in a contract, get model releases, etc. If you want to shoot for free then shoot for free. Mixing the two worlds by shooting for free then trying to make money from prints or adding copyright logos to birthday party pics is just going to confuse and annoy people. </p>

<p>When you say you shot the birthday party as a gift what is your definition of a gift? Mine is take the pics, burn to CD, and let them do whatever they want. If you're going to enforce your copyright and not allow them to make prints then it is a gift with strings attached. I personally would not want such a gift. If the gift is here's the pics and do whatever you want then why did you even put the watermark/copyright on the kids pics in the first place?</p>

<p>[[i was asked to shoot this event and I thought: “here’s a great opportunity to work on my action/sports shooting with my long lenses in controlled light and get great access to the ice”]]</p>

<p>So, it was a trade: images for access. Seems reasonable. Take the access and the experience gained and give the people their images.</p>

<p>[[and we thought as part of our gift to them we’d both shoot the party so they could focus on their kids and still get some great memories. We had no intention of getting paid for anything, we were just trying to do something special for them]]</p>

<p>A gift. Not a sale. Why would you plaster your logo and copyright info on a gift? The OP defined the terms for himself and then decided to change the terms later. This makes no sense. </p>

 

<p>Ty,<br>

I agree with Rob on this one. The 2 situations are entirely different. The first was arranged ahead of time and you should have had some sort of written agreement including a release so that you could use the images for your own promotion, etc. as well as spelling out the terms.<br>

The birthday party is different. Next time you just show up and shoot unannounced, just burn a CD of what you'd like them to have and hand it to them. If they want to post them, they can do it on their own on any number of sites. It sounds like you gave them a "gift" as a friend and were looking to sell prints. Not right, not fair and not nice....-Aimee</p>

<p>This kind of situation made me stop doing "favors" with my cameras. I now shoot for my own satisfaction and offer any shots of other people directly to them. I generally don't charge money either... unless they want enlargements, then it is "at cost". But when I don't know them (or they look richer than me) I tell them a reasonable price and my attitude is 'take it or leave it' with very little discussion of why that is the price or the legality of me shooting the pics in the first place. No complaints yet and many requests, especially from other parents of kids on the same baseball/track/basketball team(s) with my kids (which I more often than not decline).</p>

<p>I have a couple of theories about "complaints" in these situations:<br />1. shooting in situations where one is not generally acknowledges to be the "team photographer", "hired pro" (even if 'hired' is not interpreted literally), etc; 2. posting to a public site for the convenience of all; and 3. not discussing price up-front (including "free" and "gift").</p>

<p>I just don't do these... the hassle isn't worth it.</p>

<p>But here's a little story to warm your heart. A few years ago a friend was throwing a blow-out sweet-16 party for their daughter. They didn't want to pay the price of a pro so called me and offered $300 plus film plus processing (which they would provide). I generally don't work like that because it makes me feel like a prostitute and I want to cull boo-boos, etc. But the deal was too good and I needed a few dollars so I shot the event - 5 hours of work plus a really good meal. The only embarassing part was that I was invited to sit at the head table (which was very nice offer but not really feasable) and my flash misfired when just as the birthday girl blew out the candles on the cake. At the end of the event I gave the parents the bag of film that I shot plus all of the leftover (prior to the event they asked me what I wanted for film and then provided large quantity of everything I asked for). They gave me a check for $200. I didn't have the heart to say something like "didn't we agree on $300?" A couple of weeks after the event I started getting phone calls and email messages from them. They raved about the pictures and offered to have my family over to dinner so we could look them over. We were never able to do that but the calls/compliments continued for several months. That alone was worth the "missing $100." The difference between my story and yours, in my opinion, is that these folks had a bad memory... but class. For people like them I do it over and over and over again!</p>

<p>"I took about 4500 shots of the games"</p>

<p>Yikes! I usually walk about with about 200 images when I shoot a basketball game.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yikes! I usually walk about with about 200 images when I shoot a basketball game.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is really not what the post is about, however - he said he shot over three nights in a championship series, so who knows how many games, he did team shots, he shot an after-event, and he shot a sport that generally moves faster than basketball and is harder to follow.</p>

<p>Reading carefully is a wonderful thing. Also, understanding market requirements really helps.</p>

<p>BTW, SI shoots more than 16,000 frames for one football game every year.</p>

<p>On the original topic, Rob offers good advice.</p>

<p >Everyone, I very much appreciate all of the feedback and information. I realize now I wasn't very articulate in my story telling because I have lumped two issues into the outcomes of having done these two photographic favors: value and vilification. I would like to make a few clarifications to further the discussions:</p>

<p ></p>

<p >To the value issues:</p>

<p >· From a value standpoint money was not ever a consideration in either scenario. I do realize I mentioned money in the hockey story, but that was intended to be related in terms of value. The neighbor who asked for that favor established that there would be appreciation for my efforts in terms of money (both in terms of an initial payment and that I would sell prints to the team). I realized before I went into it that it any monies I might have gotten from the effort would be insignificant. I did it anyway, happy to have had the experience and access. But from a value standpoint, I was frustrated that I was repeatedly asked to go to EXTRA effort with my own time to allow the neighbor and his teammates to AVOID paying me for potential print work. </p>

<p >· With respect to the birthday party, the effort was a gift and we <em>have</em> made the photos available to the neighbor without any of our watermarks and logos to do with as she pleases. The neighbor asked for the pictures to be posted publically (specifically with no password) for the other party-goers to see, which was additional effort we hadn't intended as part of the gift. We did this for her, and even said that we'd send original files with no watermarks or copyright information to anyone that asked for them.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >To me both of these specific instances around the value of our time feel like giving a gift and having the recipient say "I really like the idea of your gift, but it's not exactly what I wanted. Could you return it for me and get me the same thing in a different color?". That is simply frustrating and I won’t be apologetic for how I feel.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >With respect to the vilification issues:</p>

<p >· Early in my Internet photo-sharing efforts (1997-98), before digital copy right technologies, I had several of my photographs lifted off the Internet and used repeatedly in national print media without my knowledge or permission - some even making their way to stock services that still publish them today. With no proof, I’ve had no recourse.</p>

<p >· Since then I don't put ANYTHING on a publically available website without both embedded and visible copyright statements.</p>

<p >· Because the photos in both situations were put online publically (at the request of the respective neighbors) and because you can't control how people in the public encounter these photos, it is prudent to apply copyright information to both establish who took the photo and to protect the photo from being used without consent.</p>

<p >· I disagree that this doesn't provide protection. Granted all copyright information can be stripped or cropped out so the protection is minimal against sophisticated techniques, but if it was irrelevant or not meaningful at all, then why are the majority of photographs on photo.net copyrighted?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >My major frustration around this vilification issue is the implication that the application of a copyright or watermark means we intended to profit by using the photos by selling them to 3^rd parties, which was not the ever the case - which was explicitly communicated. If we were to do that then model releases are required, which was also explicitly communicated.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >In the case of the Hockey team, which was made up of affluent accountants, lawyers, and other professionals, the vilification got them the files so they didn't have to get prints from me, so it feels like they played a game that suited their purpose.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >In the case of the birthday party, I just don't understand the vilification - we aren't getting anything from anyone, never intended to, communicated that explicitly and repeatedly, and have made the unmarked files available to anyone who has asked.</p>

<p ></p>

<p >While I know this is a speculation, I am almost positive that if we didn't do our level best to protect those images (both the hockey and the birthday party) the same people who have vilified us for marking the photos to begin with, would take exception (and possibly sue) if those same images were used by someone else without permission and we hadn't done everything possible to protect them.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Again, I very much appreciate everyone's feedback and input. I just wanted to add these points of clarity so those respondents with the "shame on you" theme could better understand the full context of both situations and the conversation could evolve further.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Thanks to all,<br />Ty</p>

<p>Robert,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I took about 4500 shots of the games"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's law of averages. If a great photographer gets 1 good photograph in 10 shots, and an average photographer gets 1 good one in 100 shots, and I am "somewhere" between those two classifications, then the result I got was a pretty good one. Plus my wife and I work our tails off, even on "free" gigs to get the best possible results. :-)</p>

<p>Ty</p>

<p>Robert,</p>

<p>I forgot to add that there were 5 games...</p>

<p>Ty</p>

<p>My reaction is to the amount of work involved in editing 4500 shots. So I disagree with Jeff. It is relevant.</p>

<p>I take far fewer shots because I grew up shooting film. It sure makes PP easier!</p>

<p>I grew up on film too, so I appreciate your point of view. Using my 100-400mm/5.6 lens in questionable artificial light on really fast action was another impetus for the volume of shots. It was one of the most challenging sports shoots I have ever done.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My reaction is to the amount of work involved in editing 4500 shots. So I disagree with Jeff.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Anyone who shoots events commercially deals with these kinds of numbers. For a weekend hobbyist, it may be a problem. I come home from a night of fights around midnight and I have to go through 2000 photos and get my selections processed, captioned and uploaded before 6AM if I want to get paid. It's not that difficult if you do it regularly and have the right workflow.</p>

<p>You are sitting on the fence...either be a professional and charge properly, or not. And tell people in advance. If you are doing them as a favour, then no copyright and no logo. You only retain copyright if there is a fee. Copyright is designed to protect commercial interests. And for all those who actually think that just by putting a © on the shots gives you copyright...here's some news. To make it valid, you actually have to "register" the copyright. Not many know that...even pros.</p>

<p>I may be way off base here, but the first thing that came to mind reading the original post is a comparison to a painter/sketch artist/cartoonist (whatever).</p>

<p>If I was a sketch artist (and I'm not!) and went to a neighbor's birthday party and did some sketches of the participants, I would sign my name, initials, whatever was my 'trademark' signature for my work, to each sketch before I gave them as a gift. I can't imagine the giftees compaining about my signature.</p>

<p>In the first instance with the games, the neighbor asked Ty to take the photos. The neighbor must have known that Ty did that kind of work on the side. He must have seen some of Ty's work and was happy enough with the work to ask him to shoot the hockey series. I have no doubt Ty's copyright notice was placed on any and all photos seen by the neighbor. Again, I see the copyright as a form of an artistic signature.</p>

<p>I realize the copyright is a legal tool, but in photography I also see it as a signature.</p>

<p>As a computer consultant I'm always informing clients they can't just copy a CD that contains copyrighted software. They have to pay for the right to use it. I can't imagine the difficuties professional photographers continually face in the digital age maintaining ownership of their intellectual/artistic property.</p>

<p>Maybe I've been around commercial software, musicians and music, photographers, and books too long, but I expect copyright notices and can't imagine being asked to remove them.</p>

<p>I agree with Ty, what were these people thinking? What's the big deal?</p>

<p>Mark</p>

<p><em>You only retain copyright if there is a fee. Copyright is designed to protect commercial interests. And for all those who actually think that just by putting a © on the shots gives you copyright...here's some news. To make it valid, you actually have to "register" the copyright. Not many know that...even pros.</em><br /><br />Hmmm. That's so wrong it's not even <em>wrong</em>. <br /><br />The photographer owns the copyrights to the image by the act of shooting the photo. The ONLY thing that removes those copyrights is the deliberate assigning of them to another party, or having done the work "for hire" (as in, while being an employee, and doing the work <em>as</em> an employee, or when agreeing to a contract that specifies that the work is for hire, rather than licensed). <br /><br />But in general: you take the picture, you own the copyrights. Period. You do NOT need to register the work with the copyright office to own and control the copyrights. You DO need to do so if you wish to go after certain kinds of big-league damages in a case of infringment (beyond the customer amount you'd normally have charged for the infringing use of your image - which may actually be $0.00, if you're not a pro).<br /><br />Marking, or not, your image with a © or your name or a statement of your copyright ownership has NO BEARING on your copyrights. It just makes it easier for a potential user to know whose image at is, and - if such a mark is removed by an infringer - adds to the naughtiness factor when infringment occurs.<br /><br />Me not lawyer, me caveman, etc.</p>

<p>2 things here regarding the birthday party</p>

<p>1) I'd be pretty upset if someone posted pics of my family on a public website (that's not password protected).</p>

<p>2) Since you took the pictures on your own will, and without them asking you to do so, and since they all posed for you - I think it was in very poor taste to post them with your watermarks and logo. The people posing for you wouldn't have been aware of that at all. The least you could have done is to have told them upfront that you intended to do this. Right now it seems the two of you took this opportunity to get some photography practice for free and then want money if any of your free participants want un-watermarked copies.</p>

<p>I understand that right now you think you did a good deed and are getting abused for it. But from a 3rd party perspective, you seem to have done something for your own advantage, and when people did not thank you for what you think is a good deed, you feel all upset about it.</p>

<p>Thanks, Matt, for straightening that out. The idea that I don't own my own photographs unless I register them was rather frightening!</p>

<p> </p>

If your experiences are upsetting, then maybe offering a CD or CDs is all you should agree to, and then just say no to all the additional requests. I've always uploaded pix in similar situations to Kodak Gallery so that anyone who wanted to order a print could do it. Yes, they have to sign up, but if that's too much trouble for them, screw 'em (putting it nicely, of course). ;)

<p>I think that many comments here show that there is a general misunderstanding of copyright and what it is for.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Copyright is designed to protect commercial interests.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>If the gift is here's the pics and do whatever you want then why did you even put the watermark/copyright on the kids pics in the first place?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From the US Government Copyright website:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States<br />(title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including<br />literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This<br />protection is available to <em>both published and unpublished</em> works. Section 106<br />of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive<br />right to do and to authorize others to do the following:<br />• To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;<br />• To prepare derivative works based upon the work;<br />• To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or<br />other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;<br />• To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and<br />choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual<br />works;<br />• To display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and<br />choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural<br />works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual<br />work; and<br />• In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of<br />a digital audio transmission.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Copyright Law has no direct commercial intent, it is a statement of ownership of the created intellectual property. The granting of the right to copy to others for a fee is a commercial consideration, but the application of a notice of copyright is merely a visual indication that you are expressing your ownership of the intellectual property. As such, if you are the creator of any kind of work, you should apply a copyright notice to establish ownership for your own protection and the protection of your subjects.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And for all those who actually think that just by putting a © on the shots gives you copyright...here's some news. To make it valid, you actually have to "register" the copyright. Not many know that...even pros.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again from the US Government Copyright website:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration.</p>

<p>Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I submit that most of the "arguments" levied in this thread on copyright considerations come from a misunderstanding of what copyright is and what it actually means. We applied copyright notices so that while posted on a public website (<strong>at the neighbor's request</strong>), these photos could not be used by any other 3rd parties without permission - this is what copyright is for! If you believe that protecting the images of these people this way is in poor taste or somehow greedy in nature, then your understanding of copyright is very different from mine and we will have to agree to disagree. And if you think we were trying to make money, when we had already made the unmarked photos available to the neighbor, for free, as a gift, to begin with, then you have made an accusation without really reading the whole post.</p>

<p>Ty, I think we are seeing a lot of case here in this forum of people wanting to voice their opinions without reading everything you have to say. I think your post of 2:19 p.m. made it clear why you watermarked/logo'd/copyrighted the images you posted. Would the rest of you who continue to criticize the watermarking please pay attention?</p>

<p><strong>Ty was not commercializing his work, but attempting to keep other, unscupulous people from picking the images off the internet and then commercializing them, or using them in bad ways.</strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

That said, I think you would have kept yourself in a much better position by simply giving the host parents a cd of unmarked files, and flat refused to post any of the pictures yourself. If the hosts wished to distribute to parents of any attendees, that would be up to them. This route would seem to keep things much simpler, and you a$$ out of the wringer.</p>

<p>This pertains to the birthday party only. Regarding the hockey tournament, IMHO you just plain got screwed! Live, learn, and protect yourself. I'm glad people like you are willing to share these stories so that I can learn without having to go through them...</p>

<p>Ok, I just read your follow-up post (should have done that first) where you say that you've given the clean images to your neighbor. So that actually does qualify as a "gift". </p>

<p>So it seems as if any issues or accusations you are facing now from the guests at the party should actually be redirected to your neighbor. You could do a standard reply saying that the neighbor has all the images and that anyone who wants those images just needs to go there and get a copy of the CD.</p>