No good deed goes unpunished...

[willperson]

<p>As a follow up to Matt's response regarding copyright, please take a look at <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf">http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf. </a><br>

This is a "Copyright Basics" publication that should be read by any photographer. (amateur or pro)<br>

I was amazed to read one of the responses above! I am not an expert in copyrights by any means, but please try and get the facts straight before advising others.<br>

The only advice I will offer is to do your own homework.<br>

Ty - keep at it...live and learn.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>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.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

It seems Aimee like you are suggesting that the host can sign a model release that covers other people. Even if model release were actually needed, The host wouldn't be able to sign away other people's privacy rights. </p>

<p><em>I see the copyright as a form of an artistic signature.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

What matters to most people (I gather) is whether the watermarking prevents an image from being copied or otherwise used. Add to that the fact that a signature is usually seen as a signature while legal symbols are usually seen as legal symbols. Put the two together, just about no one is going to think that the watermark is akin to a artistic signature.</p>

<p>I tend to agree with the comments about making any gift unconditional and making work an upfront specified arrangement.<br>

<em></em></p>

[joe_kr]

<p>Ty, as you said <i>No good deed goes unpunished. </i>I think <u><b>Matt L</b></u> hit it right on the money about piracy, ignorance and bad manners. </p><p>I learned that many people when they see a "big camera" with a "big flash" they are under assumption that it is a professional photographer <b>hired </b>for the event and want a full blown proof return. </p><p>I'm sorry that you were in this situation and I hope that you won't be discouraged to continue your work.</p><p>Thanks for sharing!<br></p>

[michaelyoung]

<p><em>Am I missing something here?</em> <br>

Yes, you are--your own intelligence.<br>

Your language skills indicate you're two or three standard deviations ahead of the game.<br>

While painful to consider and implement at many levels, you may want to do a better job of insulating yourself in the future along with disabusing yourself of the notion that "other people" think like you do. They don't and the pain of that disconnect will all be yours and yours alone.<br>

There's still a big world of opportunities to be had out there when operating on a far more selective basis--fun ones, happy ones, joyous ones.<br>

Summation: Please don't do this to yourselves anymore.</p>

<p><em></em></p>

[peter_ferling]

<p>Lesson learned. Communicate first. Nuff said.</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>My Answers is this if you recieve no money for your work the Copyright and names stay put thats that, if they buy some then and then only I would remove it from the front and put on the : ,you have your rights also ! Hope you wake up soon:</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>I'm certainly not a pro of any description, and have only had one of my pictures published in a 'real' magazine (as opposed to a local nonprofit's publications). But IMHO, the world of 'professional photographer' and the world of 'friend handy with a camera' should be kept as separate as possible.</p>

<p>I tend to shoot a lot of my kids' activities. For sports, I try to shoot two games per season per child. At first I posted them on a third party website where parents could offer prints, but I think it was too complicated and people were put off by it. Now what I usually do is (1) burn a 20-cent CD-R of the best 200 or so pictures for each kid on the team and (2) get a few prints of worked-over files for the coach. Lots of people (but not nearly everyone) appreciates it, and some don't care, but I don't detect any unhappiness. (I do also include a PDF with some recommendations on getting prints, for those who want them but aren't digital.) And all it costs me is less than $5 for materials and maybe an hour of my time (plus the digital darkroom time for the coach's stuff, but that's a thank-you for all of the coach's efforts).</p>

 

[mark_mankey]

<p>Ty it sounds like you and your wife a well meaning couple. You sound like great neighbors. I think the thing missing here was communication. The details of why you did what you did all make sense to us but clearly not everyone has the background the folks here do. If they should or shouldn’t doesn’t really matter as they’re going to get upset either way. If you have to give folks a painfully detailed explanation of what you’re going to do to avoid such things then that is what you have to do.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>Ty - I understand why you put the copyright symbol on the photos but surely an alternative would be better. The copyright symbol raises all sorts of misconceptions, notably (as you have acknowledged) that people think you immediately want to make money - so why not just put 'photo by.....' instead - it will serve the same process, will not reduce your rights and will be less likely to raise the spectres of commercialisation.<br>

Or just post on the net a low-res copy (without watermark) good enough for 6"x4" which will not be much good for publication by the commercial pirates out there.</p>

 

[johnw63]

<p>Ty,</p>

<p>This is from some one who knows bumpkiss about shooting for hire, copyrights, etc. So, maybe someone as close in info and legal stuff as your neibours and their friends. If I hadn't read your story, I would be just as confused as some of them would be.</p>

<p>It sounds like you told at least your neighbor that the shots of the birthday party would be put on a web site, ( at their request, in fact ) and that you would put logos on them to keep people from stealing them from the site. However, as a John Doe, at the party, this info may not have been relayed to me well, or at all, so when I went there, and saw all this "official" looking copyrights and business looking logos on the shots, my first thought would be, " This is the property of some professional photograher and he's going to be making money from it ! Hey ! I didn't give my permission to use my likeness for making money ! " , and, " If I wanted copies, they would have all that stuff printed on it, like Olin Mills or something. I don't want that ! ". </p>

<p>As some one said, it was all a matter of communication, and it may have been the fault of the birthday host , not yours. This may be off base, but, ... you have to know your audience. You have to remember how little the general public knows about this stuff. It probably never crossed their mind that people steal photos from the web, or what it takes to put them there, or how much work any of the stuff you did took. Now, the parent who did not like having their kids images on the web, I'm sorry to say, in this day and age, they have a point. Some are just more paranoid about the creeps out there. Again, it's knowing the target group. When the host asked for you to put them on the web, you, as the knowledgeable one, should have said something like, " I can do that for you, but, I need to do this and this, because of that and ... you may have a parent who doesn't WANT their family on the web at all, so you need to get some sort of OK from everyone first. "</p>

<p>Now, as for the Hockey thing.... you're not the first person to be screwed by doctors and lawyers !</p>

<p>Maybe the bottom line is, what people don't understand, they make assumptions about. Often these are wrong. When you put everything together, and did professional things to them, people assumed professional prices, ownership, strings attached, limitations, etc. It may have been all wrong, but people assume a LOT. All you can do is try to leave no situation assumable.</p>

<p> </p>

[joey1]

<p>So, how many copies of pirated software and movies are out there being used and distributed without the artist(s) and writers being paid for their efforts? Anyone heard of SAG and the Writers Guild and their battles, lately? It's unfortunate that creatives get dumped on for attempting to protect their rights to intellectual and artistic property, commercially viable or not.</p>

[ts_low]

<p>Copyright (and its visible protection, the watermark) do not signify commerce. Copyright is a legal construct entirely independent of commerce and can occur without any sales or promotional accompaniment. Photos freely handed out are subject to copyright.<br>

You were invited on to private property to shoot a private function. The fact you showed up with gear is a non-issue as the moment you crossed a threshold with accepted intent to photograph, there was agreement. The cameras were visible and photographing a birthday party is considered "normal" and "reasonable" activity regardless of the amateur or pro status.<br>

So, by the way, is posting photos on the internet. Perhaps a password protected album may have been better, but that is a sidebar issue.<br>

In fact, what you have done is more protective of the images by clearly identifying the source photographer, creating a chain of accountability. The complainant is ignorant. Should she wish unmarked photos, tell her you will email them to her directly without the logos, but for public or group posting, to preserve that chain of accountability, those ones will be watermarked.<br>

You have done nothing "wrong". In fact, you have done everything correctly. Good for you. Don't second guess yourself or beat yourself up over this. If the situation arises again, do the same. I cannot think of a more ethical, practical stance than yours.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>This thread has brought up many interesting issues. I am not an expert in copyright issues so I defer to the experts in that area. People who don't own their own businesses often have no idea what amount of time and effort and money go into producing something. They may assume that once you have the camera and the lenses and the flash units and the computer and the software that actually using all of it is then "free." It isn't. In Economics 101 we learn the concept of opportunity cost. What else could you have done with the same time and resources? By this measure the time of a retired person is also valuable. If you don't charge for something, people think it isnlt worth anything. I don't charge my son for driving him to school but if I drove a school bus I wouldn't do it for free.<br>

When it come to the number of shots someone might take at a particular event I think we are moving away from still images and toward moving images. Instead of making 4,500 exposures, why not make 2,000,000 images, string them together and make a movie. With high enough resolution you could pick any frame out of the 2,000,000 and make a print from it. Most digital images never find their way onto paper. I'm not criticizing this completely because there is some environmental benefit. Most of my shooting is still done with film. When I started to shoot with a digital camera I found myself tweaking every file just to make a 4X6 print. I have excellent C-41 processng, scanning and printing available so I don't think the digital images made any better prints than what I get with film. If I load the latest version of Portra 800 into a high quality 35mm camera, a camera which I already own, I would need a very expensive digital outfit to equal the quality even in an 8X10 print. There is plenty of digital equipment which will do a good job too but it is expensive, very time consuming to use and will be virtualy worthless within two years if it is even still working by then. For people who havea high enough volume that film and developing costs are an issue, digital certainly makes sense. <br>

What about the fear people show when your camera is anywhere near them? This is a sad fact about our society. It must have been some time between 2002 and 2004 that I was shooting my last roll of Kodachrome 25. The fall foliage where I lived was at its peak. I was two blocks from my house and pointing my camera at a beautiful red tree. The owner of the house came out and asked what I was doing. I explained that I was an amateur picture taker and that she was lucky to have such a nice tree. I judged by her age that she might know what slides were and I told her this was my last roll of Kodachrome 25. At that point she seemed a little less nervous. Just last week I was walking in the neighborhood with my wife and had a camera with slide film in it. I shot a picture of a forsythia bush. The onwer of the house it was in front of said "Can I help you with something?" Even when I grew up in The Bronx and took the Subway through some very poor neighborhoods on the way to school I never saw the fear that is in our country today. I hope we eventually get over it. </p>

[jimmcnitt]

<p>Hi Ty:</p>

<p>One lesson learned from the decade I spend as a working photojournalist was to avoid "retail" photo projects like the plague, or perhaps the swine flu.</p>

<p>In my experience, most publishing professionals--photo editors, art directors, designers, newspaper and magazine editors, etc.--understand copyrights and, more importantly, have realistic expectations about what a photographer can and cannot accomplish.</p>

<p>But I also discovered (the hard way) that friends, neighbors, small business owners, etc., often have distorted concepts of copyright law and sometimes very exaggerated notions of what a photographer can achieve, how quickly it can be done, and how much (or little) it should cost.</p>

<p>When the job not only involves your personal friends, but their extended circle of friends and team mates, as in the case of the project you describe, it is by design a prescription for disaster.</p>

<p>My policy on retail work was simple. If it was for a relative, friend or neighbor, I made it absolutely clear I was doing the job as a favor and refused to accept any payment--other than, perhaps, some "in kind" gesture like dinner at good restaurant. </p>

<p>I know it's especially tough for "event photographers" to draw this kind of distinction when that first assignment is likely to be cousin Wanda's wedding. But, at least until you are very well established, mixing fees and friends is almost always a prescription for hurt feelings–or worse.</p>

<p>If anything, this is even more true in the age of ubiquitous digital cameras and "pirated" downloads than it was in the film era.</p>

<p>--jim</p>

 

[gary_watson]

<p>With respect, I think your photographic aspirations got the best of you. You over-fulfilled and just maybe misread these "favors" as a promo opportunity. A few, <strong>very</strong> few, shots to cdr that could be printed at Costco or wherever would have been sufficient. Plastering a watermark all over gift shots sends a very mixed message. The line between fun and commerce seemingly got very indistinct on both occasions, Ty.</p>

[Jim_Dockery_Photos]

<p>Thanks for the thread - good lessons for us all. I fully understand your reasoning (including the watermarks), but agree with everyone that they can be easily misunderstood by "the general public" as happened to you. I agree that a free CD of unwatermarked images and letting your neighbors do the work posting would have avoided any further trouble for you, which is the lesson I took away (along with the idea that shooting on spec. hoping for prints isn't worth doing). You are nice neighbor and much more giving of your time than I am. I've been asked to do some of this type of shooting and have gotten out of it by insisting (with some truth) that I'm not very good at it because "I'm just a landscape photographer".</p>

[eugene_nesterovsky]

<p>I have to be honest, I havn't read any of the feedbacks (there's just too many)</p>

<p>I don't get you, you go and shoot a birthday party even though you weren't asked to, and then you plaster you watermarked logo on the photos. to what end? to sell? you said yourself it was going to be part of the gift for them.</p>

[felipe]

<p>My 2 cents:<br>

Posting the kids' b-day photos online with copyright language was way overkill. If the images were a gift as you say, their owner is the neighbor and it's up her to decide if making them available online is a concern or not. You sound too worried about the use (or misuse) of your images to do this kind of favor to anyone. What you did is the equivalent of giving someone a photo album of a party they've been to with a legal note about copyright. Think about it. It's crazy.<br>

As for the hockey game, either you pose as a professional photographer charging for your services or as a friendly neighbor doing someone a favor. If you did it expecting to be paid for the prints, you should have stood your ground when they asked for the images b/c they were not for "fancy prints." You could have said: "Sorry, but we agreed that you would pay for prints and I spent several hours selecting the pictures and editing them." Instead you gave your neighbor the images anyway, so don't complain about it. Business is business. That's why you don't mix it with friends, family or neighbors! (You can also tell by your story how little value verbal agreements have. You remember agreeing to be paid for the prints but they don't seem to.)</p>

[jimmckinnon]

<p><strong>Moderators</strong>, I think it is time for this thread to be closed. If you look at the last few comments, it is obvious people are replying without reading through, and therefore not knowing the whole story. It's just getting stupid.</p>

[ty_robbins]

<p>Jim, I totally agree. For all of you who provided constructive, supportive advice and suggestions - thank you very much. Everyone else, much luck to you and thanks for taking your time!</p>

[starvy]

<p>i think you should keep oj doing what you have been doing but ask all contacts to be only through your first contact, neighbours. these neighbours must be briefed what you are prepared to do and what not.</p>

[marta_cajiao]

<p>TY,<br>

What you are is a glutton for punishment--you and your wife have obviously never heard the term ONCE BURNED TWICE SHY. Jeez,dude what a painful and time consuming lesson to have learned.<br>

A nickel's worth of free advice?<br>

1) Stand by and protect your right to use your logo.<br>

2) Get people to sign press releases even if you are just taking photos for private use.<br>

3) Get paid--being nice enough to do favors is nice but,money talks--people oddly enough in this day and age don't respect free and they certainly don't appreciate it.<br>

4) Do free work for friends and family--if they don't fall into this category then don't do it--there's a saying that fences make for good neighbors...perhaps you have failed to set a boundary line and see that there should be one that you should set up...next time someone asks you to do them a favor of photographing whatever event they plan--set the boundaries and tell them how you operate,if they really want your service they will pay for it and if they don't then they won't...sounds simple,doesn't it. You can be and probably are a nice guy and good neighbor--keep it that way by allowing your boundaries to speak for you.</p>

[david_hoya]

<p>Hi Ty<br /> Why are you being so defensive? In your first post you asked for feedback and opinions, and asked whether you were missing something. A large number of posters here have offered the opinion that you were in fact missing something. You now seem to be complaining that these opinions are not constructive or supportive... And Jim suggests that this is "just getting stupid". Huh? What did you want? Seems like maybe what you really wanted was vindication, and to hear only from those who thought you got a raw deal. I hope not.<br /> I have read all the posts from start to finish, including all of your own posts. I really do have some sympathy for you, but I agree with those who feel you gave mixed messages. The general public are not pro photographers. They see copyright notices and logos, and think "commercial" and "advertising". If you are really doing something for free as a good deed for a neighbor, forget about putting your name out there, forget about the copyright logo, forget about model releases, and politely decline to put the photos on the web. Take as many photos as you wish, burn them a CD and forget about it. No strings attached - no misunderstandings. In the later unlikely event that someone pirates your photos for commercial purposes, you can still pursue it (if you think it is worth pursuing) in the absence of any copyright logo.<br /> The other thing to remember about Joe Public (including doctors, lawyers, and pro photographers) is that they like free stuff and will try to get as much of it as they can (often without any awareness of being a bit cheeky). You do a good deed, and people will often ask for more. Often they do not know what extra work is entailed, or just don't think very hard about it. You need to know this before you offer free services, and decide what approach to take. At the end of the day, how much you do is up to you - it is not impossible to politely decline to go further than you wish.<br /> Good luck with everything, and don't get too stressed that not everyone here sees your situation in exactly the same way you do!</p>

[kira_greene]

<p>Hey Ty,</p>

<p>I think you did everything right. Maybe a bit of explanation/better communication - but people who don't want to listen (but I don't want your copyright on "my" image) won't. (Heck, my own family 'borrowed' my images, and emailed them out in their photo albums without even putting my name under them. When I asked them to, it started a HUGE family issue. I still get made fun of over it, and this happened over a year ago. I don't share my images anymore - at least where they can be copied.)</p>

<p>I think everything you did was fine, and a lot of people here have posted some really well thought out and well articulated responses showing that you are in the right, and how to prevent this from happening again.</p>

 

[emiliogtz]

<p>Well, anyhting that can be said about it has already been said. Still, I think it's better not to do such favors anymore. In my experience, and it seems yours too, they always lead to disappointment, at best.</p>