Ethics? Stolen photo?

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>It's only ever going to be N's photo. If the Pro is a real Pro she shouldn't even give it a second thought - but it might be worth her adding a line to any web site she has which says 'Set design by Pro' - it's clearly that good that she may be able to make some folding notes helping out amateur photographers with some set design.</p>

[rafael_s]

<p>If I go to a museum and take a really good picture of an Ansel Adams, does it make it my own original? I don't think so. <br /><br />Let me share an incident that happened some years ago. A photographer I knew sold his business (with all equipment and photos in the store) as he was getting near 90 and too old to keep up anymore. The lady who bought it changed the name of the business and continued to display the original owners work in the windows for years. When customers came in, she even went as far to use the old man's older albums (which were left behind), to present what they could expect from her studio. To make a long story short, the studio only lasted 2 yrs. If you show a client something they can expect and don’t have the experience or knowledge to actually deliver, it’ll come back to you eventually. The man who owned it before had around 60 yrs of work. She had maybe 3. People will know in a matter of time weather she really set that shot up or not, or was just lucky.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>Many compnaies, when sold, include in the sale their name, intellectual property and "past performance"... essentialy their reputation. It is not unusual. But it is really only valid if the new owner can maintain the standards of the past work.</p>

[www.philwinterphotography.]

<p>Just 2 weeks ago, I assisted a pro in the same type of shoot. This pro gives parents plenty of opportunity to take their own photos of his set up. A few of the customers had nicer cameras than I do. The customers pay up front, so the pro, Santa, and the organization are not "out" anything by the parents' taking their own photos of the set up. So there's no question that the parents own their photos. And I'm sure a number of the photos ended up on facebook. However, posting the photos on a commercial web site is different. I don't think it is right for "N" to post the photo without giving credit to the pro for the setup - if in fact that is what she did. To do so would give the impression that "N" does that kind of work commercially, when she apparently doesn't.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Some of this does get out of hand from time to time. Many years ago I was doing a garment catalogue shoot for a national account at a race track location. In the background and out of focus was a horse. The owner of the horse sued claiming I never got a release to use the image of the horse - he wanted $5,000. This was over 40 years ago. The suit was dismissed and the claim went no where and I didn't pay anything. But, this just shows how crazy this issue gets at times. Since then I went on to law school, practiced for 30 years and am now returning to photography as a hobby and finding it a lot more fun.</p>

[tim_ludwig2]

<p>Granted, the woman's claim that this is her photo is reprehensible in the extreme and she is basically a thief of intellectual property. However, it's a fight that no one can win.</p>

<p>Prevention is a key here and one old wedding photographer I heard talking one day many years ago, had a great solution to the posed portrait shot-nappers. He always used a multiple light set up and simply attached small slaved flashes like the Vivitar 283, to his stands and pointed <strong>BACKWARD</strong> toward the crowd. </p>

<p>Sad how such flashes firing directly into the lens creates so much flare.</p>

<p>Perhaps the Santa set up photographer might consider the same solution.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>I have no problem with what this woman did - none whatsoever. I do have a problem with a photographer whose ego is so fragile he can't stand another photographer standing next to him. Ever seen the sideline at a major sporting event?</p>

[david_rosenthal1]

<p>Phil hit the nail on the head! Our local Malls collect a basic sitting fee for every kid on Santa's lap, then immediately after the shoot, you get to look at electronic proofs on computers set-up at the same angle as the studio camera. A minimum purchase is required in advance to get onto Santa's lap, so everybody wins! </p>

<p>One more thing--sort of like using that 283 for flare......not every big umbrella has to have a strobe head that's actually turned "on". This gives the "Mommy Snappers" a side image taken from behind the fence, not the same image as what the studio is selling with both Santa & the Kid looking into the camera.</p>

<p>There's more than one way to skin a cat!</p>