john_h.1

<blockquote> <p>They don't sell well as prints on paper either. Either my work really s*cks or the market is already flooded with my particular style.</p> </blockquote> <p>Perhaps one or both those things are true but I disagree that it MUST be one of those. The fact that there are some sales, negates the former as the cause although spectacular imagery can make a huge difference. In any event, re-examining all facets of your marketing strategy seems in order. Limiting editions, is a part of that but I believe that limited editions serve better to enhance sales or, perhaps, prices of images that are already fairly popular and marketable or in the right marketplace. There are others here with experience and much more expertise than I and hopefully someone can help tell us more reliably. <br /><br /><br /></p>

<blockquote> <p>"All of my images are digital and printed on canvas. Because of this, selling them is difficult and I believe issuing limited edition prints may be a better option."</p> </blockquote> <p>I can't address the specific question but can as to the underlying goal. If the premise is accurate, selling digital prints printed on canvas is difficult, then isn't that the part which should be changed? While supply and demand is a well known principle, scarcity alone isn't enough. The subject, itself, must be something that consumers would have demand for or potential for more demand to begin with. If a product is considered undesirable to begin with, then that is the problem.<br /><br />We don't know what marketing evaluations, practices and successes are in your experience so it will be speculative to identify what changes could be made in those areas to sell more of these prints. But you have found a issue with the digital/canvas dichotomy itself. Would it really make a difference if optical images could be printed on canvas? It is extremely difficult for people to know if an image were first shot with film and then scanned. Images are images. While some people may prefer images be made by a certain process, most people react to the image itself and for prints, how it appears or is presented also matters. I have no statistical data to point to so I will go out on a limb with anecdotal impressions. In my experience, people identify canvas with paintings and shun photographic images on canvas for more traditional photographic formats. If what you are experiencing is consistent because that is the actual trend, than isn't the canvas the problem? If so, limited editions, especially if not a well known artist, may just be 'putting lipstick on a pig'.<br /><br />(Edit: I did not see Wouter's response until after I posted this one. I think we are figuratively on the same page.)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></p>

<blockquote> <p>"I've been looking at his posts and they are all almost bot-like repetitions of the same, one-sentence, useless platitudes. He really isn't helping the process or the photographers and I assume is only trying to get his review count high (much like having thousands of "friends" on facebook). Is there any moderator that can do something about it?"</p> </blockquote> <p> Why is this even a concern? What detriment and ruin occurs if such a one sentence comment appears in critique?</p>

<blockquote> <p>What would be your suggestions for an 8 year old</p> </blockquote> <p>Buy used.</p>

<blockquote> <p> "Yes, as a matter of fact I'm an excellent photographer who owns her own freelance business. What did you have in mind?"</p> </blockquote> <p>If people aren't asking about shooting anything they might just be making small talk. I would wait for the 'what did you have in mind' question until shooting something for them becomes a topic of discussion.</p>

<blockquote> <p>'I don't see anything here where she said she doesn't expect to pay.'</p> </blockquote> <p>I noticed that but it will not be surprising if it turns out the way. Especially considering the language of being "good at photography" as opposed to a more professional oriented reference such as being a photographer or asking about a studio or something. Nevertheless, the intent here is speculative. I would react normally as though it were a business request and borrow from the buzzword that Matt raised. Namely, to refer to the work literally as "work". Such as asking what sort of work the person has in mind. Don't overdo it but reference the activity that way. Should the expectation turn out be for no pay, the "misunderstanding" will be largely pre-explained on your side. Unfortunately, since your story is that you are merely "ready to pursue my career", some people might not see you in as much as a professional light as they might if you have established some sort of business that you can refer to. When asked about being "good at photography", you will be able to say have a studio or you run a photography business and other obvious 'I'm in business' type references. It won't screen off everyone looking for freebies, but it can set boundaries in the mind of many.<br /><br /></p> <blockquote> <p>'I'm at a point where I will only shoot for free if I feel it will extremely help my portfolio'</p> </blockquote> <p>When it comes to others approaching you with expectations of working for free this makes a lot of sense but, I wouldn't discount a free promotional instance YOU INITIATE and offer to others that do or are likely to hire a photographer(s) and/or refer to you to others that do. You can get your foot in the door and establish yourself as a valued business person that can help them. </p>

<p>The privacy element the others are discussing are at the cautious end of the spectrum of an emerging concept. Property, itself, is not capable of losing privacy. People are. But some say what someone's home has going on inside is a private affair of theirs and started saying a property release is needed. This has created a snowball effect of sorts as more and more people have SAID one is needed and obtained them, it is becoming a sort of self fulfilling prophecy that they are because of the more widespread use. Its a murky area with many questions such as, if the residence is sold, do those new owners get a say as well? Whether sample use exception applies, such as exists in some jurisdictions concerning photos of people, is unsettled in some jurisdictions as well. It isn't a surprise now if a particular state court says it is needed in some circumstances. Not worth finding out unless the images are critical for your business. Presumably you have others to use now.<br /><br /> They are right to say the bigger picture is not legal but whether it is good for business to have to a ongoing dispute about it. Again, if it is not of critical importance, it is not really worthwhile.<br /><br /> Bottom line, the others make prudent observations. Unless critical to your business, use other samples instead.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"Might this be in the jurisdiction of a small claims court?"</p> </blockquote> <p>No. Infringement claims (assuming you are in the U.S.) are required to be filed in federal court. If you had a contract with someone for usage, they exceeded the usage allowed and had an enforceable liquidated damages clause for excess usage (assuming you can even get a client sign a contract with such terms) then you could make a breach of contract claim in state courts. Since there is no contract here, the claim is one of infringement only.</p>

<p>Rescuing the hapless photographer or automatic license for big business to trample pristine land or both?<br /><br />http://petapixel.com/2015/01/07/ansel-adams-act-goes-congress-aims-restore-first-amendment-rights-photographers/</p>

<p>Is it merely a tool or instrument or the harbinger of cheesiness in society?<br /><br />http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6956694/photoshop-has-gone-too-far</p>

<blockquote> <p>"I'm not impressed. The examples they are giving are nog about gray import but about fraud."</p> </blockquote> <p>Some, not all of it is. are these sort of misrepresentations never a potential problem in gray market sales?</p> <blockquote> <p><br />"The charger for my camera batteries is suited for 100-240 V, 50/60 Hz. So if I buy a camera in the US and import it to Europe I only have to find a mains cord and I'm set to use the thing."</p> </blockquote> <p>Perhaps, but, that's not the issue most of the time for most people is it?.</p> <blockquote> <p><br />"It's probably all about market protection."</p> </blockquote> <p>All? None of this ever happens? Its all made up?</p>

<blockquote> <p>"You do not need a release for non-commercial use of pictures taken in a public place or a private place open to the public."</p> </blockquote> <p>The location is irrelevant to the issue raised by this thread but, since it is brought up, it should be clarified that public location and accessibility is not, by itself, the standard. More analysis is required and there have been a small amount of cases where people out in the open in public were afforded such privacy rights. A Georgia wardrobe malfunction case I recall as one.<br /><br />http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/elements-intrusion-claim<br /><br />Also, there is liability for images that disclose private facts under certain criteria or amount to portraying someone in a false light which is similar to defamation type claims.</p>

<p>Just as we in society see 'knee jerk reactions' and assumptions to what photographers are doing, we also see knee jerk reactions to jury decisions by those that have no knowledge of the evidence as presented and the decision making process. In many instances, one standard for the former, the opposite in the latter.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"small claims court would be limited in what they can award in damages."</p> </blockquote> <p> It is unlikely that the contract price exceeds the jurisdiction's small claims damages limit. There would be no point in even having small claims courts if it were futile to bring small cases like this because of drastic dollar limits. <br /><br />http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/small-claims-suits-how-much-30031.html<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote> <p>"As for those who see no fraud here, it's rather obvious to me that a contract was made and the photographer ceased to deliver after a number of requests and time passed beyond that of the contract. How is that not fraudulent behavior?"</p> </blockquote> <p>Because none of that demonstrates that the photographer never intended to perform.<br /><br />http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/breach-of-contract-and-simultaneous-fraud-claims.html<br /><br /> Under your standard, any time a contract goes unfulfilled, no matter the reason, it automatically becomes of fraud merely because of the passage of time. That makes no sense. Fraud often leads to criminal liability and enhanced remedies in civil claims. The risk of breaching a contract would be so high that it would deter people from even entering in to them or drive up prices to make up for the risk. The economy would collapse.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>WHAT DO I DO?? please tell me anything and everything that would work in my favor ive been told i could file fraud, small claims, legal letter, contact the police station. I would like to hear from professionals</p> </blockquote> <p>Legal professionals? I ask this rhetorically because these questions are inherently legal with little to no relation to photography. But some practical experience could be given too hopefully. <br /><br />In any event, if someone is to be accused of fraud, there should be some evidence that there is fraud. All that is written here are excuses that may be false. But there is no account that there was a purposeful effort to commit fraud or similar purposeful misconduct in conducting the transaction or contractual work. More likely is that the images were poorly done or ruined in some way. Perhaps extreme laziness. <br /><br /> A "legal letter" from an attorney could be sent in the form of a demand for contract compliance or a refund which may produce results from more sensible people. But it doesn't actually enforce anything. Its an effort to scare people in to compliance. It may also look good in court to show you exhausted efforts to have the matter resolved.<br /><br />Contacting the police will not be useful unless it can be shown there is some criminal intent. If other people are experiencing similar problems, there may be a pattern that shows intent. I know of a photographer convicted for larceny related crimes and the pattern was critical to the case. A one time situation can be explained away as a failed shoot and just a civil contract breach issue.<br /><br />If you are getting nowhere through social pressure, non-court legal pressure, making offers to compromise and so on, then you will need to go to court. Small claims is adequate for a refund. It may not be for obtaining an order of "specific performance" for delivering the unique images. A different level of court may be required depending on what jurisdiction is involved. Plus, the images may not exist in any event. They could be lost or claimed as lost and no one would know otherwise.<br /><br />I regret to report that a refund may be your only viable legal remedy.<br /><br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>There has been a lot of advice about waiting for the lawyer allegedly contacted to make contact with the photographer. This is appropriate for when there is an announcement that a lawyer has been retained. Contacting merely means having some sort of communication. Even if true, it could be chatting with one on an internet forum or some idle conversation with a friend in the Public Defenders office or something. Indeed, in a low level and posturing situation like this, such a situation would be common and it would be unlikely a lawyer would be representing such a client in any event. I'm not sure if the advice given with this in mind.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"Just to make it clear, you shouldn't have forwarded images which you felt weren't flattering"</p> </blockquote> <p>How would you know if that happened or even if the images were objectively unflattering? Wouldn't you want, at least, to see the images in question before making such assumptions?</p>

<p>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/nyregion/like-a-spy-he-photographs-marriage-proposals-in-new-york-city.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1409232722000&bicmet=141977352200&_r=0<br /><br />Be sure the answer is going to be yes.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"as your photographer it is my duty to fix the baldly photographer or edited images you don't like"</p> </blockquote> <p>I have no idea what you mean by "baldly photographer" but, speaking 'baldly', telling the client that it is your duty to fix images they "don't like" creates expectations contradicting the claim, here, that you 'have done the job you were paid to do'. The latter being accurate, the former, now entrenched in the mind of the client. I suggest, in the future, to avoid making universal commitments to please clients when you have no idea what whimsical requirements may be needed to satisfy them.<br /><br />In the meantime, consider brushing up on your liquify skills (pun not originally intended) for the limited amount of images or prepare to offer the solution proposed by Lex with an explanation ready to give that your assurances were premised on issues for which you were at fault. Be prepared to be told that alternative choices of how to shoot the image could have made to her appear more flattering. Be prepared for that to be an accurate claim. Making it potentially an accurate issue of your fault to some degree.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I too find it not really an uplifting idea to have so many spy-satellites around.</p> </blockquote> <p>It seems the motivation for the hostility has been revealed.</p>

<blockquote> <p>It is a business.</p> </blockquote> <p>The horror.</p>