| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/11/2011 05:39:40 PM · #1 |
I'm not going to name the photographer cause that's not my point.....
Saw an interesting idea from a GOOD family photg and then read the smaller print: The photg puts on a class - essentially for mums - on how to photograph their kids (you know - normal stuff... framing, how to work your camera, stop auto modes and horrible flash e.t.c.).
Charges some $ for it - not a fortune but not you $5 coffee either. All well and good... I think the idea is interesting on a number of fronts from farming future business loyalty as well as buying some cred with your target customers as wanting to help them take better pics of their babies e.t.c. It's a great idea on a number of levels...
BUT.... The fine print is to sign a non-compete so cannot start a business for 2 years within x miles of a geographic location. Now lets ignore that the non-compete is almost certainly unenforceable (have a little background in these things in the IT world where they went thru a phase of been overly broad and unenforceable).
Thoughts? Bad Idea? Good idea? Taints the original (IMO) good idea? Gets them thinking they COULD compete so part of the buzz for selling the event? I'm not sure as it's all of those things..... IMO it's bluff so why add something that could be taken the wrong way.... |
|
|
|
07/11/2011 05:51:50 PM · #2 |
| I'd think any non-compete verbiage in there applies only to those who take the class, not to anyone browsing the website. Unless you need to take the class to duplicate that service, I don't see how it's (legally) relevant. Whether it's an ethical business practice is for you to decide. |
|
|
|
07/11/2011 05:55:03 PM · #3 |
bad idea, imho, all the way around. it's hard enough to enforce non-competes drafted by attorneys...without reading the fine-print myself (or running it by my attorney), i can only imagine how enforceable this one could be.
this situation just begs to backfire: i'll teach you stuff that might make you a better photog, but don't even think about charging anyone for it. fine, i won't charge...i'll just shoot like heck and then just give it away! even if you're better than me, don't you think people would rather pay nothing for almost as good?
not to mention the ill-will generated by threatening to take something away before giving anything. if i read any fine print that said i couldn't utilize what i was paying for, i would simply pass on it.
lastly, look at his competition in the training industry. do you think bryan peterson or any of the other big names would think of doing something like this? NO! i've always believed in modeling off the leaders rather than the bottom feeders...
|
|
|
|
07/11/2011 07:36:37 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'd think any non-compete verbiage in there applies only to those who take the class, not to anyone browsing the website. Unless you need to take the class to duplicate that service, I don't see how it's (legally) relevant. Whether it's an ethical business practice is for you to decide. |
Yeah it's for the people taking ther class... I just thought it might be an interesting discussion point. I know what I think of it.... and I would not be taking the class even thought I had no intention of competing with them (as I said... not that it's likely enforceable anyways).
Originally posted by Skip:
i've always believed in modeling off the leaders rather than the bottom feeders... |
I think that's a great way of thinking about it actually.... but wondering what went into the decision to add that. Even if legal and I HIGHLY doubt that based on experience :-).... I guess it's trying to protect themselves from a mom startup but I don't see why they would have to fear from that if they provided good images (and in this case they do for the most part). Otherwise like I said, I think it's a great move for business sans the sour taste of that wording.
Message edited by author 2011-07-11 19:42:50. |
|
|
|
07/11/2011 09:19:54 PM · #5 |
| i think it's a cake-and-eat-it-too proposition, probably coming from a position of insecurity rather than security. it smacks of the same mindset that traditional software publishers had towards open-source systems - they just couldn't get their heads wrapped around the idea of making money off the value they created rather than off the software they licensed. this guy wants to make money off the perceived value he has created as well as from doing all the shooting - and he doesn't want any competition. if he was more secure about his abilities, he wouldn't look at his potential training customers as potential competition, but as revenue streams for more training (and possibly other services) down the road... |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/18/2025 09:41:04 PM EDT.
