| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/03/2006 02:34:17 PM · #1 |
hypocrite - n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold
My boss is a hypocrite. I sorta knew this, but today he did something that has been on my mind all day and it's really bugging me. I work in a custom framing shop. My boss is the owner and shop manager. He's also a photographer. He has won many awards for his photography and he sells lots of his prints through the framing shop and other outlets across the state of North Carolina. He has been published in several magazines, including covers. He was the 2004 Photographer of the Year in my local camera club. His work is impressive. As a photographer who sells his work, I'm sure he's protective of his material. He obviously doesn't want people making unauthorized copies of his work. After all, who would? We try to protect our interests in our work.
There are quite a few professional photographers in our town. Two of them, a man/wife couple, seem to stand out above the rest in my opinion. Their work inspires me. They are also very complimentary of my own work when they see it. I have become friends with them over the last few years. Their work is also quite expensive compared to most in my area. They are good enough that people are willing to pay their prices, which says a lot about the quality of work they do.
Today, an older lady came in the framing shop with several portraits of herself that were done by these two photographers. The mats had been torn open so the photos could be removed and copied. She wanted us to reassemble the mats and frame those photos, along with the copies she had made. The copies were rather poor quality and they were printed on a sub standard inkjet printer. I don't know who made the copies for her, but it was obviously someone who didn't care much about the photos or the copyright of the photographers who made them. I wanted to refuse to do the work. My boss was standing behind me talking to this lady, who is a friend of his. He knew what was going on and he didn't say anything to me or her about this illegal work or any breach of morality. He just asked me if I could have the work done by 3pm. I shook my head, took the work to the workroom, and didn't say a word to him.
We, at the frame shop, did not really do anything wrong, but we perpetuated wrongdoing by not saying something and by not refusing to do the work. I wonder how my boss would react if someone brought in some cheap and poorly done copies of his own photos to be framed? Do you think he would frame them for the customer? I sorta doubt it. I'm sure he would start an inquiry into where the illegal reproductions were made, with his lawyer behind him. I wonder if he would frame a poorly done reproduction of one of my own photos that a customer would bring in? If I wasn't around, I believe he would. It's money in his pocket and he wouldn't be doing anything wrong himself by doing it. I guess I should have expected as much by seeing his cases full of CD ROM copies of the software he uses on his computer. If he would use illegal copies of Adobe Photoshop to process his digital images for sale, what would stop him from doing anything else that puts money in his pocket when there is little or no risk of being caught?
I will have this on my mind for the next few days I'm sure. Nothing good for me could have come out of saying anything, other than knowing I did the right thing. I could have done the right thing and spoken my mind right there on the spot. I could have packed up my stuff a few minutes later and gone home without a job. Now, I'm just as guilty as he is for not saying or doing anything about it. I guess it's a catch 22.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2006 02:38:43 PM · #2 |
You COULD contact the original photographer, with whom you are apparently friends, and ask them if they will respect your anonymity if you tell them somethign disturbing. Then dump it in their lap and let them deal with it. As you point out, the real crime is in the reproduction, not the framing.
I don't see any easy way out of the "respect" issue though, unless/until you are willing to leave that job.
Robt. |
|
|
|
01/03/2006 02:39:54 PM · #3 |
You could always write an anomymous letter to the photogs giving details and let them take it up with the photo owner...
EDIT: Damn bear was too fast for me...
Message edited by author 2006-01-03 14:41:04. |
|
|
|
01/03/2006 02:40:02 PM · #4 |
| Well put Robert. That's pretty much what I was going to suggest. Tough situation you're in there. Let us know what comes of it! |
|
|
|
01/03/2006 02:54:03 PM · #5 |
Hey John,
I have a friend who is a portrait/wedding photographer. He went digital only about 5 years ago. He charges a fee for the shoot (price varies on type of shoot), which includes a set of 5x7 prints on all shots taken and they get the disc with them of the shoot. He shoots around 200 per setting and 400 per wedding (pre-wedding, wedding and reception). If they want him to get other sizes and prints, he orders them, but he does less dark room, PS only on shots they want, and less time for the money. He makes more money now that before because he doesn't deal with film development, printing, or dealing with a printer company, and setting up albums. He doesn't care about them getting prints made, he makes his money on the shoot. So, maybe they are doing the same thing. Just some thoughts. Van |
|
|
|
01/03/2006 02:56:50 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
Hey John,
I have a friend who is a portrait/wedding photographer. He went digital only about 5 years ago. He charges a fee for the shoot (price varies on type of shoot), which includes a set of 5x7 prints on all shots taken and they get the disc with them of the shoot. He shoots around 200 per setting and 400 per wedding (pre-wedding, wedding and reception). If they want him to get other sizes and prints, he orders them, but he does less dark room, PS only on shots they want, and less time for the money. He makes more money now that before because he doesn't deal with film development, printing, or dealing with a printer company, and setting up albums. He doesn't care about them getting prints made, he makes his money on the shoot. So, maybe they are doing the same thing. Just some thoughts. Van |
Except in THIS case the offending images were made by destroying the matting of the original so it could be copied and reproduced. If they had electronic files it would be less of a clear-cut issue.
R. |
|
|
|
01/03/2006 03:01:13 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
[quote=vtruan]
Except in THIS case the offending images were made by destroying the matting of the original so it could be copied and reproduced. If they had electronic files it would be less of a clear-cut issue.
R. |
True, which is sad that the lady could just get copies made. |
|
|
|
01/03/2006 03:13:56 PM · #8 |
| Well, not that I condone it, but, if the photos were of her, she obviously owns an original, right, in which case she can do whatever she wants of it, including making copies of it, right? As long as she's not selling them? |
|
|
|
01/03/2006 03:14:51 PM · #9 |
We are all hypocrites. End of story. A quote I have taken to heart by CS Lewis:
"This year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practise ourselves the kind of behaviour we expect from other people."
That being said. I know from past posts that this is a real concern you have. My advice is to take the same thought you put into your post and talk to your boss. It's unfair to him for you to harbor these feelings without communicating them. I know you enough (at least I think) to know you have best intentions at heart. People can usually sense that and understand that you aren't attacking them. |
|
|
|
01/03/2006 03:20:44 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by movieman:
Well, not that I condone it, but, if the photos were of her, she obviously owns an original, right, in which case she can do whatever she wants of it, including making copies of it, right? As long as she's not selling them? |
Wrong. The "original" is the negative, and the photographer owns the copyright unless he releases it in writing. The customer buys a copy for their own use. It's no different than buying a cimputer program then copying it to CDs and giving it to your friends. It's theft.
R. |
|
|
|
01/03/2006 03:21:36 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by movieman:
Well, not that I condone it, but, if the photos were of her, she obviously owns an original, right, in which case she can do whatever she wants of it, including making copies of it, right? As long as she's not selling them? |
Wrong.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2006 03:25:43 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by movieman:
Well, not that I condone it, but, if the photos were of her, she obviously owns an original, right, in which case she can do whatever she wants of it, including making copies of it, right? As long as she's not selling them? |
It's the copying of the intellectual property (the photos) that is illegal, not the copying of the original of her which is technically cloning and has several moral and religious implications, but that's a different rant entirely. |
|
|
|
01/03/2006 03:34:43 PM · #13 |
since you framed the images, then you must have some contact info on the person that brought them in for framing, just copy the contact info, talk to the photographer tell them what happend, give them the contact info and tell them how many copies were framed, and give them the choice to send a bill to that person for the additional photos, with a warning that the case will be handed to a lawyer for procecution for copyright violation.
that way you have handed the problem to the photographer with a way to solve it and get paid for the extra pictures, and it's up to the photographer to decide what to do, but your concience will be clean :) |
|
|
|
01/03/2006 03:53:33 PM · #14 |
Personally, I think the opportunity to "contact the photographer" was lost the second you guys framed the photos. You will look bad to both the photographer (thanks for telling me, but I see you were ok with making some money anyway) and the customer (thanks for not explaining to me this is illegal, taking my money, then turning me in).
That boat has sailed. It's time to think ahead to the next time this happens. |
|
|
|
01/03/2006 04:15:22 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Personally, I think the opportunity to "contact the photographer" was lost the second you guys framed the photos. You will look bad to both the photographer (thanks for telling me, but I see you were ok with making some money anyway) and the customer (thanks for not explaining to me this is illegal, taking my money, then turning me in).
That boat has sailed. It's time to think ahead to the next time this happens. |
That might be more true if it was John's BOSS doing the notifying; but the problem here is, John's at odds with his boss and was ordered to do something he didn't approve of. So what can JOHN do, personally, to clear his own conscience?
Robt. |
|
|
|
01/03/2006 04:19:06 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That might be more true if it was John's BOSS doing the notifying; but the problem here is, John's at odds with his boss and was ordered to do something he didn't approve of. So what can JOHN do, personally, to clear his own conscience?
Robt. |
My vote's for kicking his boss in the shins. Although that probably wouldn't bode well for continued employment....
:D
|
|
|
|
01/03/2006 04:23:18 PM · #17 |
If you start contacting people, either the original photographer(s) or the customer, eventually it's coming to come back around to your boss. You said your boss was friends with the lady that wanted the copies framed...if she gets put in a pinch about this situation there's a real good chance she'll talk to your boss about it.
I'm not saying it's wrong to make some contacts if that's what you decide to do, but if you come partially clean on this then you need to go all the way and discuss it with your boss also. Better up front with him than him getting it in a round-about manner.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2006 04:24:42 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That might be more true if it was John's BOSS doing the notifying; but the problem here is, John's at odds with his boss and was ordered to do something he didn't approve of. So what can JOHN do, personally, to clear his own conscience?
Robt. |
Well, in that case, see my original post. My vote is having a civil conversation with his boss relating the issue.
Message edited by author 2006-01-03 16:25:22. |
|
|
|
01/03/2006 04:29:11 PM · #19 |
The "original" is the negative, and the photographer owns the copyright unless he releases it in writing.
So what you are telling me is this poor old lady paid someone to take photos for themself?
(I mean, isn't that like paying McDonald's to make the burger and then they get to keep and eat the burger too?)
I mean, I might understand buying a print from a photographer. But I've never quite gotten this "let me pay you to photograph me, and you get to own the photograph"
If she paid the photographer than I would expect that such is a work for hire and therefore the old lady should have received the masters. IMHO, it is the photographer who robbed a poor old lady.
Otherwise, the photographer should have taken the photo freely and simply sold her a print.
Doing both just seems like robbery to me...and I imagine taking advantage of an elderly woman isn't to high up there in the site of God/Karma/Etc. And if there is none, then who gives a crap. Survival of the fittest. If they can charge for it...more power to them. If she can print it...more power to her.
'nuff said...
Message edited by author 2006-01-03 16:29:54. |
|
|
|
01/03/2006 04:37:23 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
The "original" is the negative, and the photographer owns the copyright unless he releases it in writing.
So what you are telling me is this poor old lady paid someone to take photos for themself?
(I mean, isn't that like paying McDonald's to make the burger and then they get to keep and eat the burger too?)
I mean, I might understand buying a print from a photographer. But I've never quite gotten this "let me pay you to photograph me, and you get to own the photograph"
If she paid the photographer than I would expect that such is a work for hire and therefore the old lady should have received the masters. IMHO, it is the photographer who robbed a poor old lady.
Otherwise, the photographer should have taken the photo freely and simply sold her a print.
Doing both just seems like robbery to me...and I imagine taking advantage of an elderly woman isn't to high up there in the site of God/Karma/Etc. And if there is none, then who gives a crap. Survival of the fittest. If they can charge for it...more power to them. If she can print it...more power to her.
'nuff said... |
Get a clue, a sitting fee is to cover your time and expenses of the shoot. Selling print copies is additional income to allow for new equipment purchases, as well as living expenses. It's hardly taking advantage, and it's not the same as breaking a major copyright law.
I'd find out where the lady had it copied, then give that info to the orginal photographer. That would be the most beneficial to them money wise. The place that copied it is very liable.
Message edited by author 2006-01-03 16:37:57.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2006 04:41:05 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
The "original" is the negative, and the photographer owns the copyright unless he releases it in writing.
So what you are telling me is this poor old lady paid someone to take photos for themself?
(I mean, isn't that like paying McDonald's to make the burger and then they get to keep and eat the burger too?)
I mean, I might understand buying a print from a photographer. But I've never quite gotten this "let me pay you to photograph me, and you get to own the photograph"
If she paid the photographer than I would expect that such is a work for hire and therefore the old lady should have received the masters. IMHO, it is the photographer who robbed a poor old lady.
Otherwise, the photographer should have taken the photo freely and simply sold her a print.
Doing both just seems like robbery to me...and I imagine taking advantage of an elderly woman isn't to high up there in the site of God/Karma/Etc. And if there is none, then who gives a crap. Survival of the fittest. If they can charge for it...more power to them. If she can print it...more power to her.
'nuff said... |
She's not paying him to take it for himself, she's paying him for his efforts - the skill to setup, take, post process, and produce the shot. It's for the talent and ability, much the same as if you comissioned a painter to paint you, etc. And as Brent said, it's also for the cost to the photog.
You may not agree with this, but the fact is, these are the rules. And this lady broke them, either my not knowing, or not caring that the copyright existed. The store owner is just as guilty for continuing an illegal course of action.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2006 04:44:19 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
The store owner is just as guilty for continuing an illegal course of action. |
Actually the framer doesn't have anything to do with it. Why should he lose business over a matter he had nothing to do with?
3 parties are involved in this: the place that copied it, the old lady, & the orginal photog. The framer is a bystander
|
|
|
|
01/03/2006 05:18:38 PM · #23 |
"Get a clue, a sitting fee is to cover your time and expenses of the shoot."
Why would I ever want to cover your time and expenses if I do not get anything out of it?
If I covered your time and expenses, please give me my photos free. If I pay for the prints and receive no masters, than, please it's obviously YOU who is working for YOU.
"She's not paying him to take it for himself, she's paying him for his efforts - the skill to setup, take, post process, and produce the shot."
10-to-1 she thinks she's paying for a photograph. Especially as an elderly. She understands there is work involved in making that photograph but she likely believes she is paying to "own" that photograph and all the rights entailed.
This is what most people think, the fact that the legalise (a.k.a. a page or more of text which seldom there is enough time for the customer to read and the photographer usually expresses that it's just a protection clause so you don't sue them, etc.). Heck, with the right judge that's enough to dismiss the contract as negotiations under misrepresentation.
Anyways, what does it matter if there was time expended in learning the skill of photography, time to take, time to post process, and time to produce the shot. If you keep the shot. The only thing that the elderly woman is getting is the print. So essentially you're adding unrelated costs to her purchase. Now, if she is paying for the time to take and process and create the shot. Then you are a work for hire and the product belongs to her. (ie: just as if I write programming code at work, it is as a work for hire, thus anything I write belongs to my boss who is paying me).
"You may not agree with this, but the fact is, these are the rules."
Not necessarily, if the elderly woman took you to court and had a proficient and well-informed lawyer. You might find yourself on the losing end of a "work-for-hire" case and in fact, said works would belong to her. (Actually, the record labels tried to do this to the music artists a while back and claim ownership of all the music rights. The reason they lost is the fact that they bill back the costs of the recording studio time to the artists. Thus the courts deemed they were not in fact works-for-hire.) There is a lot more gray areas in this than many of you may realize. I'd be very careful pursuing legal action without considering the repercussions.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2006 05:22:40 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Heck, with the right judge that's enough to dismiss the contract as negotiations under misrepresentation. |
I can guarantee you that this old lady signed a contract with these photographers that clearly outlined what she would get and what her rights were. That's a common practice with any professional photographer that I know.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2006 05:42:35 PM · #25 |
We have got some people here discussing "reality"; these are the copyright laws, tjis is what they permit. Others are discussing some sort of "ideal" they visualize, in which these laws are other than what they are. I see no point in that.
But I've BEEN a professional photographer for a long time, and I can tell you emphatically that normal business practice is to release the USE of the images in some particular way but to retain the COPYRIGHT to the images. And if the laws were changed, so that purchasing an image allows you unrestricted right to copy/use that image, the price of images would go up.
As a parallel, it's established copyright law that even though you may purchase an otiginal work of art from a painter, say, or a sculptor, you do NOT purchase the right to reproduce that work as you see fit. Most emphatically not.
The way most professional photographers price out their work is based on the assumption of future sales of the work. This actually serves to keep it more affordable. YOU may never order a reprint, but someone else may order a dozen of them. YOU are benefitting from having the orders averaged out, as it were.
When we worked as architectural photographers, a continual thorn in our sides was that clients would GIVE our work to magazines to publish, where they shoukld have given our name to the magazine and they could negotiate with us for publication rights. We succesfully recovered monies from every magazine that used our work in this manner; every print had stamped on it, every transparency was sleeved with, a copyright notice.
What is paid for an image should be based on use. The more you use it, the more you should pay. The more lucrative the use, the more should be paid. This is the traditional thinking, as supported by all photographers' professional organizations. And the disruption of this established order is the beef professional photographers have against royalty-free stock sites.
Robt. |
|
