Blatant Theft!

[poloman]

So... I was asked to do cast pictures for the annual city Christmas Show. I had my work on display in the lobby and was answering questions and taking orders from interested moms when I see a woman taking pictures of my pictures!
I leapt the desk, broke both her arms, smashed her camera and bound her near my display to set an example for the rest!
Not really. I informed her that what she was doing was illegal and in fact theft and did she really want to teach her child that was the way to go.
I still can't believe she was doing that.

[tomhide]

I'd be flattered if someone was taking a picture of my photos :lol:
And sorry for my ignorance but is it illegal to take pictures of other peoples pictures?

[mknawabi]

I hope I'm not the only one who thinks you're being a little touchy. I would have taken photos too, especially of things that look cool. Well, unless you had a big sign at the front that said "please do not take photos"

[JohnnyG]

Pretty normal behavior, really. It's unfortunate but people seem to think that copying photos in any form is perfectly okay!

I had taken a certain wedding photo and had printed it and given it to the grandparents of the groom. Later, while visiting a friend of the family, I saw the same picture copied at an office supply firm on plain paper! It was really hideous but I guess they thought they saved some money! Go figure!:rolleyes:

[HSK]

Maybe she wanted to show them to some one and send some business your way?

[DDCSD]

Its actually not illegal to take pictures of someone's pictures. Heck, you can even sell them as art and make millions of dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/arts/design/06prin.html

[DDCSD]

As HSK said, maybe she wanted to show her husband how great your work was so she could talk him into ordering.

[kaitanium]

I hope I'm not the only one who thinks you're being a little touchy.

i like how you put it. i agree with what has been said here in response
that was quite a harsh response polomon! attacking her child and all! thats like almost lowballin'.

[poloman]

I am surprised at your responses.
I have had quite a number of experiences with individuals doing anything to avoid spending a few dollars with me. They have ordered wallets and copied them at larger sizes, they have screenprinted watermarked shots from my website and printed them with the watermark avoided as much as possible. One woman called me and complained that she couldn't get anyone in town to copy one of my prints so could she order some more. Yeah, I'm touchy! In the case of the cast pictures, I had brought in lights and set up for a two hour shoot. The following day, I edited and printed 14 8 x 10's and mounted them on foam board and set up easels to display them. All this was done on a speculative basis.
The woman taking pictures was doing so (yes...I presume) so that she could get a good picture of her kid in the play at no cost. I don't think that is OK.
I didn't attack her child. So maybe you think it is ok to take a child on a trip to the store to do a little shoplifting? IMO, this is simple theft.

[mknawabi]

Well, if her kid was in the play, yeesh! You wouldnt have had any photos to sell if it werent for those kids.

Rather than being snotty about it, I think you could have asked her nicely if she wanted to purchase one. You arent losing business you never had, but you definitely had the opportunity to try and sell.

By the way, there are two sides of the spectrum on this issue. I think we're on polar opposite sides, and I can "understand" your viewpoint--however, I just dont agree.

[AndreaBFS]

Wow. I'm not very vindictive at all, but if someone attacked me like that and brought my child into it, just for taking photos of a display... well, I would probably think long and hard about pulling my child from an organization that would keep someone like that on the payroll.

[poloman]

Perhaps I put it too strongly here. I was quiet and polite with her. After reading what I posted earlier, it could be taken that I was loud and abrasive. I did, in fact, offer her an order form which she refused. It was then that I asked if she was taking pictures of my pictures.
You are right that without her kid there would be no pictures.
The other side is that I have spent $11,000 on gear and countless hours in study and practice to be able to produce the product I do. I can't appreciate anyone walking away with it. Even a crappy point and shoot copy...especially a point and shoot copy.
So I am afraid that if I let this go, she tells her friends how clever she is and then they are all out there doing it.

[poloman]

It was a speculative shoot Andrea. I am not on the payroll.
So...those of you who think I am being unreasonable. Please give me your website addresses and the passwords attached so that I may go there and take your images. I will sell them. I know you won't mind. :)

[basroil]

Simple way to fix this:
Get a pane of glass and cover your picture, make sure it's displayed in a dark room.

Therefore if they take photos, they either get a blurry as hell image, a giant white spot covering most of the image, or, if they are smarter, an image with perspective distortions (can be fixed luckily for them, but not many people are smart enough to do that)

[mknawabi]

Simple way to fix this:
Get a pane of glass and cover your picture, make sure it's displayed in a dark room.

Therefore if they take photos, they either get a blurry as hell image, a giant white spot covering most of the image, or, if they are smarter, an image with perspective distortions (can be fixed luckily for them, but not many people are smart enough to do that)

Ingenuity kicks ass, as exemplified by this poster. Heh ;)

[AndreaBFS]

It was a speculative shoot Andrea. I am not on the payroll.
So...those of you who think I am being unreasonable. Please give me your website addresses and the passwords attached so that I may go there and take your images. I will sell them. I know you won't mind. :)

You're "on the payroll" if their organization allows you to sell your product there. The fact remains, I would have to voice my opinion. I think you were incredibly unprofessional in attacking someone when you have no idea of her intentions nor was she doing anything "illegal." You're also out of line with your comment above. Frankly, I have NO idea how my images or you selling them has anything to do with your unprofessional interaction with this person. :::shrug::::

[400dabuser]

I was recently stopped from taking a picture of SOMEONE, who was quite near a photo gallery. I weren't taking photos of the photos, plus they were out of focus, due the field of depth not being great. The reason why I was taking photos of a person, is because I went to a photography course, albeit, not a very good one imo

We had to obviously had to stop, because it was security

[neilwood32]

I think the OP is correct to protect his work. However if you carefully read his posts he has said that he did not attack the lady in question, he merely pointed out that it was his work and asked if she would buy them.

While it may not be "illegal" to photograph someones photographs, it is morally wrong and in bad taste to do so in front of the photographer. You wouldn't expect to see someone trying to take a photo of a Van Gogh and then print and frame it to pass off as their own work.

I would go with the suggestion to try to prevent the abuse of your photos by various means (highly reflective glass as suggested being a good one as well as watermarking)

[poloman]

Andrea...I know I cannot convince you at this point that I am not a beast. shrug.
basroil...Thank you so much for the suggestion, that sounds great!
neilwood32... I appreciate your reading my posts instead of skimming them and leaping to conclusions. Thank You.
My first post was a bit strong. I have worked hard though to produce something very nice. I did receive some very nice orders though. :)

[Dermit]

poloman,

I'm with ya on this one. It's quite obvious that her likely intention was to get something for nothing at your expense. And I believe if you dealt with her in a professional manor you had every right doing exactly what you did and I can't believe anyone, especially fellow photographers, would have any problems with you doing so.

Let's face it, a lot of you people against what poloman did here tend to believe it's not big deal, what's the problem, one lady taking a crappy point-n-squirt shot of a print. But if we always don't care and always let people take what they want in any way they dream of when we, the creators of the images, spend a ton of time and money in creating these thing then the future of making any money off this profession is dim.

The overall value of photography and the images produced has dramatically decreased over the years and this type of action by this lady, but more importantly the action, or inaction as it were, of photographer allowing such thefts to occur is a major part of the problem. Many here do not make a living off of photography so you could care less that you are helping devalue the service and products produced. But please be aware that there are some people actually trying to make a living off of this and try to be a little more sensitive to such issues as blatant theft, which is exactly what this is.

It's not acceptable to buy a book from the book store, take it to your local copy store and have it copied, then return the book to the store for a full refund. This is stealing. It's also not right to walk in to the book store and take pictures of every page of a book and leave with just your pictures, not buying the book. So what's so difficult to understand that it is not right to take pictures of pictures just so you don't have to buy them?

It's flat out wrong. Period.

[nphsbuckeye]

How did Warhol get famous?

[poloman]

Thanks Dermit.

[tzalman]

poloman,

I'm with ya on this one. It's quite obvious that her likely intention was to get something for nothing at your expense. And I believe if you dealt with her in a professional manor you had every right doing exactly what you did and I can't believe anyone, especially fellow photographers, would have any problems with you doing so.

Let's face it, a lot of you people against what poloman did here tend to believe it's not big deal, what's the problem, one lady taking a crappy point-n-squirt shot of a print. But if we always don't care and always let people take what they want in any way they dream of when we, the creators of the images, spend a ton of time and money in creating these thing then the future of making any money off this profession is dim.

The overall value of photography and the images produced has dramatically decreased over the years and this type of action by this lady, but more importantly the action, or inaction as it were, of photographer allowing such thefts to occur is a major part of the problem. Many here do not make a living off of photography so you could care less that you are helping devalue the service and products produced. But please be aware that there are some people actually trying to make a living off of this and try to be a little more sensitive to such issues as blatant theft, which is exactly what this is.

It's not acceptable to buy a book from the book store, take it to your local copy store and have it copied, then return the book to the store for a full refund. This is stealing. It's also not right to walk in to the book store and take pictures of every page of a book and leave with just your pictures, not buying the book. So what's so difficult to understand that it is not right to take pictures of pictures just so you don't have to buy them?

It's flat out wrong. Period.
+1. It is piracy. Copying DVDs in China is wrong and copying a copyrighted photo in Illinois is o.k.?

[stathunter]

I totally understand why he would get upset -- but in all honesty I would take better precautions to keep people from doing this--instead of getting upset when someone takes a picture of it. In todays world everyone has a camera-- on their phone or in their pocket. As business owners we need to figure out how to work with this and not fight this.

[hawkeye60]

I understand how you feel. Had this woman brought her laptop and a scanner and taken a picture down and scanned it, I think everyone here would have said, "what nerve". Using her camera amounts to the same thing, IMHO.
I think the best advice given here would be to put up a PHOTOGRAPHY PROHIBITED sign. Lessons for the future perhaps.

[hawkeye60]

I just recalled this...I went to the mall the other day and was watching the kids with Santa Claus. They had a softbox, camera (Canon), laptop and printer setup and were selling photos.
I'd say at least 2 out of 3 parents stood there with their cell phone cameras and took a crappy cell phone picture instead of buying a nice one.
Another instance where a no photo sign might have been helpful.

[neilwood32]

I think that Poloman has realised that he needs to take more precautions with his work as per the suggestions.

I think that we, as photographers should fight it (by watermarking etc to strongly discourage the copyright thief) as well as working with it (by way of suggesting prints, CD etc). If people are allowed to get away with it our work will have absolutely no worth monetary or artistic.

[kaitanium]

Simple way to fix this:
Get a pane of glass and cover your picture, make sure it's displayed in a dark room.

Therefore if they take photos, they either get a blurry as hell image, a giant white spot covering most of the image, or, if they are smarter, an image with perspective distortions (can be fixed luckily for them, but not many people are smart enough to do that)

lol that is indeed genius!

I think that Poloman has realised that he needs to take more precautions with his work as per the suggestions.

I think that we, as photographers should fight it (by watermarking etc to strongly discourage the copyright thief) as well as working with it (by way of suggesting prints, CD etc). If people are allowed to get away with it our work will have absolutely no worth monetary or artistic.

i think poloman was just unclear in his first post thats all. i read it thinking that the shots were displayed and people were just taking general shots of it...not closeups with the obvious intent of replication.

[BlindGuyTakingPictures]

So, anything visible in the public eye may actually be forbidden to have it photographed?

[dlpasco]

I don't know how taking a photo of a photo is legal. I thought that copyright laws apply to all copies.

The owner of copyright in a work has the exclusive right
to make copies, to prepare derivative works, to sell or distribute copies, and
to display the work publicly. Anyone else wishing to use the work in these ways
must have the permission of the author or someone who has derived rights
through the author.


//http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

[neilwood32]

I just recalled this...I went to the mall the other day and was watching the kids with Santa Claus. They had a softbox, camera (Canon), laptop and printer setup and were selling photos.
I'd say at least 2 out of 3 parents stood there with their cell phone cameras and took a crappy cell phone picture instead of buying a nice one.
Another instance where a no photo sign might have been helpful.

Even better idea would be to make it impossible to photograph the scene by enclosing it (either that or use slave flashes which will be triggered when mum and dad use their flash thereby overexposeing the image.)

[Michael_Lambert]

This is exactly what our Malls do, They have Santa in this little house thing and the only line of sight is the one setup camera has.


Even better idea would be to make it impossible to photograph the scene by enclosing it (either that or use slave flashes which will be triggered when mum and dad use their flash thereby overexposeing the image.)

[weezerfan84]

I would think the only way it was illegal was if you were running a business and your work was copyrighted. Then you could sue for illegal use of your company name or logo. Otherwise, it's ok if she takes pictures of your work, and I highly doubt she'll pass it on as her own. Taking pictures of non-copyrighted property is no different then digging through someone's garbage, it is considered public property.

[Dermit]

While I agree that we should take precautions I also strongly suggest that we attempt to educate the public about what is acceptable and what is not and why it is not acceptable to just 'take' a photographers work by what ever means. There are a LOT of people out there that actually see absolutely nothing wrong with 'obtaining' a photographers work with absolutely no compensation to the photographer at all. I honestly don't know that it's wrong. I didn't believe that that could be true until I observed and talked with a few people about this.

By letting someone blatantly steal your image by whatever means right in front of you and saying nothing gives them 'permission' to do it at will wherever they go. But by politely informing them of why you don't allow something like this it educates them if they truely didn't know it was wrong and discourages them from doing it anymore (although some people still could care less and will still do it anyway).

I have so far always had the utmost respect for AndreaBFS here in the forums. And I can understand why she went on the attack of poloman from the initial post as it was made out like he went off on this lady in front of her kid and everyone around. However, poloman recanted and let us know he was indeed polite about it... and then he was still attacked. This I do not understand. I also do not understand how Andrea can not make the connection between some one taking pictures of your work for their own benefit by not having to pay for them and downloading someone elses images from their web site for their own gain. They are both stealing. You can't say that one form is OK and the other is not. So poloman's point was that if you are OK with someone stealing your work through photographing it then you must be ok with anyone downloading your images for their own gain as well.

I will assume, for now, that Andrea missed the part when poloman explained that he was indeed polite about the interaction with the lady, and the she also did not detect the sarcasm in his post about gaining acess to everyones web images and selling the for himself.

[Dermit]

So, anything visible in the public eye may actually be forbidden to have it photographed?

No, not anything... but some things are.

[neilwood32]

I would think the only way it was illegal was if you were running a business and your work was copyrighted. Then you could sue for illegal use of your company name or logo. Otherwise, it's ok if she takes pictures of your work, and I highly doubt she'll pass it on as her own. Taking pictures of non-copyrighted property is no different then digging through someone's garbage, it is considered public property.

Apologies if this sounds brash but your comment is misleading and untrue.

Any photograph taken is automatically copyrighted to its creator. That is irrespective of registering the image or any other such method. As such the photographer has a right to protect his copyright. It doesnt matter whether you are a company or an individual, you have the same protection under law.

Copyright and its abuse comes up as a topic at least once a week on this forum. I would suggest you look at the various topics regarding copyright, digest the information. I feel you will have a completely different take on the topic after this.

[CanadianKitKat]

I'd be pretty ticked too if I were you and probably would say something myself to the woman. Posting a few "No photography of images is permitted" type signs would probably help, and if people still ignore you then at least they cannot claim ignorance. I'd certainly equate what she did to theft, regardless of how any copyright law is interpreted.

[frzndaqiri]

I go to conventions where hand drawn art is often displayed and sold. We are constantly education crowds of people who walk up and frame up a piece of art and try to take a picture. If you enjoy it enough to want to keep it, then purchase a print. I don't care if it's never going to leave their use, and they don't intend to print it and distribute it, that's still something for nothing, and setting precedence.

If every person was allowed to just take a picture and walk away... I side with poloman.

[Steve In Kentucky]

I don't know how taking a photo of a photo is legal. I thought that copyright laws apply to all copies.



//http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html (http:////http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html)

That link did not work for me but I think thids one does.
http://www.copyright.gov/

[Mum2J&M]

Simple way to fix this:
Get a pane of glass and cover your picture, make sure it's displayed in a dark room.

Therefore if they take photos, they either get a blurry as hell image, a giant white spot covering most of the image, or, if they are smarter, an image with perspective distortions (can be fixed luckily for them, but not many people are smart enough to do that)

Right on. And perhaps a nice big "PROOF" sign over the front of it would've helped (love the glass idea). IMHO, if she's using a point and shoot to capture her kid's picture from a picture, she'd more than likely not be using a polarizing filter to avoid reflection, nor be able to Photoshop it out. Now THAT would be over the top! :lol:

[dlpasco]

That link did not work for me but I think thids one does.
http://www.copyright.gov/

Thanks Steve.

[tstowe]

Its actually not illegal to take pictures of someone's pictures. Heck, you can even sell them as art and make millions of dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/arts/design/06prin.html

I read the article and the photographer made a good point. "If I italicized ‘Moby-Dick,’ then would it be my book? I don’t know. But I don’t think so.”

[Wilt]

There used to be paper that would fluoresce if you tried to photocopy it...leaving a blackened copy the result. I wonder if you can still get that, and inkjet print photos on it!

[joedlh]

It's theft only if she was doing it to make a profit without recompensing you. How do you know that she wasn't from a local news organization and working on an article? According to U.S. Copyright Law, fair use includes journalism, museum display, and education.

I think a better approach would have been to ask her politely to what purpose she hoped to put her photos. Then you have an opportunity for education instead of confrontation.

The simple truth is that people will violate your rights as a photographer. What are you going to do? Stand guard 24/7 and catch the evil-doers? I'm not saying that you must stand by and meekly accept it. You have to choose your battles or you won't have any time for photography.

There are countermeasures such as the suggestion of highly reflective glass in a dark setting. As for web sites, if I see a copyright text slathered across an otherwise admirable photo, I generally move on. It takes away from the aesthetic. An alternative is to post low resolution images that will serve at best only for a 4x6 print.

And remember, if your stuff gets around, it's free publicity.

[mbellot]

Even better idea would be to make it impossible to photograph the scene by enclosing it (either that or use slave flashes which will be triggered when mum and dad use their flash thereby overexposeing the image.)

Boy, I hope the people who run the Santa displays by me don't listen to your tactics.

I bring all three of my girls to see Santa, along with my MkIII and flash.

I let them take their picture, ask permission to take one of my own (knowing it will be better) and happily buy a copy of theirs. I don't go nuts and buy the overpriced packages, but I feel $15 for a cookie cutter 5x7 is more than fair for the opportunity to see Santa and get a shot of my own. If I have to walk away with only what they produce I'm not so sure its worth the money.

If people don't support them Santa may stop coming, and that would be a real shame.

[Dermit]

It's theft only if she was doing it to make a profit without recompensing you.

So instead of ordering and paying for them it's perfectly fine for her to make as many copies as she wants as long as she does not sell them? Please. In my book what she did was theft. And if she was from a newspaper, etc. and there for a fair use intent she would still have had the common sense to approach the photographer to let him in on it. I highly doubt she was there for anything other than being a parent and seeing an opportunity to get a free copy of an image of her child and attempted to take that opportunity.

The simple truth is that people will violate your rights as a photographer. What are you going to do? Stand guard 24/7 and catch the evil-doers? I'm not saying that you must stand by and meekly accept it. You have to choose your battles or you won't have any time for photography.

Right. We can't be on guard 24/7 but she was doing this literally right in front of the image maker who was present for the sole purpose of SELLING the photographs. If any battles are ripe to be fought it will be the ones where someone is crass enough to try and steal something right in front of me.

There are countermeasures such as the suggestion of highly reflective glass in a dark setting. As for web sites, if I see a copyright text slathered across an otherwise admirable photo, I generally move on. It takes away from the aesthetic. An alternative is to post low resolution images that will serve at best only for a 4x6 print.

You can counter measure all you want and people will still attmept to steal in this manner. Therefore all you can do is to try and squash it whenever you can. And if it's happening right in front of you, that's the ideal time to fight that battle.

And remember, if your stuff gets around, it's free publicity.

Last time I went to the grocery store to try and buy some food I checked and they still do not accept my given photo credit in the paper as payment for food. I've had many many credits on published photos and I've never gotten work because of it. Ever. I ask my clients how they got my name and 99% of the time it's a referal. 1% of the time it's from finding me on the web from my web site. They never tell me they saw my name as a photo credit in a publication so they looked me up.

[olly_k]

It's theft only if she was doing it to make a profit without recompensing you. How do you know that she wasn't from a local news organization and working on an article? According to U.S. Copyright Law, fair use includes journalism, museum display, and education.

I think a better approach would have been to ask her politely to what purpose she hoped to put her photos. Then you have an opportunity for education instead of confrontation.

The simple truth is that people will violate your rights as a photographer. What are you going to do? Stand guard 24/7 and catch the evil-doers? I'm not saying that you must stand by and meekly accept it. You have to choose your battles or you won't have any time for photography.

There are countermeasures such as the suggestion of highly reflective glass in a dark setting. As for web sites, if I see a copyright text slathered across an otherwise admirable photo, I generally move on. It takes away from the aesthetic. An alternative is to post low resolution images that will serve at best only for a 4x6 print.

And remember, if your stuff gets around, it's free publicity.

Those comments are ridiculous, especially the last one :rolleyes:

[Dermit]

Boy, I hope the people who run the Santa displays by me don't listen to your tactics.

I bring all three of my girls to see Santa, along with my MkIII and flash.

I let them take their picture, ask permission to take one of my own (knowing it will be better) and happily buy a copy of theirs. I don't go nuts and buy the overpriced packages, but I feel $15 for a cookie cutter 5x7 is more than fair for the opportunity to see Santa and get a shot of my own. If I have to walk away with only what they produce I'm not so sure its worth the money.

If people don't support them Santa may stop coming, and that would be a real shame.

There is no way I would allow this and don't believe they allow you to do this. It's incredible how you can complain about overpriced packages and then contribute to one of the root causes of having to price things high. Practically everything we buy these days are priced way higher than they need to be. A big part of the price is built in to cover theft. If no one stole and everyone was honest we would all be paying far less for everything. I'm not saying I am perfect but I don't justify theft by saying that the item I want is priced too high so it's ok for me to steal/get it cheaper my own way. Which is exactly what you are doing here.

[RandyMN]

Can't figure out how this lady could have gotten any pictures worth anything unless the displays were three foot tall photo's lit up and displayed like a museum.

When it comes to pictures people love them but no one wants to pay for them.

Human nature never ceases to amaze me but that's life, so don't let the little things bring you to an early grave...

[gromeo]

I would think the only way it was illegal was if you were running a business and your work was copyrighted. Then you could sue for illegal use of your company name or logo. Otherwise, it's ok if she takes pictures of your work, and I highly doubt she'll pass it on as her own. Taking pictures of non-copyrighted property is no different then digging through someone's garbage, it is considered public property.

I am no copyright attorney, but from my understanding is, the second you make that image the copyright is yours, no one may use that image without consent from the maker of such image. Registering through the copyright office is just one of the steps in protecting your work, and just because you have not registered the work does not mean you are not protected as long as you can prove that you are the intellectual owner you have a case, and you do not have to be a business to be protected under the copyright. People take pictures of art work and photos all the time without paying it may not be right but it is done. The problem comes in when that person attempts to sell that work, that is when copyright infringement comes in. For this reason my frame and display glass has a watermark on it, the picture in it is not marked and if someone was to buy it I just pull it out off the frame. Not pretty but very effective.

[alt4852]

It's theft only if she was doing it to make a profit without recompensing you.

if you go into a store and stuff something in your pocket, is it only theft if you try to sell it and make a profit?

images are copyrighted the second a photographer releases the shutter.

[Wilt]

if you go into a store and stuff something in your pocket, is it only theft if you try to sell it and make a profit?

No, only 'theft' if you walk out the door without paying. Storing it in your pocket on the way to the cash register and being accused of theft before walking out the door is 'slander'! :)

[poloman]

Well.... I'm feeling better today!
Last night, I couldn't believe that no one could see my point.
The displays were well lit and the woman was as close as she could get, focusing on one part of one photo. I couldn't be there all the time so I thought it was very important to say something.
I think it is OK to politely command respect. I think if we do this in the right way, it will improve our bottom line.
On the credit thing..... Name one photographer who produced work and got credit for it in the last magazine you read. You may be able to, but probably not. Cash is the only thing that pays the bills. I have also discovered that there are magical times when people are best approached to buy. Miss them and you miss a lot of sales.
Thanks for all your comments and some great ideas.

[Wilt]

Well.... I'm feeling better today!
Last night, I couldn't believe that no one could see my point.
The displays were well lit and the woman was as close as she could get, focusing on one part of one photo. I couldn't be there all the time so I thought it was very important to say something.
I think it is OK to politely command respect. I think if we do this in the right way, it will improve our bottom line.
On the credit thing..... Name one photographer who produced work and got credit for it in the last magazine you read. You may be able to, but probably not. Cash is the only thing that pays the bills. I have also discovered that there are magical times when people are best approached to buy. Miss them and you miss a lot of sales.
Thanks for all your comments and some great ideas.

Poloman, consider this...as an individual I can photocopy copyrighted materials for my own reference, but not for sale or distribution of any type. One could argue that perhaps she was documenting the STYLE of the display, but not the content of the display (your photos), and in that context how might that be any different than my photocopying an article for later reference?!

[Dermit]

Poloman, consider this...as an individual I can photocopy copyrighted materials for my own reference, but not for sale or distribution of any type. One could argue that perhaps she was documenting the STYLE of the display, but not the content of the display (your photos), and in that context how might that be any different than my photocopying an article for later reference?!

So you are telling me that I can walk in to Border's Books and photocopy any book I want, put the book back on the shelf and walk out of the store with my copies as long as it's for my own reference and I don't re-sell it? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..... I've been spending way too mmuch on books lately.;)

[Wilt]

So you are telling me that I can walk in to Border's Books and photocopy any book I want, put the book back on the shelf and walk out of the store with my copies as long as it's for my own reference and I don't re-sell it? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..... I've been spending way too mmuch on books lately.;)


No you cannot do that...they won't let you use their photocopy machine unless you pay a page rate which makes the whole book more expensive to photocopy than to buy! ;)

I know that scientific journals allow me to photocopy an article for my reference. But I have to buy reprints for distribution to customers.

[mbellot]

There is no way I would allow this and don't believe they allow you to do this. It's incredible how you can complain about overpriced packages and then contribute to one of the root causes of having to price things high. Practically everything we buy these days are priced way higher than they need to be. A big part of the price is built in to cover theft. If no one stole and everyone was honest we would all be paying far less for everything. I'm not saying I am perfect but I don't justify theft by saying that the item I want is priced too high so it's ok for me to steal/get it cheaper my own way. Which is exactly what you are doing here.

Sorry, I don't see how buying their photo (granted, the cheapest option) makes taking one of my own theft.

Especially when the alternative is to buy nothing, because the photo is generally crap and ends up in the garbage, and just have the kids say "hi" to Santa.

I buy school photos of all three of my kids even though I can take better pictures in my basement. Am I also stealing from Lifetouch because I'm only getting the cheapest package that includes a class photo?

:rolleyes:

[FlyingPhotog]

Poloman, consider this...as an individual I can photocopy copyrighted materials for my own reference, but not for sale or distribution of any type. One could argue that perhaps she was documenting the STYLE of the display, but not the content of the display (your photos), and in that context how might that be any different than my photocopying an article for later reference?!

Methinks you are giving far too much "creative credit" to a Stage Mother with a P&S... :D

[Wilt]

Methinks you are giving far too much "creative credit" to a Stage Mother with a P&S... :D

Maybe she liked the way in which the display was set up and staged, so she wanted to show her husband or some other person so they could have a similar kind of display for a school play later in the year! (yeah, I'm reaching, but until you know the motivation, anything goes!)

[dlpasco]

No you cannot do that...they won't let you use their photocopy machine unless you pay a page rate which makes the whole book more expensive to photocopy than to buy! ;)

I know that scientific journals allow me to photocopy an article for my reference. But I have to buy reprints for distribution to customers.

I thought the copyright law (in the US) is very clear. Only rights granted by the rights holder are permissible and all other uses are prohibited. Am I wrong?

The reason you cannot photocopy a book at a bookstore is not because you don't have the equipment - a P&S camera for example - but rather because you have not yet purchased the 'rights' to copy from the rights holder. Correct?

[DrunkenGarbageCan]

I am a total noob at this copyright stuff, and right off the bat do not want to seem I am taking sides one way or the other. Poloman, believe me, I understand where you are coming from regarding the investment of time and money regarding your work.

One of the things I always seem to read on this forum is what to charge a client and who owns the rights to images, cd's, etc...

I am kind of curious what the contract said (if there was one). You mention it was a CITY function and to me that denotes public, rather than private event.

Reason I bring this up, is it seems the question is always raised by people taking pictures of their kid's sports team and the issue comes up that if it is a public park or arena, then you have the right to take a picture since it is a public setting.

If the lady had her kid(s) standing next to the picture and she took the shot, is that a copyright violation, especially in a public setting? (I am just asking, honestly, I do not know the answer and I can already visualize this lady trying to get a perfect shot of Poloman's work, but I still have to ask, at what point does it start or end?)

To make things a little more interesting, say the cast stood in front of a painted setting / backdrop that a local artist took the time to do and it was included in the cast portrait Poloman took. Did Poloman just commit a copyright violation by including the work of the local artist (is there a copyright difference between a painted work or digital one?) Is there a copyright given to the custome designers? What if they were all wearing Nike sports uniforms of a local professional team that included their logo?

Honestly, I am not trying to sound like a trouble maker or anything, but (believe me Poloman, I probably would have done the same thing and really am not picking on you or the situation, but it raises a lot of questions I have had for a while regarding the whole copyright/contract thing). I guess I am trying to figure out why copyright laws affect some people / artists / professionals / corporations differently.

Heck, I am still trying to figure out how everyone skates around copyright violations on youtube.

Please don't flame me, I am relatively new to the neighborhood. I know I am asking either some real stupid questions or something for the suits to figure out.

Again Poloman, I feel for you and meant no disrespect. Just using the situation to ask some questions.

[dlpasco]

I may owe Wilt an apology. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just want to know. Anyway - I found this link that is very interesting regarding fair use:

http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php

[Wilt]

I may owe Wilt an apology. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just want to know. Anyway - I found this link that is very interesting regarding fair use:

http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php


I don't know that you owe me anything! You raise an excellent point about copying after purchase. From the link you cited...

"Making a personal back-up copy of content you own - for instance, burning a copy of an audio CD you own" So if I copy a chapter of a book I own already, am I excercising a right which I do not have in a book borrowed at the public library?! Also, with so much information readily available on the web, how is that different than momentary possession of the hardcopy item, if I got the same information momentarily on the web?! And there is also the practical side, that publishers do put whole articles on the web, and do not mind you printing a copy for yourselft to refer to, but you can't give out copies to other parties you have to buy those or buy permission to reprint.

[poloman]

DrunkenGarbageCan...
I know I stated that it was a city function and in fact it was performed at a city theater. The theater group, however is private. I was invited to shoot the event by the chairman of the board.
Nothing special about the display. Three black foam boards on easels with order forms on a table. This lady was on the take. You should have seen her face when I started talking to her. "No I didn't open the cookie jar, really!"
The real bottom line.... If you don't protect your property and your profits, you won't be around to provide nice things for anyone.

[tonybear007]

I thought the copyright law (in the US) is very clear. Only rights granted by the rights holder are permissible and all other uses are prohibited. Am I wrong?

The reason you cannot photocopy a book at a bookstore is not because you don't have the equipment - a P&S camera for example - but rather because you have not yet purchased the 'rights' to copy from the rights holder. Correct?

Food for thought. Great point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
EOS 3 (35mm film), EOS 40D, Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, 70-200 f/4L, TAMRON SP AF17-50mm f/2.8
How to Get the Best from Your EOS 40D (http://mycanoneos40d.com)

[René Damkot]

I'd have said something as well.
I'd offered to let her order a print. Explaining that I do this kind of work to make a living...
I'd probably also have put up "No photography" signs. Easier to point there then to have to explain over and over again...

[Mum2J&M]

I'd have said something as well.
I'd offered to let her order a print. Explaining that I do this kind of work to make a living...
I'd probably also have put up "No photography" signs. Easier to point there then to have to explain over and over again...

Wow, wouldn't that be sad to have to post "No Photography"? Can't even imagine.

[tomhide]

Wow...

Before I read this thread, I honestly wouldn't have thought taking a snap shots of someone elses photos displayed in view of public was stealing... And to me calling someone a "thief" when you don't even know the intention behind their action is very harsh.

I remember when I was walking through the city with my camera when I stumbled across an amazing photo gallery. It turned out to be of Yann Arthus-Bertrand's Earth from the Air Exhibition (Like this one seen >>>here<<< (http://www.wecommunic8.com/EarthFromTheAir/Info/About-The-Earth-From-The-Air-Exhibition.aspx) ). At that time, I didn't even know who he was but I was just amazed with what I seeing.

Without much thought, I took few snap shots of his amazing work and in particular the description to his images for later viewing. Moments later I came across a shop which sold his Books and DVD's which both me and my brother bought.

Until this day I aspire to his amazing work and if I was called a thief by taking snap shots of his work prior to my purchase, I know I would have been devested and probably carry a bitter taste whenever I ran into a photo gallery. And yeah my face would have probably been similar to this particular lady if was spoken in a way to suggest I was stealing.

Now I am eager to find out if this action is indeed illegal to avoid any embarrassment and troubles.

[Dermit]

Sorry, I don't see how buying their photo (granted, the cheapest option) makes taking one of my own theft.

Especially when the alternative is to buy nothing, because the photo is generally crap and ends up in the garbage, and just have the kids say "hi" to Santa.

I buy school photos of all three of my kids even though I can take better pictures in my basement. Am I also stealing from Lifetouch because I'm only getting the cheapest package that includes a class photo?

:rolleyes:

And what is your intention of the image you took yourself? Probably to make prints you would have otherwise bought. This is theft. It is their set up, their employees, and you just happen by and use it all for free. Theft in my book. Albeit less so because at least you threw them a bone by buying the cheapest print available. If I want to use a studio i don't own I generally have to pay a rental/usage fee. You don't pay a dime for using their stuff when their main intention is to use it to sell pictures for profit.

[poloman]

I agree with Dermit. You stated that you ask permission to take a photo. They say you can. You have put them in an awkward position. It is better to let you shoot than to create a scene.
Doing a Santa shoot is quite an endeavor. You must have many systems and backup systems in place to assure that no matter what happens, you will be able to get the shot. This even involves carrying a spare body. You could even have to come up with a spare Santa! What if your printer fails? This preparation takes time.
I really like the idea someone had of using the sensors on the lights to overexpose the shot of a person taking a personal shot.
Maybe you should see if you can take over the Santa shoot business mbellot as the competition is very weak?

[FlyingPhotog]

Wow...

Before I read this thread, I honestly wouldn't have thought taking a snap shots of someone elses photos displayed in view of public was stealing... And to me calling someone a "thief" when you don't even know the intention behind their action is very harsh.

I remember when I was walking through the city with my camera when I stumbled across an amazing photo gallery. It turned out to be of Yann Arthus-Bertrand's Earth from the Air Exhibition (Like this one seen >>>here<<< (http://www.wecommunic8.com/EarthFromTheAir/Info/About-The-Earth-From-The-Air-Exhibition.aspx) ). At that time, I didn't even know who he was but I was just amazed with what I seeing.

Without much thought, I took few snap shots of his amazing work and in particular the description to his images for later viewing. Moments later I came across a shop which sold his Books and DVD's which both me and my brother bought.

Until this day I aspire to his amazing work and if I was called a thief by taking snap shots of his work prior to my purchase, I know I would have been devested and probably carry a bitter taste whenever I ran into a photo gallery. And yeah my face would have probably been similar to this particular lady if was spoken in a way to suggest I was stealing.

Now I am eager to find out if this action is indeed illegal to avoid any embarrassment and troubles.

Just about all of the Art Galleries in Scottsdale and up in Sedona, AZ have signs at the front door stating "NO PHOTOGRAPHY."

[photoguy6405]

I am surprised at your responses.
I have had quite a number of experiences with individuals doing anything to avoid spending a few dollars with me. They have ordered wallets and copied them at larger sizes, they have screenprinted watermarked shots from my website and printed them with the watermark avoided as much as possible. One woman called me and complained that she couldn't get anyone in town to copy one of my prints so could she order some more. Yeah, I'm touchy! In the case of the cast pictures, I had brought in lights and set up for a two hour shoot. The following day, I edited and printed 14 8 x 10's and mounted them on foam board and set up easels to display them. All this was done on a speculative basis.
The woman taking pictures was doing so (yes...I presume) so that she could get a good picture of her kid in the play at no cost. I don't think that is OK.
I didn't attack her child. So maybe you think it is ok to take a child on a trip to the store to do a little shoplifting? IMO, this is simple theft.

I guess I have no scruples, but while I agree there are many things worthy of getting upset over, many of which you point out here, the particular incident in the original post doesn't qualify as one to me. JMHO.

I do like the idea of covering the photos with glass to help thwart such attempts, though. Shoot, might even be fun to watch them try. :lol:

I'm not condoning the people's behavior, just feel that this is a relatively small deal. Sorry if we disagree.

[tomhide]

Just about all of the Art Galleries in Scottsdale and up in Sedona, AZ have signs at the front door stating "NO PHOTOGRAPHY."

I certainly would not have taken any photos if there was a sign as such but I didn't see any at where this exhibition was held.

[FlyingPhotog]

I certainly would not have taken any photos if there was a sign as such but I didn't see any at where this exhibition was held.

Think of it as a professional courtesy... ;)

[AndreaBFS]

Heck, we should just shrinkwrap books and magazines so that no one can even thumb through them for a crude idea of what's in them without buying! Professional courtesy would dictate that it's theft to gain something from copyrighted material we didn't intend to purchase. After all, maybe we would have bought the magazine if we couldn't see the picture on page 47 that was promoted on the cover. I bet you feel dirty for flipping to page 47!! :lol:

[FlyingPhotog]

Heck, we should just shrinkwrap books and magazines so that no one can even thumb through them for a crude idea of what's in them without buying! Professional courtesy would dictate that it's theft to gain something from copyrighted material we didn't intend to purchase. After all, maybe we would have bought the magazine if we couldn't see the picture on page 47 that was promoted on the cover. I bet you feel dirty for flipping to page 47!! :lol:

No but some threads tend to leave me feeling unclean... :rolleyes:

[photoguy6405]

Heck, we should just shrinkwrap books and magazines so that no one can even thumb through them for a crude idea of what's in them without buying!

Some do. I rarely buy those that do. Precisely because I don't know what's inside. I want a preview.

[Dermit]

Heck, we should just shrinkwrap books and magazines so that no one can even thumb through them for a crude idea of what's in them without buying! Professional courtesy would dictate that it's theft to gain something from copyrighted material we didn't intend to purchase. After all, maybe we would have bought the magazine if we couldn't see the picture on page 47 that was promoted on the cover. I bet you feel dirty for flipping to page 47!! :lol:

No one is arguing against looking before you buy. The lady mentioned in the OP was not looking, she was copying. The images poloman clearly put on display were the equivalent of allowing people to browse 'the book/magazine' and there is no problem with that. But if they want their own copy the agreement between photographer and client in this case was to purchase one, not take/make your own.

photoguy6405 you may think this is no big deal, or about one small incidient, but it's much larger than this one isolated incident because this same attitude the public has about thinking they have a 'right' to take/make their own copies of other peoples work is wide spread. It's become about the issue, not about the incident.

[René Damkot]

IMO there's also a difference in taking a photograph of an "exhibition" to capture the mood or have a memory, or to show it to friends ("great expo, let's go see that"), and making a "repro" of an image, to copy it.

Former is okay IMO, second isn't.

Former: (Photo's displayed by Inez van Lamsweerde at Groninger Museum) taken with my phone ;)

[johnstoy]

Pretty good capture Rene'... Great composition.

[poloman]

AndreaBFS.... I thought you were a pro.
If so, aren't you concerned about your business?

[Mark]

I hope I'm not the only one who thinks you're being a little touchy. I would have taken photos too, especially of things that look cool. Well, unless you had a big sign at the front that said "please do not take photos"

I completley agree, it's not like they will buy your photo anyways, and they can't really sell a crappy P&S copy with reflections and all...

[René Damkot]

I completley agree, it's not like they will buy your photo anyways, and they can't really sell a crappy P&S copy with reflections and all...

Then again, I'd rather *give* them a low res original, then have them look at (ands show off) a crappy pic of one of my images...

Been there, done that.

It's *not* (just) about whether or not the taking of a pic of the image will prevent a sale, it's also about common decency (You just don't do that IMO), and about caring how your work is presented...

My €0.02

[DDCSD]

On the other hand, maybe she'd have shown it to someone and they would have ended up making a purchase.

I certainly understand the frustration. Although, in the end, you're not losing a sale and for me its not worth losing my sanity over. In a situation like this I would have just ignored it.

I believe in karma, or what goes around comes around, and I firmly believe that people that try and cheat and steal their way through life are generally miserable and will eventually get what is coming.

I like the glass case idea though.

[sunking39]

IMO there's also a difference in taking a photograph of an "exhibition" to capture the mood or have a memory, or to show it to friends ("great expo, let's go see that"), and making a "repro" of an image, to copy it.

Former is okay IMO, second isn't.

Former: (Photo's displayed by Inez van Lamsweerde at Groninger Museum) taken with my phone ;)


This picture makes me mad.
1. As it has been said its a wondeful composition and a great picture. I really like it. Especially the fact that every space between pictures is occupied by a dark silhouette.
2. But this is where I get mad. Not because of you but because of pure chance. The secon silhouette from the left, the woman, has only the slightest part of her hand covering the picture.
You also make a good point, something the OP might have overlooked.

As for a recommendation for everyone else, including me, and security people:

CHILL OUT!!!

[mbellot]

And what is your intention of the image you took yourself? Probably to make prints you would have otherwise bought.

Funny you should ask.. I've never made a print, not a single one. :p

The picture ends up as a computer desktop for a month or so at home and work.

Without taking my own photo I'd be forced to scan theirs, which you would also categorize as theft, right?

This is theft. It is their set up, their employees, and you just happen by and use it all for free. Theft in my book. Albeit less so because at least you threw them a bone by buying the cheapest print available. If I want to use a studio i don't own I generally have to pay a rental/usage fee."Just happen by"? :lol:

You must not have kids. The typical wait for Santa is an hour, longer if you go at a busy time.

The equivalent of $450/hr "rent" ($15 for 2 minutes tops) for their "studio" seems adequate since I'm not using any of their camera or lighting equipment, just their props. Oh, yeah, I also get a full color "receipt" that gets tossed. :rolleyes:

Theft would be buying one $15 print, taking it home and scanning it to send copies to every relative that still has a heartbeat.

You don't pay a dime for using their stuff when their main intention is to use it to sell pictures for profit.Actually I do pay a dime (150 of them to be precise), so their main intent has been covered.

But I have to ask, is everyone who sees Santa without buying a picture a thief as well, regardless of whether or not they take one themselves?

After all, the photographer's "main intent" hasn't been satisfied without a sale.

[AndreaBFS]

AndreaBFS.... I thought you were a pro.
If so, aren't you concerned about your business?

No? I've been a business owner for 6 years now and I've never worried about crude attempts to duplicate what I do because they always come in the absence of the most important ingredients in my formula.

I've laughed as I followed my tracking code to hundreds of people stealing my layouts and graphics and attempting to duplicate the service I provide. I've had another company that sold the same service simply save my features page and change the colors and implement it as their own. None of that matters. It's not the same.

The person quickly realizes they are missing the whole point of the service and they give up. Not one of those people ever follows through with their "theft" because once they take it, it's not the same. The other company that stole my features page failed pretty quickly -- seems it wasn't my features page that was getting people to sign up with me after all.

When people buy a service or product from me, they aren't getting something they can duplicate on their own. That's how I've set up my business model. Someone who would take a P&S photo of a display image was *not your customer* in the first place. That person does not appreciate custom portraiture and would likely never have purchased a print anyway. If taking a picture to use was her intention, which you can't judge AT ALL, then she might have looked at that picture for a warm fuzzy on her camera for a while, but she's certainly not going to blow it up big and hang it in her living room. It's a novelty and she's *not a customer* you're going to sell either way.

You can choose to be angry and kick her around and call out her parenting in front of a group of her peers (and then say you didn't do that, of course, when people say whoa.. you did what?), or you can walk on over and talk to her about the photo... ask if it's her child, comment on her daughter's performance, offer her an order sheet and suggest that grandma might like to have a really nice print of that mounted on a standout for Christmas! If she doesn't bite, she was never your customer. At least you got her attention and she's no longer taking a picture, you made the point that you're there to sell, and now she walks away with good feelings about you and your business instead of how she probably walked away when you called her a thief and a bad mother.

[poloman]

Andrea
See... I couldn't yet convince you that I'm not a monster. Now your calling me a liar as well. I assure you, I have been honest.

I grew more and more angry the more I thought about this woman's attitude and intrusion. I would never consider doing such a thing. I came here to vent and for solace. Surely, people here would understand.

As Rene' stated... it is about common decency. My great fear is that this individual will share her "technique" with her friends as something she did that was clever.

I will protect myself more thoroughly in the future. :)

[kaitanium]

IMO there's also a difference in taking a photograph of an "exhibition" to capture the mood or have a memory, or to show it to friends ("great expo, let's go see that"), and making a "repro" of an image, to copy it.

Former is okay IMO, second isn't.

Former: (Photo's displayed by Inez van Lamsweerde at Groninger Museum) taken with my phone ;)


ah yes this is what i was getting to in my 2nd post. Sorry Polomon! I thought you were describing such a situation! but yes the lady was shooting with the intent of copying and totally not this type of general shot! thats bad. very bad =P

[AndreaBFS]

You asked me a direct question. I answered it. You can't convince me that you didn't do what you said you did in the OP, that much is true. I will freely admit that I generally ignore what often happens on forums -- "the secondary backpedal" that occurs when someone realizes the true story they wrote in their first post didn't get the response they intended.

None of that has *anything* to do with the fact that however you addressed it, you probably didn't do yourself any favors with your potential customers. I'd rather have a customer go tell her friend that she took a crappy P&S picture of a display and have the friend think, "wow... I bet that looked crappy... what the heck was she going to do with *that*?" rather than have her to go her friend and say, "that guy just called me a thief and a bad mother!"

Again, I answered because you asked.

[AndreaBFS]

ah yes this is what i was getting to in my 2nd post. Sorry Polomon! I thought you were describing such a situation! but yes the lady was shooting with the intent of copying and totally not this type of general shot! thats bad. very bad =P

He doesn't know what her intention was, so let's not crucify yet another person whose side of the story we will never hear. I know it's customary on this board to stomp happily on anyone a photographer says we should, but sometimes the "people without DSLRs" aren't evil.

[poloman]

I was actually pretty darned nice to her.
I think you are just interested in beating me up....
Maybe you have some aggressions to vent?

[AndreaBFS]

Perhaps you believe so. But I gotta tell ya, however "darned nice" someone is to me, if they tell me I'm a thief and setting a bad example for my child without knowing AT ALL what I'm doing or why, I might think *they* were just interested in beating ME up and had some aggressions of their own to vent.

All I said was that saying that to a potential customer is unprofessional and look how upset you are? Imagine if I told you that you're a thief and a bad parent, too! At least I was nice enough not to toss that in, huh?

[poloman]

Excuse me....gotta go put on a sleeveless T-shirt.

[kaitanium]

He doesn't know what her intention was, so let's not crucify yet another person whose side of the story we will never hear. I know it's customary on this board to stomp happily on anyone a photographer says we should, but sometimes the "people without DSLRs" aren't evil.

who cares about the intent then if she wanted to take her photo to reprint it or whatever? she was still making a digital copy of someone else's work. is a digital copy less "illegal" than a hard copy?

and being oblivious to laws doesnt make a person innocent. so while the "person without a DSLR was probably not evil" the act of her copying the work is questionable.

i think your battle is just with how polomon voiced/worded his thoughts. i mean if someone called me out and put my child in the argument i would be a little touchy too...esp if i was the mom.

im done with this thread =P. cya!

[Dermit]

Funny you should ask.. I've never made a print, not a single one. :p

The picture ends up as a computer desktop for a month or so at home and work.

Without taking my own photo I'd be forced to scan theirs, which you would also categorize as theft, right?

"Just happen by"? :lol:

You must not have kids. The typical wait for Santa is an hour, longer if you go at a busy time.

The equivalent of $450/hr "rent" ($15 for 2 minutes tops) for their "studio" seems adequate since I'm not using any of their camera or lighting equipment, just their props. Oh, yeah, I also get a full color "receipt" that gets tossed. :rolleyes:

Theft would be buying one $15 print, taking it home and scanning it to send copies to every relative that still has a heartbeat.

Actually I do pay a dime (150 of them to be precise), so their main intent has been covered.

But I have to ask, is everyone who sees Santa without buying a picture a thief as well, regardless of whether or not they take one themselves?

After all, the photographer's "main intent" hasn't been satisfied without a sale.

Ok, ok, ok.... I understand your reasoning but the bottom line is that 'usually' a staged setup for the main purpose of selling photography services and prints is exclusively used by the company and other people are typically not allowed to use their own gear for the simple reason that is usually diminishes sales.

But, if they have no problem with you doing it then more power to you. Have at it. If that is their policy and they can live with it then you are fine in what you are doing. I am quite surprised that they do allow it, but it's their business not mine. It makes me wonder if it's some minimum wage temp employee who doesn't care, or if it's really their policy.

For me, I wouldn't even think to attempt to even ask to shoot my own shots with their setup, but that's just me. I quite often do portable studio type setups on location and shoot/print on sight and I have never been asked by anyone if they could step in and get some shots with their own camera. Quite frankly it would floor me if anyone would do so. I believe that most people understand that something like that is just not acceptable.

Hey, not much surprises me anymore these days. Common courtesy is just not as common as it used to be I guess. When I hear people say things like Without taking my own photo I'd be forced to scan theirs it makes me realize that you can reason your way into justifying any number of 'questionable' practices. But we each live with the consequences of our own decisions and if you are perfectly at peace with what you are doing and feel perfectly justified, so be it.

[AndreaBFS]

who cares about the intent then if she wanted to take her photo to reprint it or whatever? she was still making a digital copy of someone else's work. is a digital copy less "illegal" than a hard copy?

The law cares about intent, that's who. If I go to a wedding and take a photo of the gift table that happens to have a big copy of the engagement photo on it, did I break the law? Based on your statement above, that would be a yes. If I go out to take pictures in the city and take a picture of an interesting billboard or a bookstore window, have I broken the law. Apparently you think so.

If I'm a mom at a party just walking around with my camera, taking pictures of everything I see, just for fun... so I can remember a day in my child's life, and I lean in to grab a photo of the photo display table (that might not even have a photo of my own child on it) because I'm just documenting the day.. have I broken the law. I guess you think so. Did he know for a fact that the child in the photo was even her child? Apparently not.

Her intent *is* important because if she's photographing the event as I would, maybe she also took pictures of the food table and the playbill (oooh.. more copyrighted material), and the stage, and everything else she saw. You can't possibly know just by telepathy that her intent was to take THAT picture and blow it up and hang it on her wall.

Why go there immediately? Maybe she was going to print the photos and give them to the director of the event so he could hang them on the bulletin board so those who weren't able to attend could see what a nice party it was?

I walk around taking pictures of EVERYTHING all the time. It's what people who like to take pictures do.

[Wilt]

This thread reminds of another one...in that other thread, a photographer takes a picture and is immediately accused by a zealot female as being a pervert out seeking material for their personal thrills. In this thread, a mother takes a picture and is immediated accused by a photographer of seeking to steal a photograph for their personal gain (not having to buy a photo). In both, the accusers may well have been over enthusiastic in their approach, and would have been much better off with some temperance in their accusatory actions. They could have been just as wrong in their accusations!

[Dermit]

The law cares about intent, that's who. If I go to a wedding and take a photo of the gift table that happens to have a big copy of the engagement photo on it, did I break the law? Based on your statement above, that would be a yes. If I go out to take pictures in the city and take a picture of an interesting billboard or a bookstore window, have I broken the law. Apparently you think so.

If I'm a mom at a party just walking around with my camera, taking pictures of everything I see, just for fun... so I can remember a day in my child's life, and I lean in to grab a photo of the photo display table (that might not even have a photo of my own child on it) because I'm just documenting the day.. have I broken the law. I guess you think so. Did he know for a fact that the child in the photo was even her child? Apparently not.

Her intent *is* important because if she's photographing the event as I would, maybe she also took pictures of the food table and the playbill (oooh.. more copyrighted material), and the stage, and everything else she saw. You can't possibly know just by telepathy that her intent was to take THAT picture and blow it up and hang it on her wall.

Why go there immediately? Maybe she was going to print the photos and give them to the director of the event so he could hang them on the bulletin board so those who weren't able to attend could see what a nice party it was?

I walk around taking pictures of EVERYTHING all the time. It's what people who like to take pictures do.

All your examples are quite different from what happened with poloman. In none of your examples was there a photographer standing near the display with order forms for the sole purpose of selling the images similar to the ones on display.

In your examples, yeah, I'd probably be ok with you taking those pictures and would be ok doing it myself. But take the wedding example, sure no problem with taking a picture of a display table that happens to hhave a photo on it. But purposely trying to compose the shot to try your best to get just a shot of the photo the best way you can to reproduce it and now I have a problem with it. Absolutely.

Look, there are certain scenarios/situations that are black and white in what is right or wrong when it comes to this subject we all seem so passionate about. But there are other times when it is a gray area. And a lot of times many situations are quite unique. Of all of us here only poloman was there. There are many things you can pick up on in a situation that can not be easily conveyed through an email or a forum. Only poloman can make the best judgement (out of us here) as to what the lady's intent might have been. It could have been blatantly obvious that she was absolutely trying to get a 'free' copy of the image.

The problem is, it's not always obvious and not always a black and white clear cut border that we can stay on one side or the other very easily. So, yes, we will all have differing opinions as to where the line might be in some cases. But we can still respect each other and show a little courtesy toward each other. I agree that poloman's OP seemed a little harsh towards this lady. And when he backpeddled a bit my assumption was that his backpeddle was more than likely how it happened and that his OP was spun a little harsher than what really happened to get our attention.

To assume it happened the other way around and that he really was harsh with this lady and then tried to diffuse it when people reacted negatively is your own opinion. Personally I have read many posts by both Andrea and Poloman and have a lot of respect for both, yes, still.

I think we can argue a long time and not come to much of an agreement on this issue. There are two main elements at work here. One is what is legal, which is often times very muddy, and the other is what is simple courtesy. Right and wrong does not always break down to legal or not. Common decency is what we should all strive to achieve and expect from others. And when someone is not being respectful of our work, etc. I would hope that we would not stoop to their level and be disrespectful to them to try and resolve the issue.

[mbellot]

Ok, ok, ok.... I understand your reasoning but the bottom line is that 'usually' a staged setup for the main purpose of selling photography services and prints is exclusively used by the company and other people are typically not allowed to use their own gear for the simple reason that is usually diminishes sales.

I think the key ideas here are "usually" and "typically not allowed".

I've never seen a Santa setup that prohibited parents taking pics of their kids with Santa. I would imagine any mall or store that supported such a ban would find themselves very short on customers (at least those with young children).

Different venues undoubtedly have different expectations for what is "acceptable".

As for the rest of your condescending and sanctimonious drivel... Think what you like, its a (reasonably) free country.

I asked for, and was granted, permission to take a picture and still had the decency to buy a print.

If that makes me a thief, or guilty of "questionable practices" in your eyes then thats something I guess I'll have to live with...

[tonylong]

Well, I'll chip in with a bit of a contrarian view:

From what I understand, it is not illegal to take a photograph of anything in a public place, whether a person, place, or thing. So, to call an act of photographing something in public display "theft" is wrong.

For that matter, it's perfectly legal to download a picture from the Web, scan a photo from the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition, copy a CD -- these are legal acts, and so to call them "theft" or even "wrong" is, I think, a mistake.

Copyright infringement is not in the act of, say, taking a photograph of something copyright-protected, but in the use of that photograph. I can, for instance, take a photo of a piece of architecture that is copyrighted, or download a copyrighted photo, for my own personal use, but as soon as I go beyond "personal use" into "public or commercial distribution" I am in trouble unless I have a specific release for that copyrighted property.

There is a difference between an artistic/professional sense of ethics and a legal/moral position that would apply to the public.

That being said, an artist/professional has every right to use reasonable precautions to keep their work "safe" from, say, being photographed, but in a public setting such as where the OP was that would involve some kind of contract with the venue and the enforcement of security, or like the above suggestions, display types that would wreck a photograph.

I'm not trying to denigrate the sensibilities of the artists/professionals who want to protect their work, but in a public context use of the word "theft" is just wrong.

I use PBase as a "public gallery" and, as such, my work can be legally downloaded (at limited resolution). Images that I don't wish to be publically available are in password-protected galleries, or not on the internet at all. Anyone who wishes to, say, download a picture of mine for purely personal use is welcome to and there is no "moral" stigma attached. If, though, I were to see a photo of mine published without my permission, that would be copyright infringement and that is wrong.

Now, we as practicing photographers are free to develop an "internal ethic" if we wish -- for example, I myself would, if I were in the original post in the role of the woman, I would rather show respect for the photog, talk to him/her, buy a shot, whatever, but we can't apply our "personal ethic" to the public.

Now, if I'm wrong as far as my interpretation of the law, please let me know and in the particulars, you might want to provide a reference(s) to clear this up. I'd hate to think I was breaking the law by taking picures of things in public places, or encouraging others to believe they had the right to do so.

[AndreaBFS]

This thread reminds of another one...in that other thread, a photographer takes a picture and is immediately accused by a zealot female as being a pervert out seeking material for their personal thrills. In this thread, a mother takes a picture and is immediated accused by a photographer of seeking to steal a photograph for their personal gain (not having to buy a photo). In both, the accusers may well have been over enthusiastic in their approach, and would have been much better off with some temperance in their accusatory actions. They could have been just as wrong in their accusations!


THANK YOU!

Unfortunately the expectation here seems to be that you must automatically side with the photographer or you're a terrible business person with no morals. Whatever a photographer has done is the right thing and whatever the non-photographer has done is the wrong thing.

[photoguy6405]

This thread reminds of another one...in that other thread, a photographer takes a picture and is immediately accused by a zealot female as being a pervert out seeking material for their personal thrills. In this thread, a mother takes a picture and is immediated accused by a photographer of seeking to steal a photograph for their personal gain (not having to buy a photo). In both, the accusers may well have been over enthusiastic in their approach, and would have been much better off with some temperance in their accusatory actions. They could have been just as wrong in their accusations!

Good comparison.

[kevinf]

Excuse me....gotta go put on a sleeveless T-shirt.

And why do you have to go put on a "wife-beater"? This phrase seems odd when you are in the middle of arguing with a poster that seems to be female. Just what are you trying to say?

[irishman]

And why do you have to go put on a "wife-beater"? This phrase seems odd when you are in the middle of arguing with a poster that seems to be female. Just what are you trying to say?

I think he meant that as a joke. Lighten up, everyone.
I applaud poloman for saying something. I'm the non-confrontational type that would just quietly stew about something like that.
I also pay my $15 and take my own shots at Santa. Guess that makes me a hypocritical ba$tar8. Feel so guilty now this year I'll have to buy one of their $20 frames!

[poloman]

It was a joke based on Andrea insisting on believing that I am some kind of brute.

[skygod44]

This thread is beginning to heat up like the, "called a pedophile" thread from some guy in the UK.

Here's my take on some interesting points.

Simple way to fix this:
Get a pane of glass and cover your picture, make sure it's displayed in a dark room...
The resultant flash reflection from basroil's suggestion makes a lot of sense. It's avoiding the problem (as much as possible) in the first place.
I think the OP is correct to protect his work... While it may not be "illegal" to photograph someones photographs, it is morally wrong...
Good point. Morally, it is wrong to try to copy someone's pictures - but people are people. So we revert to basroil's "prevention" method.
I totally understand why he would get upset -
I think the OP (having clarified his attitude with the woman in subsequent entries) dealt with a potentially embarrassing/troublesome situation very well. He or the woman could easily have become enflamed. That would've helped nobody!
While I agree that we should take precautions... There are a LOT of people out there that actually see absolutely nothing wrong with 'obtaining' a photographers work with absolutely no compensation to the photographer at all.
This is a social problem...but think about it; there have been theives as long as there's been something 'worth' stealing. Thus, we revert to the "preventative" methods.
Someone who would take a P&S photo of a display image was *not your customer* in the first place. That person does not appreciate custom portraiture and would likely never have purchased a print anyway.
Despite the to-and-fro between poloman and Andrea, her point is spot on here. The woman was NEVER going to buy anything from you. Her P&S image (even without a piece of glass in front making it non-existant) would probably be pretty dreadful.
To sum up (you can tell I'm a teacher, can't you;)) there are all sorts of rats out there who delibrately steal, knowing full well that they're breaking the law. From photos to cars to jewellery. It's best to use measures that ruin their plans, without it disrupting us too much.
Andrea, you're clearly an artist if your clients insist on you and not just the results from the service you provide. Long may it stay that way!!!
Poloman, I think you were right to say/do something. You have invested a LOT of money an time developing your art. Sadly, there are those who have no respect for this and simply want to reap the benefits, albeit with a P&S.
I think we all need to reflect on the effort it takes to make anything worth making, and protect it accordingly.

[René Damkot]

This thread is beginning to heat up

And it would be nice if we could keep it "below cooking" ;)

[AndreaBFS]

It was a joke based on Andrea insisting on believing that I am some kind of brute.

You got me again. I can't help that I feel it's unprofessional and inappropriate to call out anyone whose intent you do not know as a thief and a bad mother... no matter how "nice" you are when doing it. The very thought of saying that to someone without some very good evidence that I'm in NO way mistaken about their character just screams "not very nice" to me. :::shrug:::

Imagine that you appeared, to a store clerk, to possibly have left a store with merchandise in your pocket and instead of coming up to you and quietly saying, "Sir, it appeared to me that you may have put some merchandise in your pocket. Would you mind if I took a look?" He instead runs after you and says, "Thief, thief!! You come here with your children and steal from us? Is that really the kind of example you want to set for them??"

In which scenario was the clerk professional and customer-oriented? Would you, if you had a choice, risk shopping at that store again if it meant a possible repeat of that embarrassing incident? Would you feel that the clerk was well within his right to call your character into question and insult your parenting based on an assumption he could not prove until talking to you??

Once again, I only continue to try to make this point because at this time, it still seems that you feel you were perfectly justified in what you said to her in the interest of protecting your print from her P&S. It seems an over-reaction fueled possibly by the propensity of some on this board to disregard the other side of the story in favor of any member-photographer here.

[Metalstrm]

Well, I would at first warn her calmly. Then, if she insists on taking the photographs or shows some really bad attitude, then yes I think that would call for some harsher words. I side with poloman, except that the mother/thief thing was a bit uncalled for unless she showed an attitude.

[KnowImagination]

NikonGuy, nice first post...?

anyway I think what has happened here is something that happens often on forums. You are heated about something and make a post. Of course since it is about something that upsets you it is going to be exaggerated and come off much more harsh than you realized, because you were not thinking about how it would sound you were thinking about getting your feelings out.

Then after reading it people get all worked up because of their feelings on the subject without having all of the facts. Since of course no one posts all the facts on a message board especially when they are talking about a potentially frustrating issue for them.

People need to really think a little about the things that they post and try and see it from all sides.

If exact words from the OP were used to address the lady then of course there was a better way to handle the situation, but honestly there is no way we can know that those were the exact words used in this situation.

Also, if I am displaying my works then whether it is legal or not if I see someone taking photos of them (obviously not of just the displays) I am going to politely ask for them to not do that. If they want to make a huge issue out of it then so be it, but I have every right to ask that my image not be photographed.

This topic really surprised me because there were so many rude posts to a complete stranger about a subject that you know hardly anything about.

poloman let this be a learning experience not just to take a few more safeguards against your work when it is being displayed, but also to make sure your posts are as factual and well thought out as they can be so they dont get picked apart by the people who are ready to beat you over the head with them.

Edit: Should have checked the date and realized this is a pretty old thread. My response however stands.

[XterraJohn]

Well, since the thread had been brought back from the dead anyway...

Does anyone know of an actual law that is broken when one makes a copy of a copyrighted work for personal use? If so, what sort of damages can one collect?

[tonylong]

Well, since the thread had been brought back from the dead anyway...

Does anyone know of an actual law that is broken when one makes a copy of a copyrighted work for personal use? If so, what sort of damages can one collect?

It depends on where the shot is taken. If, inside a space such as a museum, there are specific rules in place, someone could be subject to some kind of civil charged. In a public place, no law has been broken by photographing things, as long as the photographs are not commercially used.

In this instance, it's not the photographer but the venue who would set the "rules". But taking pictures of the photo exhibit would be no more "wrong" than taking pictures of a Van Gogh picture in a public exhibition.

[brianclark4]

I totally agree with your reaction to that lady. As you stated, you have outlaid money and time perfecting your art and by reading between the lines, you are a professional photographer, so therefor she is depriving you of income.
I cannot understand some of the posts that you have received, but than again that is an indication of how societies morals have declined!

[starimagephoto]

some times this happens. You should of asked her if she would like to get a picture of you standing next to your print. :) Maybe next time. Or a picture of the money in your wallet.

[SaraEmily]

It was a speculative shoot Andrea. I am not on the payroll.
So...those of you who think I am being unreasonable. Please give me your website addresses and the passwords attached so that I may go there and take your images. I will sell them. I know you won't mind. :)

I agree quite strongly with you on this point. Theft is theft, plain and simple. Even if I weren't a photographer, I would never dream of taking photos of someone else's work. It's just plain rude!

I've already dealt with an abusive ex who stole my photographs from when I was first getting into photography, and claimed them as his own. NOTHING pisses me off more than people who steal other people's hard work.

[JBerlotti]

Simple way to fix this:
Get a pane of glass and cover your picture, make sure it's displayed in a dark room.

Therefore if they take photos, they either get a blurry as hell image, a giant white spot covering most of the image, or, if they are smarter, an image with perspective distortions (can be fixed luckily for them, but not many people are smart enough to do that)

Or better yet, you can get that glass that goes from clear to smoke like the CIA uses for their secret briefing rooms and set it up so that smokes automatically when it detects someone pointing a camera to take a picture.

[tzalman]

Or better yet, you can get that glass that goes from clear to smoke like the CIA uses for their secret briefing rooms and set it up so that smokes automatically when it detects someone pointing a camera to take a picture.
...with alarm sirens and flashing lights too. And maybe a taser dart in the finger that is about to press on the shutter button.

[SaraEmily]

No? I've been a business owner for 6 years now and I've never worried about crude attempts to duplicate what I do because they always come in the absence of the most important ingredients in my formula.

I've laughed as I followed my tracking code to hundreds of people stealing my layouts and graphics and attempting to duplicate the service I provide. I've had another company that sold the same service simply save my features page and change the colors and implement it as their own. None of that matters. It's not the same.

The person quickly realizes they are missing the whole point of the service and they give up. Not one of those people ever follows through with their "theft" because once they take it, it's not the same. The other company that stole my features page failed pretty quickly -- seems it wasn't my features page that was getting people to sign up with me after all.

When people buy a service or product from me, they aren't getting something they can duplicate on their own. That's how I've set up my business model. Someone who would take a P&S photo of a display image was *not your customer* in the first place. That person does not appreciate custom portraiture and would likely never have purchased a print anyway. If taking a picture to use was her intention, which you can't judge AT ALL, then she might have looked at that picture for a warm fuzzy on her camera for a while, but she's certainly not going to blow it up big and hang it in her living room. It's a novelty and she's *not a customer* you're going to sell either way.

You can choose to be angry and kick her around and call out her parenting in front of a group of her peers (and then say you didn't do that, of course, when people say whoa.. you did what?), or you can walk on over and talk to her about the photo... ask if it's her child, comment on her daughter's performance, offer her an order sheet and suggest that grandma might like to have a really nice print of that mounted on a standout for Christmas! If she doesn't bite, she was never your customer. At least you got her attention and she's no longer taking a picture, you made the point that you're there to sell, and now she walks away with good feelings about you and your business instead of how she probably walked away when you called her a thief and a bad mother.

I may be new to this forum, but I feel you're quite rude in your responses to the OP. He never called her a thief to anyone but the people in this forum, and he certainly never called her a bad mother. There's a massive difference between pointing out that he classified what she was doing as theft, and saying it's a bad example for her child, and calling her an outright thief and bad mother.

From what I gathered from this post alone, you design web site packages, is that right? If someone steals your layout without your permission, I would think that would upset you. You can't say that it hasn't, because when you were first starting out, I'm sure it did. Perhaps it doesn't now, but that's not the point. What IS the point, is that Poloman was upset about what the woman was doing, and he had every right to be. Like others in this thread have pointed out, it's people like that mother who are killing the photography business. Sure, there are some photographers out there who are crap and sell their work for far more than it's worth (such as a lot of the photographers who did *my* school photos over the years). Sure, my mother was a far better photographer than any of the pros we ever saw. But that doesn't mean that she took her camera to my school and took my photo using THEIR setup, or went to Sears and used THEIR setups to take photos of us using HER camera.

In a nutshell, get off your high horse. You're not going to win this argument. Theft is theft, no matter how you slice it.

[SaraEmily]

The law cares about intent, that's who. If I go to a wedding and take a photo of the gift table that happens to have a big copy of the engagement photo on it, did I break the law? Based on your statement above, that would be a yes. If I go out to take pictures in the city and take a picture of an interesting billboard or a bookstore window, have I broken the law. Apparently you think so.

If I'm a mom at a party just walking around with my camera, taking pictures of everything I see, just for fun... so I can remember a day in my child's life, and I lean in to grab a photo of the photo display table (that might not even have a photo of my own child on it) because I'm just documenting the day.. have I broken the law. I guess you think so. Did he know for a fact that the child in the photo was even her child? Apparently not.

Her intent *is* important because if she's photographing the event as I would, maybe she also took pictures of the food table and the playbill (oooh.. more copyrighted material), and the stage, and everything else she saw. You can't possibly know just by telepathy that her intent was to take THAT picture and blow it up and hang it on her wall.

Why go there immediately? Maybe she was going to print the photos and give them to the director of the event so he could hang them on the bulletin board so those who weren't able to attend could see what a nice party it was?

I walk around taking pictures of EVERYTHING all the time. It's what people who like to take pictures do.

Well, based on the fact that HE took the photos for the show, he would be able to recognize one of the children IN the show, correct? And he did say that she had her child with her, correct? I should think that he'd know if it were her child in the photo in question.

[JBerlotti]

...with alarm sirens and flashing lights too. And maybe a taser dart in the finger that is about to press on the shutter button.

Well if you are going to take it to that level, I suggest one of those mechanical boxing gloves to the crotch too. :lol:

[SaraEmily]

Well if you are going to take it to that level, I suggest one of those mechanical boxing gloves to the crotch too. :lol:

As hilarious as that would be, I fear it wouldn't deter the female shutterbugs. ;)

[JBerlotti]

Ok then, its the glove for the guys and a Lipo-injection of 25 lbs into the butt for the ladies.

[SaraEmily]

Ok then, its the glove for the guys and a Lipo-injection of 25 lbs into the butt for the ladies.

HA! You sir, are my hero. :D

[NikonGuy2]

NikonGuy, nice first post...?

anyway I think what has happened here is something that happens often on forums. You are heated about something and make a post. Of course since it is about something that upsets you it is going to be exaggerated and come off much more harsh than you realized, because you were not thinking about how it would sound you were thinking about getting your feelings out...


Yeah, thanks for having it removed, komrade. Trust me, the OPs post is a lot more distasteful than mine. There's no need to analyze my post and then delete it because you don't agree.

Oh well, you can remove this one too - half of you can't even read correctly. Read his first post. Like I said, the real theft here is more than likely his prices.

[René Damkot]

Yeah, thanks for having it removed, komrade.

He didn't.
A moderator did.

And not because we didn't agree, but because it was rude.

You might want to re-read the forum rules (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=353304) (which you agreed to when signing up). Particular section 4...

Welcome to POTN by the way ;)

[poloman]

Glad to have you on board NikonGuy2.
Where you upset because you thought I really leapt the desk and attacked the woman?
When you have a question, I will come to your aid and I won't charge you a dime.
As you are so interested in my pricing.
My prices are below market. That is because I live in a very rural area and can only get a modest fee. The current economy doesn't help.
By the time I was exhibiting my work at the theater, I had shot for 4 hrs, edited and printed 14 - 8 x 10's. Mounted them on foam board and paid to have forms printed.
I made money but I did not get wealthy. :) The people who bought were very happy and want me to return next year.
My concern about the mom taking pictures was more about respect than money. She was standing in front of me snapping away. It was obvious that I had put forth a lot of effort and was hoping to make some money for my efforts. It was her attitude that got me going.
It was later that I really got angry.
I was concerned too. In this area, people would rather buy a $1 screwdriver once a year than a $5 screwdriver that will last a lifetime. As these moms all know each other, I was concerned that the shutterbug mom would be distributing $1 screwdriver versions of my work.
BTW I loved the suggestion of offering to pose with the work. :) A great way to make the point.

[Dave 1942]

Poloman:

Just a suggestion.. Why don't you print low resolution prints for display and watermark the in big letters "Proofs Only", then if someone does take a picture and tries to blow it up, it would be too grainy for satisfactory prints..

Just my thoughts..

Dave

[jrm27]

Interesteing, and apaprently heated topic! Wow!

The argument I have the most problem with in this whole thing is the "If she is taking a picture of your photography, then she's not your client... she's not interested in purchasing fine photography" argument.

There's a lot of correlation between that argument, and the music piracy arguments of the Napster days. All to often I would hear, "The band isn't losing money because I'm downloading their album for free.... I would never buy their stuff anyways. It's not like i was going to buy the album and then decided I would download it for free instead".

I think it is the right of every artist to protect their work. Whether that is confronting people taking pictures of your work, fighting to end music piracy, right-click protecting your online shtos. etc... I know I've been in fine art galleries with a camera and been asked to not take pictures. That's cool by me. I've also been in places where the artist doesn't mind if people take pictures. That's also cool by me. It is the artist's perogative.

[XterraJohn]

In a nutshell, get off your high horse. You're not going to win this argument. Theft is theft, no matter how you slice it.

I think that she's already won the argument. As was pointed out in a previous post, it appears that no laws were broken. If, "theft is theft, no matter how you slice it," then are you arguing that the OP should have called the police and had the woman arrested for stealing? I bet that if the OP had gone ahead and done that, the police would have told him that it was a civil matter, and not criminal.

[digirebelva]

As hilarious as that would be, I fear it wouldn't deter the female shutterbugs. ;)

It would work for them as well...mabye not as painful...but from my female friends I hear it does hurt like h##l for them when hit there l;)

[KnowImagination]

I think that she's already won the argument. As was pointed out in a previous post, it appears that no laws were broken. If, "theft is theft, no matter how you slice it," then are you arguing that the OP should have called the police and had the woman arrested for stealing? I bet that if the OP had gone ahead and done that, the police would have told him that it was a civil matter, and not criminal.

I don't really think this is an argument that can be won. Everyone is going by theoretical situations so of course what she was doing may not have been illegal, but that does not mean that he does not have the right to approach her and ask her not to take photos of is work.

It seems that there are no winners in this thread really.

[SoCal69]

Well, I'll chip in with a bit of a contrarian view:

From what I understand, it is not illegal to take a photograph of anything in a public place, whether a person, place, or thing. So, to call an act of photographing something in public display "theft" is wrong.

For that matter, it's perfectly legal to download a picture from the Web, scan a photo from the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition, copy a CD -- these are legal acts, and so to call them "theft" or even "wrong" is, I think, a mistake.

Copyright infringement is not in the act of, say, taking a photograph of something copyright-protected, but in the use of that photograph. I can, for instance, take a photo of a piece of architecture that is copyrighted, or download a copyrighted photo, for my own personal use, but as soon as I go beyond "personal use" into "public or commercial distribution" I am in trouble unless I have a specific release for that copyrighted property.

There is a difference between an artistic/professional sense of ethics and a legal/moral position that would apply to the public.

That being said, an artist/professional has every right to use reasonable precautions to keep their work "safe" from, say, being photographed, but in a public setting such as where the OP was that would involve some kind of contract with the venue and the enforcement of security, or like the above suggestions, display types that would wreck a photograph.

I'm not trying to denigrate the sensibilities of the artists/professionals who want to protect their work, but in a public context use of the word "theft" is just wrong.

I use PBase as a "public gallery" and, as such, my work can be legally downloaded (at limited resolution). Images that I don't wish to be publically available are in password-protected galleries, or not on the internet at all. Anyone who wishes to, say, download a picture of mine for purely personal use is welcome to and there is no "moral" stigma attached. If, though, I were to see a photo of mine published without my permission, that would be copyright infringement and that is wrong.

Now, we as practicing photographers are free to develop an "internal ethic" if we wish -- for example, I myself would, if I were in the original post in the role of the woman, I would rather show respect for the photog, talk to him/her, buy a shot, whatever, but we can't apply our "personal ethic" to the public.

Now, if I'm wrong as far as my interpretation of the law, please let me know and in the particulars, you might want to provide a reference(s) to clear this up. I'd hate to think I was breaking the law by taking picures of things in public places, or encouraging others to believe they had the right to do so.

I believe TonyLong is not only correct, but one of the few people who tried to reason through this situation from a legal standpoint... the word "theft" has been thrown around throughout this thread without any analysis or reference to what the law actually permits.

Basically, as I understand it, anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place. It isn't clear from the OP whether this was public property or not. With respect to private property, property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises. This would include a theater (as well as a mall with a Santa setup). In general, absent posted signs or a direct request from the property owner (or perhaps the OP if he had leased or otherwise arranged to have a dedicated display/sales area), there is nothing preventing someone from photographing anything on the property. Unless the signage is present or you are asked to stop, you are within your rights to take photographs. Criminal (or even civil) legalities such as "theft" and copyright infringement/damages only come into play based upon the subsequent use of the photos.

So basically, to sum up...

-The lady with the crappy point and shoot was well within her rights to take that photo, regardless of her intent.

-Even if her intent was to copy the photo for her own personal use, she was within her rights in taking the photo. I think referring to her actions as theft and stealing are improper, baseless and nothing more than an emotional reaction (rather than a reasoned one) unless you have knowledge that she had some other ulterior motive in mind.

-Once the OP asked her to stop, she may have been obligated to stop (then again, maybe not, depending on the OP's arrangement with the property owner), but absent any signage prohibiting photos, she was legally within her rights up to that point in time.

-The OP was well within his rights to ask her to stop, at which point she was probably legally obligated to stop.

-Did she use poor judgement/lack common sense? I think clearly she did.

-Did the OP act reasonably in the way he handled the situation? Well, that appears to be the real point of this discussion and one which likely will not be resolved here.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...:cool:

[XterraJohn]

-Did the OP act reasonably in the way he handled the situation? Well, that appears to be the real point of this discussion and one which likely will not be resolved here.

The OP claims to have told the woman that she was breaking the law. That appears to have been a false statement. I think that I would find it particularly annoying if someone who didn't know the law approached me and accused me of breaking it.

So now I think that the question becomes one of, "Was it reasonable for the OP to approach a stranger and falsely accuse him/her of breaking a law?"

The answer seems sorta obvious, doesn't it?

[poloman]

If it happens again, I will still ask them to stop or pose with the work. :)
XterraJohn... Do you think your images are worthless? Fodder for the casual passerby to copy and distribute at will? If so, that explains your lack of understanding. This isn't so much about the law but about ethics. Something in short supply these days.

[rdenney]

It's quite obvious that her likely intention was to get something for nothing at your expense.

And that's exactly the way it would be evaluated in an infringement suit. If the photographs were copied in a way that could prevent the purchase of an original, then it's an infringement. If they were being copied for making criticism or for making derivative art (which must include significant additional elements or changes), then that's allowed under Fair Use, at least in the United States.

I think it would be easy enough to ascertain those motives by simply asking the lady, "Is there something I can help you with?"

Possible answers would reveal her motives:

1. "I want to show this to my husband because we might want to buy it." In which case you provide a brochure that includes the necessary information and a small version of the image.

2. "That plane you photographed is one of my favorite places!" In which case you become an effective salesman and she walks away with a print.

3. "I'm interesting in how people sell art in malls. Can I take your picture?"

4. "I'd love for that to be my computer desktop." You do offer such, right?

5. "Ah, er, I was..., ah, er, sorry..." In which case you provide a brochure and offer to answer any questions, while standing between her camera and the artwork until she leaves.

Rick "noting that challenging a potential customer is never a good option" Denney

[XterraJohn]

XterraJohn... Do you think your images are worthless? Fodder for the casual passerby to copy and distribute at will? If so, that explains your lack of understanding. This isn't so much about the law but about ethics. Something in short supply these days.

Regardless of how you feel about the issue, the question was whether or not it was proper for you to falsely accuse someone of breaking a law. While I feel that my images have value, that doesn't change the fact that the law allows certain uses of them with which I may or may not agree.

I don't think that I would have had a problem with you going up to the woman and asking her to stop taking pictures of your work because it's not very nice. I think that you are perfectly within your rights to do so. Where I see a problem is when you falsely accuse someone of breaking a law.


On a side note, while I see you continually referring to the copying and distribution of images, I see no real evidence that this woman intended to distribute the pictures in question. Is there something that you left out of the story that indicated to you that the woman was planning on distributing your pictures?

[kevindar]

Its interesting for me to read this. A patient of mine inquired about one of the images hanging in my office today (which I have taken), and asked who the photographer is. I informed him it was me. His response was "I liked it so much, I took a picture of it". I have to admit I was more annoyed than flattered, even though I am not even in the business of selling my images, and have even allowed prints for my patients at reasonably inexpensive prices.

[SoCal69]

Legal Rights of Photographers v. 2.0 by Andrew Kantor, December 2008 (PDF format) (http://kantor.com/legalrights/legal_rights_of_photographers2.pdf)

Worth a read!

[davidahn]

Sorry to revive this thread so late, but just stumbled on it in a search.

A few have claimed you're losing money when people take crappy pictures of your work. That's not true. These people would never pay for professional photos, it's just not their nature. In a free market, it's not what the creator thinks it's worth but what the buyer is willing to pay that dictates whether a transaction occurs. I agree with Andrea: this woman was never your customer, and therefore you didn't lose a sale. Ignore these people, you're only giving yourself heartburn over money you would NEVER have pried from their hands.

Your options were 1) she gets a grainy, crappy shot for free, or 2) she gets nothing. You were right to ask her to stop, but HOW you did that determines whether you get future referrals or negative publicity. Yes, it's possible you could get no referrals at all no matter how nice you are, but that's the nature of referrals: no one owes you referrals. You say you live in a small population base. It's even more important that you be not merely polite, but that you be the nicest damned photographer in your area. In my experience, people are 10 times as likely to report negative experiences as positive experiences.

So if you thought she was ripping you off by taking that P&S shot of your photo, you have no idea how much she could hurt you if you mishandled that encounter. (I wasn't there, so I'm NOT assuming you were rude, just speaking in hypotheticals.) IF you came across as rude, imagine she tells 10 of her friends you're the rudest person she's ever met, and those 10 tell 5 of their friends, and they tell 3 of their friends... and now there could be 211 people in your town who would never hire you for an event.

Use the precautions suggested above, but nothing beats wisdom in your words. In the postmodern mindset, a nice honest person is better than a technically proficient person. "Is that your child? What a cutie! Would you like to order a print of her in that outfit? OK. If you ever change your mind, here's my card and contact information. You have a wonderful day." Then, if they lift the camera again, "I'm so sorry, but we don't allow photographs of our proofs. I hope you understand."

David

[Radtech1]

Simple way to fix this:
Get a pane of glass and cover your picture, make sure it's displayed in a dark room.

Therefore if they take photos, they either get a blurry as hell image, a giant white spot covering most of the image, or, if they are smarter, an image with perspective distortions (can be fixed luckily for them, but not many people are smart enough to do that)

+1

Thanks for typing this so I don't have to. For works in public, I always use crappiest glass I can get - to cause the highest reflection possible. (Customer purchases for private hanging is a different matter...)

Rad

[pastanley]

If I seen your kiosk and seen what you were like- I would definately keep walking by. No business for you !

[Radtech1]

If I seen your kiosk and seen what you were like- I would definately keep walking by. No business for you !

Since you did not quote whoever you are responding to, I don't know if this comment was directed to the OP, since it's his thread, or me, since your post is following mine.

Assuming that you might be responding to my "crappiest glass" comment, I would just like to make a suggestion: next time you view framed art try to be aware of how little the reflections impede direct viewing. Then take a picture of the same thing, and notice now how prominent the reflections are.

Maybe it is a trick of our cognitive functions - the ability to focus on what is important, but when viewed in person, even the most intrusive reflections all but disappear from the viewers awareness. Not so in a photo of the same piece.

Rad

[Dirk Lately]

I think a good watermark would be the word "STOLEN" in large letters, right across the subject.

[poloman]

I am the OP and have found a solution to this problem... :)
I use christmas lights to surround the images. The reflections of the lights and the effect upon their camera's metering system does the trick.

[photoguy6405]

I am the OP and have found a solution to this problem... :)
I use christmas lights to surround the images. The reflections of the lights and the effect upon their camera's metering system does the trick.
I like this. As much as one may want to give the person a piece of their mind, it's usually counterproductive. Simply thwarting them in a passive way works much better. They'll almost never put 2 and 2 together, and you avoid the bad PR.

Plus, as I mentioned about 5 pages ago, it can be amusing to watch them still try. :lol:

[oaktree]

Its actually not illegal to take pictures of someone's pictures. Heck, you can even sell them as art and make millions of dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/arts/design/06prin.html

May not be illegal, but some museums/art galleries/churches/temples sure prohibit picture taking.

[jacobsen1]

May not be illegal, but some museums/art galleries/churches/temples sure prohibit picture taking.

right, but they're not publicly displayed now are they? ;)

[Jon Foster]

I got verbally assaulted a few months back for taking a head shot of a young lady at a faire while she was standing in front of a vendors tent. The vendor must have thought I was photographing her clothing line or some trade secret... I simply told her I wasn't concerned with her products but she didn't believe me. So my wife walked out of the tent empty handed after selecting several items she wanted to buy. I know what the profit margins are for these vendors. She lost a entire weekend worth of profit with that little tirade. It pays to stay calm and collected.

Jon.

[DDCSD]

May not be illegal, but some museums/art galleries/churches/temples sure prohibit picture taking.


The act of taking the photos isn't illegal, but they can kick you out for not following their rules. If you don't leave, they can charge you with trespassing and have you arrested.

Taking the photos may have been what led to the person getting arrested, but it wasn't the reason for the arrest. (In this hypothetical situation).