Using Stock Photo for Sample Image Ethical?

[aroundlsu]

Here's the deal.. I'd like to get back into prom/dance photography. About ten years ago I photographed LOTS of prom/dances/schools while working for someone else as hired help. The point is I have the experience, equipment, and ability to work a large prom. I also have my Exposure Manager website behind me to handle the orders and printing.

So I had the idea of setting up a sample gallery on my website for prom directors to order a free sample package of prom photos. I want to demonstrate how smooth our ordering system is, how quick the product is delivered, and the quality we offer.

The problem is, I don't actually have any prom/dance sample photos to show so I came up with two options:

1. Setup a mock prom shoot with a couple of Model Mayhem models.

or

2. Just buy a few nice stock photos off istock and use those.

I already found some nice stock prom photos that are simple, clean, and diverse (white kids, black kids, oriental, etc). The photos are not complicated and most of us could shoot them with our eyes closed, so I don't really see the problem with using them, but I would like to hear other opinions.

[TheHoff]

Don't even consider #2 unless you clearly mark and explain they are stock photography as examples.

[Daniel W.]

It's a decent idea, but you can NOT use stock photos. This would be incredibly dishonest, representing someone else's work as your own. Do some mockups, grab a few friends or middle-high school neighbors and make it YOUR work.

It's been 10 years since you've done it, kids have changed since them. Demand more, expect more, and are much ruder. What was good 10 years ago may not be the best now, do a small one to rework yourself into the groove. I was a great violinist 10 years ago, I'm not now.

[jhcanon]

I can't believe you could even consider option 2!

[aroundlsu]

Wow why don't you guys tell me how you really feel!

Man, ok so that idea is out. I will recruit some MM kids.

[jhcanon]

Wise decision. I'm sure the small investment will give you a clear conscience and allow you to answer any questions honestly without having to be careful how you phrase your responses.

Well done!

[Karl Johnston]

I think you should skip both

I have little experience in doing portraits so I set up a month where I would do them for free. I advertised online exclusively on facebook and I've had 4/5 shoots per week. The session is free but if people want prints or other accessories then they have to pay for them; it allows me to make a little bit of cash back.

I advise you do something similar with prom photography and skip mayhem...and definitely don't use stock photos; if someone were to find out about that they'd surely pass it around that you had advertised photos you didn't even create. It's kind of cheesey too.

Instead turn your lack of experience into a promotional advertising event like I did - now I have PAID portrait shoots booked from Nov 24-Dec 07th..and everyone says such great things about me that I'm doing a service (though IMO trade is still considered payment). Seeing as I'm in canada i have to use a model release in order to reclaim the copyright and use the photos for promo ads ..I'm not sure what your local laws are so I don't know if you need that or not.

MM has a good supply of people..but are they relevant? I think you'd benefit more from targeting your market - prom goers or seekers or senior portraits

[RDKirk]

I would agree with Karl. Pull your models out of your target market. It's a bit more complicated to do so, but girls know girls who know other girls who have seen them at school and will want photographs like the girls they've seen at school.

[aroundlsu]

Well I already have a solid base of available models and great reputation on MM. A simple casting call and I can have several couples in a day or two. Finding guys with a tux may be the tricky part.

[breal101]

You could put up a flyer in the student union building at LSU and Southern looking for a models. With luck you might even find one who still has her prom dress.

[amfoto1]

I have little experience in doing portraits so I set up a month where I would do them for free. I advertised online exclusively on facebook and I've had 4/5 shoots per week. The session is free


Never work "for free". That establishes a perception of the value of your work... now and in the future.

Instead "waive your sitting fee" on an "introductory" basis for a very "limited term". Be sure to note that it's a savings of "$200" or whatever your usual sitting fee is or will be.

Sure, it's just semantics. But it makes a difference in peoples' minds and that's very important for your fledgling business.

You can always have sales or specials or discounts... Trade for CD or Trade for Prints with wannabe models.

It's virtually impossible to ever dig out from being "that free photographer".

[aroundlsu]

You know I keep thinking about this...

I was in Target last night and noticed the photos on the wall of their "portrait studio". They look suspiciously like either stock photos or like high end studio portraits. Certainly not portraits you would get in their little studio.

Then I started thinking, my dentist recently got some new posters for the wall of his dental office that show stock photos of models with perfect bright smiles. Those certainly aren't teeth of his clients.

I am not sure why everyone is 100% against the idea of using a legally purchased stock photo as a sample image to solely demonstrate the ordering process of my studio. It seems other very large commercial studios either do it all the time or shoot their samples in studios that far exceed the quality of the photo you will be getting.

I have other photos on my website that match or exceed the quality of the stock photo. I just don't have a photo in that specific target market. I could even write "Photo Copyright 2009 Name of Photographer, iStock Photo, Used with Permission for Sample Purposes" at the bottom of the photo.

[RDKirk]

You know I keep thinking about this...

So why did you ask? Nobody can keep you from doing what you intend to do.

[DDCSD]

I am not sure why everyone is 100% against the idea of using a legally purchased stock photo as a sample image to solely demonstrate the ordering process of my studio. It seems other very large commercial studios either do it all the time or shoot their samples in studios that far exceed the quality of the photo you will be getting.

If it's solely "to demonstrate the ordering process" then why do they even need to be prom photos?


If I were looking to contract with a photographer, I'd want to see their photographs.

[cdifoto]

You could use a blank jpeg or gif that only says "this is a sample image" as a sample image if all you're doing is demonstrating the ordering process...

[Karl Johnston]

I am not sure why everyone is 100% against the idea of using a legally purchased stock photo as a sample image to solely demonstrate the ordering process of my studio. It seems other very large commercial studios either do it all the time or shoot their samples in studios that far exceed the quality of the photo you will be getting.


So why did you ask ..?

[Rubi Jane]

Using purchased stock images for what you are doing is fine. We're talking about a sample/media kit going to prom directors. I'd suggest you mark the image with FPO (for placement only) and be confident you can turn out the equivalent shots yourself. You can also include a credit line across the bottom of the image but they may scratch their heads on that one ;)

Personally, I like to use my own work but if I was up against a deadline and didn't have time for a casting & shoot I wouldn't lose sleep over using purchased images.

[Todd Lambert]

We do it all the time in the web world. I can't tell you how many dentist/orthodontist websites that have shots that came directly from istock or photos.com.

Also, every shot we use has been doctored as well. Even the perfect teeth of a model in a shot directly from photos.com will get the whitening treatment. It's just a fact of doing business nowadays. Almost anything you see used in a marketing capacity has been photoshopped.

Actual customer/client shots are very rare today. The exception is photographers obviously, but just thought I'd add that in here. I know you already know this Teddy.

[TheHoff]

I think the difference between a photographer doing it and a dentist doing it is that we're actually selling the product that was faked. And every dentist I've ever seen has pictures of actual before/afters on the wall.


We do it all the time in the web world. I can't tell you how many dentist/orthodontist websites that have shots that came directly from istock or photos.com.

I always encourage actual photography shoots for my web clients. I've hired a photographer for a large law firm and an orthodontics manufacturer (to name two industries that almost always use stock photos).

You can buck the trend :) hire a photographer and make real images of the actual business!

[Todd Lambert]

Oh, believe me, we've tried. Most orthodontist are extremely anal about the photos, because even what you or I see as perfect teeth, they do not. So, they like to have a large pool to choose from and of course they want a perfect, good looking model in a great setting, etc... They know they can get this from stock for cheap vs trying to obtain it from existing clients.

I always push for custom photography (usually trying to pick up more money from my end of things, hehe - if I can do everything, I make more money!) - However, even the richest (or perhaps always the richest) clients are also the cheapest clients!

[RDKirk]

I think the difference between a photographer doing it and a dentist doing it is that we're actually selling the product that was faked.

This goes a bit deeper than the statement may reveal. The dentist is not, after all, in the business of selling pictures, and it's not a general presumption of his clientele that illustrations on his wall are necessarily examples of his patients.

I think it can safely be said that if a photogapher exhibits photographs in his studio, in his portfolio, or on his website, the general presumption is going to be that he is exhibiting his own work. Knowing this is the general presumption, a photographer knows he's misleading the public by displaying other photographers' work. Whenever a professional follows a practice he knows can be easily misleading, that's an ethical issue.

The exact same practice may not be an ethical issue in a circumstance where people are not being misled. For instance, if a businessman has his business portrait retouched, that's not an ethical issue. If an actor or model has his portfolio portrait retouched, that is an ethical issue.

[Alleh]

"I want to be a photographer but I don't have any images for a portfolio, can I use someone elses?"

Hope your making a funny joke.

[Zansho]

Wow. I can't believe some of you are advocating using someone else's stock photography to demonstrate the OP's skill at photography - and no matter how you spin it, that's HOW the public will see it.

It's all about perception. If I walk into a studio and see images being displayed in the storefront or in advertisement, I'd expect that level of work from the studio. Using the stock photography is a dishonest advertisement of the OP's skill (or lack thereof), and honestly, could open up a major can of worms for the OP.

And OP, you're trying to justify your lack of having the right images for your intended market as the reason why it is "ok" for you to use other people's work in the place of your own? "But but, other people do it!" is not reason enough. You're a photographer - show your own work, not someone else's stock photo.

[Todd Lambert]

I agree that in the case of a portfolio, or something like that, yes... it most definitely should be the OP own work.

However, for a sales flyer in a local newspaper? Or a leaflet being left on a car in a parking lot(I hate those btw)? These are basic marketing materials and in marketing, the best image wins. You want something that catches the eye quickly and gets the reader to act or review your sales material.

In marketing, it is extremely commonplace to purchase the rights to a photo to use in these types of marketing campaigns. It's done by every company selling every type of product and or service imaginable.

That said, personally, I'd figure out a way to use one of my own shots instead. I think you're crossing the line from basic marketing piece, to website portfolio use of someone else's work.

I mean, if you're creating a tv spot for your photography business, and you need background music, you're most likely use a stock sound clip rather than trying to write and perform your own tune.

But in this case, you'd be more like using a famous song, because as a un-found musician, you don't want to use your own music, because nobody would recognize it. That's wrong.

[Zansho]

YOUR BEST IMAGE WINS. Why would you misrepresent someone else's work as your own? You're a photographer, and you need to showcase your own talent and skill.

My own ethics prevent me from doing something like this. I guess some people's ethics are different than mine, but I wouldn't stoop to using someone else's work and pass it off as mine.

I guess it's ok to use Annie Liebovitz's work on fliers and pass it off as the studio's, since hey - it's just marketing and I'm trying to get people in the door, nevermind that it's not the studio's image and we can't do that level of work.

You can spin doctor it all you want. I still see it as dishonest and unethical means of marketing.

[Todd Lambert]

If you purchased the rights to use Annie's work on your flyer, then yes, it would be okay in a marketing sense up to a point.

Blatantly passing off her photo as your own work, would definitely be wrong. I don't see it as morals issue to use other's work in a legal use, and especially one that is derivative. I mean, when I create something in Photoshop, I often find a photograph of dried up mud, close up of tree bark, etc... to be used as but one small part of a conglomerate of work. Used as a texure, etc.. I see no problem with it, and neither does the law.

If you can't make out the original image, it is a derivative piece of work, and if you've licensed the photo for that type of work, there is nothing wrong with that. That is not spinning.

I'm not making the argument that the OP should use this in their portfolio, soley by itself to represent their own work. I'm merely playing devils advocate here and that it is appropriate in some types of use (again, not in this case, the way the OP is intending to use it)

Hope that makes sense.

[cdifoto]

I'm gonna start building cars. I'll use a badgeless McLaren prototype as my showroom model.

It's ethical because I rented it legally.

[cdifoto]

It's ethical to use a stock photo if it's illustrating a point (you can get whiter, healthier teeth if you go to the dentist). It's NOT ethical to use a stock photo if it's a stand in for actual product (this photo is a sample of what you'd get from me).

[Mike R]

You're a PHOTOGRAPHER! People want to see YOUR work before they decide to hire you.

[S.Horton]

I think what you put on that site says more about your character than your skill.

[Rubi Jane]

Wow. I can't believe some of you are advocating using someone else's stock photography to demonstrate the OP's skill at photography - and no matter how you spin it, that's HOW the public will see it.
Who said it was to demonstrate their skills - reread the original post. It's for prom organizers to test the OP's back-end fulfillment process & capability.

Wow, so many of you are not knowledgeable in common and acceptable marketing processes. I expect the OP will use their own images for portfolio work but if he wants to get ahead of the process and test the concept with organizers he can quickly and efficiently use stock images without having to invest lots of time, energy & money.

The OP is not trying to misrepresent his photographic skills, merely introduce decision makers to his fulfillment system.

[Mike R]

Who said it was to demonstrate their skills - reread the original post. It's for prom organizers to test the OP's back-end fulfillment process & capability.

Wow, so many of you are not knowledgeable in common and acceptable marketing processes. I expect the OP will use their own images for portfolio work but if he wants to get ahead of the process and test the concept with organizers he can quickly and efficiently use stock images without having to invest lots of time, energy & money.

The OP is not trying to misrepresent his photographic skills, merely introduce decision makers to his fulfillment system.

The trouble is that even if his order process is great, They will still want to see examples of his photos before they hire him. That's why he should hire models if he has to.

Think about it, Would you hire any craftsman without seeing examples of his work or references

[aroundlsu]

Thanks for all the interesting points of view. I asked mainly because I knew it would create interesting conversation on a question that doesn't get brought up often.

I know several high school aged kids and many just out of school. I also know a few high school teachers. Their #1 complaint across the board is product delivery. The studios here have no system in place. It's take your order at the dance, pay cash or check, get your photos delivered to the school in 1-2 months. The end. No reorders. No archival. Nothing. The people I have spoken to wouldn't even know where to go for reorders a their photos are not marked on the back with any studios name. This is all similar to the workflow we had at the studio I worked for doing school photos.

No one is concerned about the quality of the photo probably because there really isn't much to a prom photo. Basic 3 light setup metered to F8. Anyone trying to do more than that is asking for trouble.

I believe there is a market for high volume photography with overnight turnaround and long term archival. I even offer to replace the photos at no cost of they are lost to a fire or natural disaster. How many studios do that?

With the digital workflows available today it boggles my mind why it is still taking studios weeks or even months to deliver simple proofs.

[Zansho]

Who said it was to demonstrate their skills - reread the original post. It's for prom organizers to test the OP's back-end fulfillment process & capability.

Wow, so many of you are not knowledgeable in common and acceptable marketing processes. I expect the OP will use their own images for portfolio work but if he wants to get ahead of the process and test the concept with organizers he can quickly and efficiently use stock images without having to invest lots of time, energy & money.

The OP is not trying to misrepresent his photographic skills, merely introduce decision makers to his fulfillment system.

My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you. I understood he wanted to demonstrate workflow and order fulfillment, but to use images that are not his work in the first place is just misleading the client, whether you say so or not. They WILL see the images, and assume this is the type of work the OP does, regardless of how "vanilla" the setup may seem to be.

If he really wants to earn money at this, he should spend the money or TFCD some models for him to make his images with. This is an investment in himself, and his business, simple as that.

[RDKirk]

I believe there is a market for high volume photography with overnight turnaround and long term archival. I even offer to replace the photos at no cost of they are lost to a fire or natural disaster. How many studios do that?

Actually, there's a guy in Louisiana named Kirk Voclain who does $30,000 in a night staging huge "prom photo parties" at his studio. He does volume.

[MJPhotos24]

I've seen photo companies use stock images for their order forms and personally do not like it - it's not their photos and they deliver different quality (and oddly enough it's usually better quality). I could use stock senior photos but instead hiring a model to do test shots - feel like I'm lying to the client even in the context the OP has.

[dreamcatcher23]

Reading this sickens me. Yes, it's completely unethical.

If it's so easy to do a basic 3 light setup then go and do it and get some photos of your own. Then do a proper prom. You'll soon learn these things:

1. That photo quality isn't what gets you work, being good at business is what gets you work.
2. That the teens of today are PICKY
3. That proms are HARD WORK and LONG HOURS and that you should be careful judging why the current photographers work the way they do before trying it yourself. They have more experience that you so don't be so quick to jump to conclusions.

We've had people trying to poach our business doing what you're doing (using someone else's work as a portfolio pieces), found them talking about it on forums in the same way you are and I can assure you that the customers were not happy and will never, ever trust them or work with them now they've seen how they operate. You might not think it dishonest, but what would your customer think?

FYI we started small, have grown from recommendations and provide prints any way you can think of, from on-the-spot using shinkos, through next-day web ordering, phone ordering, digital files.... We have NEVER misrepresented ourselves and got work early on by going for smaller clients and bootstrapping. If someone asks us to do something that is new to us we're honest about it, we learn and we buy in experience from pros if we have to.