theft is the sincerest form of flattery

Back story:
a few years ago I helped out a photog buddy of mine. I second shot for him at a wedding where he was hired by the videographer.
It was a pretty short notice gig and a little unusual.

I sent the main photog the images a few days after and that was the last I had heard of it until last year another photog friend said he thought he seen my shots at another photographers booth at a bridal show. I went to the suspected photographers website and checked out his site but didn't see any of my work so I just let it go.

Recently, I was displaying at a bridal show. It was early and I was walking around talking with vendors and I ran into that photographer and he was certainly showing my work. He had made an album with our shots.

I immediately called the guy I shot the wedding with to see if he knew this guy. He did, he said that he was a friend of the videographer. At least I know how he got my shots.

In short, I didn't say anything, he had clients at his booth and that was neither the time nor place. I really wanted to concentrate on my goal for the evening.

I know i did not handle it right. What would you do?

Theft is theft. Plain and simple. There is nothing sincere or flattering about it.

I have always had a VERY strict zero tolerance policy regarding any form of misuse of my work, name or anything else that has to do with my business or brand.
I honestly don't even care about the money that someone might make from stealing my work. But on principle alone, I will make sure they regret it.

I can't tell you exactly what I would have done, if in you shoes, as I have never been in that exact situation. But I would not just let it go.
One thing is certain. The fact that he had clients at his booth, would not make me not confront him. Who knows how many others he have stolen from. Those people could be hiring him based on other photographer's work and end up with whatever crap a guy that untalented can produce. He must be a pretty damn crappy photographer, if he needs to promote himself with photos stolen from other photographers.

I probably would have grabbed a business card of his and sent him a nice email or left him a voicemail or a letter from a lawyer. Something like that. No need to make a scene then and there.

Zolth wrote in post #12923197
I probably would have grabbed a business card of his and sent him a nice email or left him a voicemail or a letter from a lawyer. Something like that. No need to make a scene then and there.

Agreed ...No sense to make a scene. It is the photographer that you have an issue with NOT the videographer.

Well, I have sent him an email asking how he came about getting the files. I really did not want to cause a scene at the show but certainly see quicksquirrels point that other work he may be showing may also be from other photographers and in the end it is the clients who are losing. Maybe I should have requested he remove the album right away. I think he did though, I saw him look at me and start shuffling things around. I was busy and did not check.

did you take some pictures of his booth with your shots?

That is red-handed evidence.

Yes, causing a scene there would have not been the best, though in your shoes I can see how you might have wanted to confront the person.

First of all, do you actually own the copyright to the photos? You describe yourself as a second shooter on the job and if the videographer actually hired you under a "work for hire" arrangement, by default the videographer owns the copyright and can do with the images whatever he wants.

On the other hand, it sounds as if you were the still photographer and he was the videobrapher at the wedding, so you each might have contributed your portion to the overall job and shared the rewards. You might still own the copyright, but I would sure have wanted to have it all spelled out in writing and signed by both parties before agreeing to do the shoot.

As to the third party now using your images... Wow! The word "despicable" doesn't quite cover it.

I can't think of anything much worse than misrepresenting yourself by showing potential clients someone else's photos and pretending they're your own. Unless he's disclaiming the photos. And I really can't imagine someone saying "Now, these are the type of photos I'll take for you at your blessed event. Actually these photos were taken by someone else, but I don't have any work of my own to show you because I've never shot a wedding before" or "My own stuff just isn't good enough to show you, so I'm showing you someone elses'."

If, as I suspect, he's representing your photos as his own, he is literally lying to every potential client he pitches and I'd have no sympathy or qualms about calling him on the carpet about it in front of clients and other photographers. B&Gs need to know that he's a fraud, before they contract with him to handle their wedding. Other photogs need to know he can't be trusted.

If it were me and I knew I owned the copyright to the images, I'd have been sending a Cease and Desist letter drafted by an attorney... Registered mail requiring a signature as proof of receipt... Not emails.

I'd also demand all copies of the images be returned to me immediately, from both the videographer "friend" and the third party now using and passing them off as his own.

If you don't have a lawyer, check if there is a "Lawyers for the Arts" office in your area. They usually offer free consultation and specialize in intellectual property rights infringements. You might start at:
http://www.calawyersfo​rthearts.org/

There's no flattery going on... Just plain theft. And following that, fraud. You are being waaayyyy too nice.

And, yes, if you still own the copyright to your images and your videographer "friend" is giving copies of them away to other people - or worse, selling them to the third party - then you have a major problem with him, too. He should know better than giving away someone else's work and furthering the third party's fraud. Another Cease and Desist letter is called for.

Finally, did the B&G and everyone else in pictured in your photos sign a model release so that the photos can be used for commercial purposes? You might be on pretty safe legal footing putting those images in a portfolio of your own work (that's considered editorial usage, no release is req'd tho it's still a good idea to have one). But anyone else using the photos for promotion and marketing is putting you, your videographer friend and themselves at risk doing so without signed model releases.

But, hey, what do I know? I ain't a lawyer and you really should be talking with one.

zagiace wrote in post #12922985
Back story:
a few years ago I helped out a photog buddy of mine. I second shot for him at a wedding where he was hired by the videographer.
It was a pretty short notice gig and a little unusual.

I sent the main photog the images a few days after and that was the last I had heard of it until last year another photog friend said he thought he seen my shots at another photographers booth at a bridal show. I went to the suspected photographers website and checked out his site but didn't see any of my work so I just let it go.

Recently, I was displaying at a bridal show. It was early and I was walking around talking with vendors and I ran into that photographer and he was certainly showing my work. He had made an album with our shots.

I immediately called the guy I shot the wedding with to see if he knew this guy. He did, he said that he was a friend of the videographer. At least I know how he got my shots.

In short, I didn't say anything, he had clients at his booth and that was neither the time nor place. I really wanted to concentrate on my goal for the evening.

I know i did not handle it right. What would you do?

The fact that the guy is displaying work that isn't his own at a fair calls his ethics into question, regardless of who owns the copyright to the images.
I think I would have said something right in front of his potential clients, or at least let them know the guy was mis-representing himself...

I wold have also made the organizers of the fair aware of the situation as the mis-representation issue could come back to them if a client was dissatisfied with their images after hiring the guy.

JWright wrote in post #12923986
The fact that the guy is displaying work that isn't his own at a fair calls his ethics into question, regardless of who owns the copyright to the images.
I think I would have said something right in front of his potential clients, or at least let them know the guy was mis-representing himself...

I wold have also made the organizers of the fair aware of the situation as the mis-representation issue could come back to them if a client was dissatisfied with their images after hiring the guy.

Good point. Though if the organizer is at all experienced, they probably have all kinds of waivers protecting them, both from vendors and from potential clients who hire a vendor from the fair.

Copyright is an important question because if the OP owns it, he should be taking action. If the videographer "friend" owns the copyright, it's their responsibility to stop the misuse of the images.

And, if the OP still owns the copyright, he has claim against both the videographer "friend" and the third party using the images. If the videographer owns the copyright, the OP can object to the misuse, but really doesn't have a claim against either of the other two parties.

This is even worse than the guy who posted here a year or two ago that someone had taken his photo, submitted it to a contest... and won with it! Never heard the result of that. Hopefully they had to return their cash award and the contest organizer gave it to the person who actually took the photo.

A relative of mine was shocked to see a photo he'd taken printed huge, framed and hanging in a restaurant. Turned out that the kid who was processing his film at the lab had made a copy and was selling prints of it. Needless to say, the kid was looking for a job after that... and had to hand over the proceeds from the sale (but might have sold it elsewhere that they were never able to discover). The restaurant was absolved from responsibility because they weren't aware that the image had been stolen.

I don't know what people are thinking, that they can do stuff like this and it won't come around and bite them in their a$$ eventually!

like the old story, there was no written agreement. I did not sign over the copyright. Absent of an agreement I do own the copyright.
I would have no problem with the original videographer displaying the work but i have an issue with the work being passed out to other photographers to promote their business.

zagiace wrote in post #12924020
like the old story, there was no written agreement. I did not sign over the copyright. Absent of an agreement I do own the copyright.
I would have no problem with the original videographer displaying the work but i have an issue with the work being passed out to other photographers to promote their business.

Well, not really...

Actually, if you described yourself as a "second shooter" to the videographer in court (as you did in your original post), the court quite possibly would name him the owner of the copyright of both his footage and your images... Because it's quite common practice with second shooters in the wedding photography business for the primary photographer to end up owning the copyright of all photography done by second shooters in their employ.... This might be assumed because it's standard practice, when there is no written agreement stating otherwise.

When I hire second shooters to help with events, I use an agreement that licenses me to market their images, display them online and in printed catalogs for marketing purposes, and a few other limited uses for a set period of time (three years, usually)... But specifically spells out that there is no transfer their copyright to me and it does not allow me to represent the images as my own in any way. If I didn't use that agreement, and a court determined that it was "work for hire", even if only by verbal contract and particularly if the event was a wedding, the transfer of ownership would very likely be legally assumed and automatic.

At this point I'd suggest you instead describe yourself as the still photographer at the wedding and the other person as the videographer. I think you would be less likely to run into a problem about copyright ownership. I know this is sort of splitting hairs, but by describing it this way you're essentially saying that you each provided different, though complementary services and merely collaborated with each other to bundle your work for convenience of and benefit to the client(s). Hopefully this would put you on equal footing in the eyes of the law, neither one "employed" by the other.

Of course, the best thing is always to get it all settled, down in writing, and signed in advance.

It's water under the bridge now, though. And you're dealing with a different issue... So long as the videographer doesn't come back to you stating that he owns the copyright of your images. If that occurs to him, it might be a pretty good defense against your objections regarding him giving your shots to the third party. And, by extension, it could be a defense for that third party, too.

So, I guess I'm just suggesting it might be a good idea to drop the description "second shooter", while dealing with this issue.

I would have have pointed at one of my photos and said 'hey, great photo....I still remember the day I took it. What are you doing with it?' And yes, I would have said it right in front of his customers. They need to know this guy is a liar and not to do business with him. If the best photos he can produce are from other photographers, then he doesn't need to have a booth at all.

amfoto1 wrote in post #12924248
Well, not really...

Actually, if you described yourself as a "second shooter" to the videographer in court (as you did in your original post), the court quite possibly would name him the owner of the copyright of both his footage and your images... Because it's quite common practice with second shooters in the wedding photography business for the primary photographer to end up owning the copyright of all photography done by second shooters in their employ.... This might be assumed because it's standard practice, when there is no written agreement stating otherwise.

When I hire second shooters to help with events, I use an agreement that licenses me to market their images, display them online and in printed catalogs for marketing purposes, and a few other limited uses for a set period of time (three years, usually)... But specifically spells out that there is no transfer their copyright to me and it does not allow me to represent the images as my own in any way. If I didn't use that agreement, and a court determined that it was "work for hire", even if only by verbal contract and particularly if the event was a wedding, the transfer of ownership would very likely be legally assumed and automatic.

At this point I'd suggest you instead describe yourself as the still photographer at the wedding and the other person as the videographer. I think you would be less likely to run into a problem about copyright ownership. I know this is sort of splitting hairs, but by describing it this way you're essentially saying that you each provided different, though complementary services and merely collaborated with each other to bundle your work for convenience of and benefit to the client(s). Hopefully this would put you on equal footing in the eyes of the law, neither one "employed" by the other.

Of course, the best thing is always to get it all settled, down in writing, and signed in advance.

It's water under the bridge now, though. And you're dealing with a different issue... So long as the videographer doesn't come back to you stating that he owns the copyright of your images. If that occurs to him, it might be a pretty good defense against your objections regarding him giving your shots to the third party. And, by extension, it could be a defense for that third party, too.

So, I guess I'm just suggesting it might be a good idea to drop the description "second shooter", while dealing with this issue.

I have to disagree, if you check the copyright website, absent a written agreement the one who pressed the button owns the copyright. you must explicitly release the copyright, it does not just happen. That does not change whether you are the main photographer or second shooter.

Do you have a case to cite in that regard? IP lawyers working with photographers say differently. The "standard practice," they say, is wrong.

What we have seen happen in court is that even contracts explicitly stating "work for hire" have been broken because the "work for hire" wording is only half the requirement--the other half is that the work must fit within several specific categories--which being a second shooter definitely does not. In other words, "work for hire" cannot cover conventional second-shooter work. The contract would have to say explicitly that the copyright is transferred.

And "employ" has certain requirements as well that also do not cover second-shooter work.

I would have confronted him right there. These type of people need to be outed they are cheats and liars. They have no feelings for you why should you have any sympathy for them. Their types are ruining your livelyhood.