UK Legal Question re Photography!

^^^^^

Seeking a point of clarification...

Where does one draw the line between "Mr Freebie" and "Shooting On Spec?"

Aren't they essentially the same since the possibility exsists that neither one will get paid for their images?

FlyingPhotog: Maybe its just semantics, but I would have more respect for someone competing in a business than someone who is just giving away prints and destroying someone's business.
I do feel bad for the event photographer, and I think the OP could help him out, but I don't think that unfazed did anything wrong.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #5388432
^^^^^

Where does one draw the line between "Mr Freebie" and "Shooting On Spec?"

Aren't they essentially the same since the possibility exsists that neither one will get paid for their images?

No, they are not at all the same.

Mr. Freebie is a person practicing a hobby and freely giving away the photos that result, to anyone who wants a copy. There is no compensation asked for and likely none would ever be received.

That person obviously makes a good living at something else, and is not relying upon their photography as a source of income. With the technology at hand today to even an inexperienced individual with relatively unlimited resources, odds are they can produce some decent images just by holding the shutter release button down and filling up a handful of memory cards as fast as they can. (Unfortunately, I've seen a few "pros" work that way too!)

If they were only taking photos of their own kid and having fun, I wouldn't even take notice. In fact, I find more than a few of these proud parents end up being my customers. It's not uncommon for them to appreciate good photography even more than the person without a camera.

It's when hobbyist starts making photos of everyone else's kids and offering to send everyone free prints - just because they can and with full knowledge that a professional is there doing the same work - that I think the line of common courtesy and respect has been crossed.

This sort of hobbyist is almost certain to be detrimental to the livelihood of the person who's there in a professional capacity and "shooting on spec". I.e. making images with no guarantee of payment until the participants are "wowed" enough by the work to want to buy some prints.

It's not in the organizer's best interests to allow "Mr. Freebie" to keep at it, either. Who knows if he'll be back for the next event, or ever, or if he'll be able to provide images for their website or a brochure when the organizer needs them, or will even have the knowledge to keep their participants safe. Meanwhile, the professional is being priced out of business unfairly (worst case scenario), and will no longer be an asset available to the organizer when needed.

Here's another way of looking at it... Whatever you do for a living, imagine how you'd respond if some well-heeled individual with lots of time on their hands suddenly appeared outside your office or workplace offering to do your work for free, which ended up costing you your paycheck. Their work might not be as good, but hey, it's free! Who can possibly argue or compete with that!

Now, this is a much more extreme example compared to what the original poster describes having done in their situation.

Their real error that needs correction is posting their photos to the organizer's forum.

They are proud of the photos they took and want to share them with people via their own website. Cool, no problem with that. But, maybe they've begun to edge across over into the same territory, where it's beginning to sound a bit like a matter of courtesy and respect.

And, who knows, perhaps some others will read this thread and look at the next photographer they see working an event just a little differently.

amfoto1 wrote in post #5388905
No, they are not at all the same.
Here's another way of looking at it... Whatever you do for a living, imagine how you'd respond if some well-heeled individual with lots of time on their hands suddenly appeared outside your office or workplace offering to do your work for free, which ended up costing you your paycheck. Their work might not be as good, but hey, it's free! Who can possibly argue or compete with that!

I wouldn't mind that at all, but I might be the only one here in the position

amfoto1 wrote in post #5388905
No, they are not at all the same.

<Snip 1/2 of a great explanation...>

Forgive me for beating a dead horse (unless I read it wrong .. and it's possible) you actually didn't answer my original question.

The point I wanted someone to clarify is the difference between "Joe Public" shooting over "Joe Pro's" shoulder when the specifc term used was "Shooting On Spec."

Perhaps we have a different definition of the term "On Spec."

To me, "Spec" is short for "Speculation." For example, a home builder builds a few unique homes among a tract of homes and finishes them with maybe some upgraded cabintry or better bathroom fixtures, etc (doing more than just leaving it unfinished until a buyer completes the fitting out through a design center.) Out here in Arizona, they call these 'Spec Homes' meaning the Builder is speculating that buyers will pay a premium for the unique design elements or better hardware throughout the house.

Now, there's no guarentee that a buyer will like what he's done. He's betting somebody will but he's taking a chance.

Applying this scenario to our discussion... To me a photographer working "On Spec" is shooting something in the hope that the organizer will buy photos AFTER the event is completed. IOW, the photographer has no guarentee that any of the images he/she caputres will be bought.

I guess where I fail to make the connection is: How can a contract exsist between an event organizer and a "Pro" photographer shooting "on spec" when there's no certainty that any of the "Pro" shooters images will even be suitable for the event organizer's use?

Again, I apologize in advance if it seems I'm splitting hairs but unless there's a contract up front that states "Joe Pro" photographer will provide XXX images, at X Size/Resolution/File Format, in X time frame and will be compensated at $XXX for XX hours of work then there's nothing in place on which "Joe Public" can step all over.

Or am I totally in the weeds here...?

Hi again FlyingPhotog,

Ah, I see the confusion...

With this type of gig, you're typically not selling (licensing) images to the organizer themselves at all. Instead, you're selling prints to the participants and their families after the fact. It's the same sort of business model as sports leagues, bicycle racing, dog shows, motocross racing, river rafting, 10Ks, etc., etc.

And, it's not like a wedding or similar event, where you pre-sell a package, take a deposit or have any sitting fees, etc., as well as some follow-up print orders.

The organizer usually contracts with a particular photographer to come in and do the work. But no money changes hands. The organizer wants someone they can trust will be there as promised, who will make good images, offer prints at a competitive price and won't pose a danger to their participants.

What's worse, in some cases, the photographer is actually out of pocket to get the rights to shoot the event! But, thankfully this is less common here in the U.S.

I've gotten a few free meals from organizers, but that's about all the "compensation" I've ever received from them. (Not that I'm complaining!)

At all but the very largest events (state or regional championship level), usually the contract between photographer and organizer includes an exclusivity clause. In other words, no other commercial photography will be sanctioned by the organizer. There are a number of reasons for this, not only benefiting the photographer, but the organizer and their event participants too.

The organizer often gives the "official" photographer limited and careful access to certain areas where the general public isn't permitted. For example, at some of the more sedate equine events, I'm right in the arena with the judge and the competitors. There are a number of important precautions to working around horses, particularly high spirited animals sometimes being ridden or handled by less experienced riders of all ages. I'm sure there are similar "tricks of the trade" to other types of event/sports league photography as well.

Now, it does happen at times that competing photographers just show up to shoot from the sidelines, but most of the experienced ones will respect the contract because they know their reputation hinges on how the organizers perceive them, and a bad rep will quickly make it harder to find work in the future.

Within most types of event categories, the organizers are a pretty close-knit group that talks over coffee, compare notes among themselves and call each other for references. A great deal of my business is by referral (which I take as a compliment). If I were to step on a lot of toes and make a mess of things, I'd be out of the business in a hurry.

Needless to say, selling 4x6s for $7, 5x7s for $10 and 8x10s for $20, there isn't a huge profit margin. There are no "day rates", retainers or advance fees to be had, nor any $250 per shot image licenses, nor anyone agreeing to buy xx number of images.

You have to sell a pretty good number of prints to participants to make it worthwhile. Most sell via online galleries (mine are at the Printroom link below), and at larger events we might hire someone to run a computer and set up to sell prints to the impulse buyer on location. But, the added cost of doing onsite sales makes this unfeasible at some of the smaller events.

I work with another photographer a lot, and we did have a situation where two organizers who were jointly sponsoring an event each contracted with their own photographer. (There was even a third organizer above these two - a county fair - that just added to the confusion.) In spite of our reservations, we stuck with our commitment after the other photographer showed up (actually a group of four or five teenagers with kit cameras that that other "photographer" had hired). As a result, neither of us ended up with enough sales to justify our trip to the event. So, we're pretty adamant about the exclusivity clause these days.

In England it sounds to be pretty common for photographers at equine events to share some percentage of their sales or profit, paid to the organizers. Personally I think that's a mistake and hope no similar trend ever gets established here in the U.S. This isn't merely greed on my part, the profit margins are simply too narrow to divvy up the proceeds that way.

So, usually we decline any gigs where inexperienced organizers start out by asking for a piece of our sales.

I did work a horse show last year where there was a modest "vendor fee" payable in advance. We later regretted paying it, since the show turned out to be one of our worst for sales, despite being a large event.

At another event (not horses), we were happy to charitably donate a percentage of sales to a church that was the sponsor and organizer.

So, in the above case I cited, by "on spec", I meant shooting images in hopes of selling prints to participants and, perhaps, their immediate families, at relatively low profit margins. The contract is simply an agreement to come shoot, not for the organizer to buy anything.

It's quite similar to a "spec home" (I used to build and sell homes in a previous life, BTW), where the builder designs and builds without any buyer lined up in advance.

So our hobbyist "Mr. Freebie" giving away prints freely makes just staying home and sleeping in a very attractive option, if we only knew when and where he was going to show up!

And, in a small way, the original poster is competing with the "official" photographer, and, from the sound of it, actually doing so right on the organizer's website or forum!

I hope this clarifies things a bit.

^^^^^^ Crystal Clear Now .. I thank You ^^^^^^

Alan,

Sorry, but I completely disagree with giving exclusive contracts to a photographer. Our local HS girls that I have been shooting all season made it to the State Finals, and won, but because of a contract I was unable to sell any photos from this event. Legally, I could sell them, but would never get credentialed again to shoot. Exclusive contracts are in effect a monopoly, which despite phone, cable, and Microsoft, are illegal. It takes away choice from the parents who would be purchasing those photos, and if I got a better shot of someone's kid, they should be able to buy it from me.

Had I gone in without credential, i.e. in the stands as Joe Public, I would be able to sell my prints and there wouldn't be anything anyone could do about it. Period. The OP has every right to display his images as he sees fit, unless UK laws are different. The other photographer should have his beef with the organizer that allowed cameras in to start with. But, I would argue that people should be able to take their own photos.

swampler wrote in post #5391686
Alan,

Sorry, but I completely disagree with giving exclusive contracts to a photographer.

<Snip>

Forgive me for being pointed here, but:

Are you a better photographer than the one who has the contract or is he/she a better salesperson?

- Make an apointment with the governing body
- Show them your work
- Plead your case

It is a business and money talks. In this case you want to convince the powers that be that you're a better value than the shooter they use so the onus is on you to prove it.

Why do they switch horses when teams get to state tournaments?

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #5391924
<Snip>

Forgive me for being pointed here, but:

No problem. I don't want the contract, only to cover the team I normally shoot. But America is about competition in the free market, which this type of contract stifles. Just look at the whole IL situation between the papers and the high school organization fighting over the same issue.

swampler wrote in post #5391997
No problem. I don't want the contract, only to cover the team I normally shoot. But America is about competition in the free market, which this type of contract stifles. Just look at the whole IL situation between the papers and the high school organization fighting over the same issue.

It's not that unusual though.

Works this way even at the pro sports level. You might be the darling of your local NFL team all season long but as soon as the playoffs start, it's all under the auspices of the NFL League office and you're suddenly way deep in line behind SI, AP, ESPN, NLF.com, Yahoo Sports, etc.. because they've all paid "rights fees" and maybe your local "fishwrap" isn't in tight with the league.

Hi Steve,

Exclusivity is simply necessary in many situations, for a lot of reasons.

But I can understand your point, too.

I'd have to say there should be some provision at a finals event like you describe, for you to be able to go and shoot "your guys" whom you've been following and taking care of all year.I can see where the photogs who have been following both the competing teams really should be given access. I think you'd have a strong argument in your favor, if you really wanted to pursue it.

I know that finals events often fall under the control of a different organizer, who may bring in their own photographer. (BTW, I see this as yet another argument against "profit/revenue sharing", which IMHO is just a nice way of saying "kickback".)

But, elsewhere too many photographers can create all sorts of problems.

This wasn't as much of an issue back in the days of film. It was somewhat self-regulating then. For one, there were usually fees to organizers, essentially to cover the photographer's upfront costs of film and processing. So, an organizer would normally only hire one photographer.

Also, there were a lot fewer photographers vying for the job, willing to shoot a ton of film on spec and deal with the rapid turn around times, and ordering process necessary to make print sales.

Now with digital it's much different. Just about anyone with a dream of turning pro and armed with a D-SLR can show up and fill up their memory cards "for free" (which is a fallacy, I know). There are a lot of highly inexperienced people who see this as their way to break into "professional photography:... Some of whom are quite good, some adequate, others awful, and some downright dangerous. Organizers are no longer paying any shooting fees, so the work is purely "on spec" of print sales to participants.

In the horse world, we have a number of large, state-level events, where top competitors from all over come to vie for the big prizes. These are more similar to your finals example, and not really the exclusive shooter situations I wrote about earlier. These now have big, up front vendor fees for photographers who wish to shoot them, and there are usually several working these events.

But I think we're mostly discussing small- to moderate-size events, with perhaps 25 to 125 participants. These are weekly, monthly and quarterly and bi-annual, mostly on a Saturday or Sunday, and predominantly with amateur participants (some of whom are quite skilled... but there are all levels).

At this level, there really are not enough potential sales to justify two or more competing photogs showing up and shooting the gig. I can assure you, it would be unprofitable for all the photographers involved. So, eventually there just wouldn't be anyone shooting the events at all.

Sometimes we follow and handle a series of smaller events all year long, although sales at each aren't all that tremendous. But this assures us we'll be the person who gets to shoot the year-end series finals and awards event, which has greater sales potential. If we just tried to do the year-end finals, some other wannabe photog would likely step in quickly to do the rest of the series, in hopes of getting the call for the finals as well.

Multiple photographers would also create a lot of confusion for customers. Let's see, which website do I go to, when I want to see the pictures from this event? I've got a card I picked up from Photographer X, but I think Photography Y took the pictures of little Johnny, or was it Photographer Z? Will the same photographer be at the next event with a catalog of image thumbnails from this event (not everyone has Internet access)?

Non-exclusive situations can even present hazards for the participants. Can you imagine a horse and rider in an arena doing their routine, with two or three or more photographers jockeying around each other for position to get photos of them?

There are particular events and series I'd really like to shoot, but don't because others have exclusive contracts with the organizers. Perhaps some day I will. I have a pretty good portfolio to show organizers, I get to know them whenever I can, let them know of my interest and make sure my current organizers always get top treatment so they will recommend me. I just try to keep any doors open for the future, best I can.

There are times we work larger events, or longer duration ones. In those cases, the exclusive photographer might draft second and possibly even third photographers to help them. If they're smart, they will be somewhat careful doing so, limiting their selection to experienced people who will both do quality work and be knowledgeable enough to avoid any safety issues. It's the lead photographer's reputation and business that will be on the line, if one of the 2nd shooters screws up! This makes the organizer's life a lot easier, since they only have to deal with one photographer.

When there are two or more of us at equine events, we'll usually work like a tag team so that only one photographer is in the arena with the contestants and judge at any given time. This also gives the other photographer a chance to take a break from practically non-stop shooting, and get images off-loaded from their memory cards.

There's never been anything to keep any spectator (which might include a competing photographer) from photographing the event from the spectator area. That happens all the time.

Oh, and occasionally there are professional videographers working alongside, but they are usually hired by trainers, breeders and riders for performance feedback purposes, and so are just there shooting while a particular team is competing.

Organizers wisely and correctly prevent spectators from going into areas where they know there might be dangers. At equine events, someone in the wrong place can spook a horse, endangering both it and its rider, or distracting it so that it falters and scores poorly. One knowledgeable photographer might carefully access those areas, but two or more can start causing problems.

Fill flash is often essential, both indoors and out. And a row of flashes going off would be distracting and upsetting to both the athletes, both two- and four-legged type. Improper use of even a single flash can cause problems, too, so it needs to be used with care.

To one degree or another, I'm sure many of the same issues are true of other sports too.

Certainly too many photographers at any event would quickly dilute sales for all to the point where none of them find it a worthwhile event to work, and customer confusion would be a concern.

How many photographers should a high school football team allow behind the end zone, with flashes going off and big lenses mounted on tripods or monopods that might pose a hazard for athletes?

How many photographers with wide angle lenses, leaning over a corner to get dramatic shots, should a motorcycle or vintage sports car race tolerate?

How many motorcycle-mounted photographers should a 10K or bicycle race put up with?

In general I think there really needs to be some limitations and/or exclusivity in many situations.

But, I have to admit there are times when it might be overdone or inappropriate.

Cheers!

Quite true... With one single exception:

The OP does not have any right to promote their photography on the event organizer's forum.

They can go to the event, take photos, even promote and market them from their own website, or just about anywhere else in the world they wish... Just not on the organizer's site/forum because of the agreement that's in place between the organizer and the commercial photographer they hired.

The commercial photographer should and probably will take this up with the organizer, not having gotten any satisfaction (as fas as we know) from their request to the OP, who should not have posted their photos on that particular forum in the first place. The organizer will likely then remove the OP's photos/posts from their forum, which is an appropriate action on their part and something they have every right to do.

Finally, something we have not gotten into at all here is the issue of protecting kids.

Many of the events we are discussing involve kids and this creates some special circumstances, including even more reason for caution on the part of the organizer and for them to be somewhat restrictive about who is permitted to take photos. It's easier for them to control this on private property than public, of course. But, despite technically being public property, most public schools are allowed to be pretty restrictive, too... With good reason.