other photographer copying my work

pirateship said:
It's not a wind up or a fabrication at all.

I do have a website, if I choose not to share it, that has nothing to do with me being false. It makes sense in this competitive industry to be unknown, to have nothing traced back to you. Especially if any legal action is planned.

Thank you to the nice people who offered advice.
Click to expand...

I do not get this at all. you are a wedding tog with a web site but choose not to advertise the fact incase something gets traced back to you???/
seems a bit stupid to me but hey ho who am i to think that if you have a buisness you really should be advertising the fact or why have a website at all???

Or am i missing something real simple here

spike
 
SpikeK6 said:
I do not get this at all. you are a wedding tog with a web site but choose not to advertise the fact incase something gets traced back to you???/
seems a bit stupid to me but hey ho who am i to think that if you have a buisness you really should be advertising the fact or why have a website at all???

Or am i missing something real simple here

spike
Click to expand...

I can sort of see his point, how many of us fellow photographers are actually going to book him, it's not us he needs to advertise too.
And in this case it might cause conflict if it was to later go to court, thats unlightly I'll admit, but theres no rule saying he must share his website.
 
I used to have a rule,when i set up a shot,no other photographer standing over my shoulder,or even taking photos.

I may this rule clear,before i was hired,never had any problems :)
 
simonblue said:
I used to have a rule,when i set up a shot,no other photographer standing over my shoulder,or even taking photos.

I may this rule clear,before i was hired,never had any problems :)
Click to expand...

Bet that makes for some pleasant interactions with wedding guests
 
Dont worry about it. Just get on with your career. Dont worry about hers!
 
swanseamale47 said:
I can sort of see his point, how many of us fellow photographers are actually going to book him, it's not us he needs to advertise too.
And in this case it might cause conflict if it was to later go to court, thats unlightly I'll admit, but theres no rule saying he must share his website.
Click to expand...

In a way it is though, how many times do you see threads on here where by some one is after a tog for this or a tog for that, people asking for someone to help them out etc etc, I was always of the understanding when in buisness you advertised and got your name out there.
I agree I am not in buisness for myself, but the company I work for is the 3rd largest in Guernsey (ok I know its not multi national) but at every oppertunity we advertise whether it just be a board at the entance to the site or inviting the press round to a topping out party.

I agree also that it is his decision not to share his website, but I thought that was the whole point of having a website was that you got as much publicity as possible. Again I may be wrong and will stand corrected if I am.

spike
 
ianjmatt said:
Bet that makes for some pleasant interactions with wedding guests
Click to expand...

No never had any problems,your a pro doing a job last thing you need is someone standing over your shoulder,or walking in the way. :)

The guests were free to take any photos they wanted after i had done.
 
pirateship said:
It's not a wind up or a fabrication at all.

I do have a website, if I choose not to share it, that has nothing to do with me being false. It makes sense in this competitive industry to be unknown, to have nothing traced back to you. Especially if any legal action is planned.

:cuckoo: Who like the tax man.
Click to expand...
 
Most wedding photographers are happy for guests to shoot some of the staged shots when time allows, but this is a case of another photographer setting out to gain images constructed and posed by the paid professional for her own commercial gain and self-promotion. She is displaying those images as her own, when they are most certainly not (this is not specifically a copyright issue, but one of misrepresentation). If I were the OP I would make a polite public statement on Facebook to that effect.
 
How did she manage to get to both of the weddings you were at? That's got to be very unlucky!...
 
he DOES have a website, as mods we can see email details you cant, its certainly an odd thread but at this point i see no reason to wind folk up
 
Lindsay D said:
Most wedding photographers are happy for guests to shoot some of the staged shots when time allows, but this is a case of another photographer setting out to gain images constructed and posed by the paid professional for her own commercial gain and self-promotion. She is displaying those images as her own, when they are most certainly not (this is not specifically a copyright issue, but one of misrepresentation). If I were the OP I would make a polite public statement on Facebook to that effect.
Click to expand...

I totally agree Lindsay, and I would add, that I have seen nothing yet to make me believe that the OP is a troll.
 
SpikeK6 said:
I agree also that it is his decision not to share his website, but I thought that was the whole point of having a website was that you got as much publicity as possible. Again I may be wrong and will stand corrected if I am.

spike
Click to expand...

The point of a website is different for everyone. And like you say, wether someone chooses to share it on a forum or not, is nobody's business.

To my knowledge, I haven't gained anything from having my website on forums in the last few years. I just have a load of links in my signature because it makes me look cool. :suspect:
 
Jayst84 said:
The point of a website is different for everyone. And like you say, wether someone chooses to share it on a forum or not, is nobody's business.

To my knowledge, I haven't gained anything from having my website on forums in the last few years. I just have a load of links in my signature because it makes me look cool. :suspect:
Click to expand...

You might not have felt it directly but if you are visiting a number of forums and adding links Google will be viewing you favourably.
 
pirateship said:
The images aren't mine, but they are identical in that she was clearly standing behind me photographing shots that I had set up.
Click to expand...

I've not read all the posts but heres my thoughts...if there not your photos theres not a lot you can do, you cant copyright a location. She was obviously new to it and thought what you were doing is what she should be doing, i know it sounds daft but you should be flattered.

I've done weddings as a videographer and spoken to the photographer many times (had a good laugh with those guys) and they always say its nice to work with a cameraman that doesnt try to worm their way into their setup. I tend to do my own thing and give them space but there is nothing stopping me from hijacking their setup if i wanted to be an ar5e.

Personally id take the moral high ground and let her be instead of making a scene out of it. Its like coming on here and looking at others photos for ideas...only difference is she was physically there.
 
Last edited:
Silvermuir said:
I've not read all the posts but heres my thoughts...if there not your photos theres not a lot you can do, you cant copyright a location. She was obviously new to it and thought what you were doing is what she should be doing, i know it sounds daft but you should be flattered.

I've done weddings as a videographer and spoken to the photographer many times (had a good laugh with those guys) and they always say its nice to work with a cameraman that doesnt try to worm their way into their setup. I tend to do my own thing and give them space but there is nothing stopping me from hijacking their setup if i wanted to be an ar5e.

Personally id take the moral high ground and let her be instead of making a scene out of it. Its like coming on here and looking at others photos for ideas...only difference is she was physically there.
Click to expand...

Seems to be quite a few here who appear to have misunderstood the OP's point.

He's not complaining about the other photographer taking the photos, he's talking about her showing them and possibly misleading others into believing that she was the main photographer at the wedding and therefore that the set ups were hers too.
 
A friendly message to her on Facebook should suffice, maybe asking her to credit you for setting up the shots/being the main photographer or simply to remove the photos altogether (Although by the sounds of it, she had every right to take the shots, albeit a little cheap considering you'd set them up)
 
fabs said:
Seems to be quite a few here who appear to have misunderstood the OP's point.

He's not complaining about the other photographer taking the photos, he's talking about her showing them and possibly misleading others into believing that she was the main photographer at the wedding and therefore that the set ups were hers too.
Click to expand...

**** happens. I could tell you stories of pro's in other professions gettin ripped off for 20 or 30 grand...stuff that really matters. A bit of perspective is required here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Silvermuir said:
**** happens. I could tell you stories of pro's in other professions gettin ripped off for 20 or 30 grand...stuff that really matters. A bit of perspective is required here.
Click to expand...

What he said.
 
OP came on here and had a whinge, that's as far as it'll go I reckon. If it was going to go further it woulda happened.
 
Silvermuir said:
**** happens. I could tell you stories of pro's in other professions gettin ripped off for 20 or 30 grand...stuff that really matters. A bit of perspective is required here.
Click to expand...

Fairly spurious reasoning. If I knick two grand off you, are you going to let it slide because in the past people have had 100 grand knicked off them?

Your reputation is about all you have in photography. In social shooting, like weddings, 'little things' on Facebook and elsewhere, can quickly snowball and cost you a lot.
 
Silvermuir said:
**** happens. I could tell you stories of pro's in other professions gettin ripped off for 20 or 30 grand...stuff that really matters. A bit of perspective is required here.
Click to expand...

But not really relevant to my post is it? There's always someone worse off, doesn't mean you have to take ****


Oh, and please don't bypass the swear filter, it's there for a reason.
 
I covered my first wedding in 1975 and since then have shot over 1000. I have seen a lot happen in the wedding field over the years.

But i have never changed my opinion that the most important people at a wedding are the bride and groom. Professional wedding photographers are assigned to cover the first day of their life together as a married couple. Long after they have eaten the food, drunk the drink, lost the presents and grown too big for the clothes they will still ahve the photographs.

I have seen many photographers pretend to be experienced enough to cover a weddign and many have failed.

Currently we see photographers go off to training days and put the images onto their websites as though they are proficient wedding photographers. Here we see someone putting photographs on that all they did was point a camera that will work out the exposure and focus automatically. The official photographer has got the light right, the composition right and everything else right for them.

Its when the copier gets on their first wedding as the official photographer that they might learn their lesson, very sharply at the expense of a poor unsuspecting bride and groom.

Copying someone elses photograph and prancing around as an experienced pro is fraud, no other way to describe it
 
Jayst84 said:
Fairly spurious reasoning. If I knick two grand off you, are you going to let it slide because in the past people have had 100 grand knicked off them?

Your reputation is about all you have in photography. In social shooting, like weddings, 'little things' on Facebook and elsewhere, can quickly snowball and cost you a lot.
Click to expand...

:thumbs: That is exactly my way of looking at it. Social networking sites can be good or bad, but one thing they certainly are is powerful communications systems.
Taking the OP at face value (and I see no reason not too), would you necessarily notice the same person at two weddings taking images from the same place as you? Probably as the OP has pointed out, you would be aware of being "shadowed" the second time. If the other photographer is a professional, then they are obviously there for some reason other than casual snapping. Are they building up a portfolio, or have they had a prior arrangement with the bride to provide a bit of competition which the OP is not aware of?
Whatever the case, it is clearly wrong for the other tog to claim that they were the photographer on the day, and then use this to boost sales, it is fraud/deception whatever.
 
fabs said:
Seems to be quite a few here who appear to have misunderstood the OP's point.

He's not complaining about the other photographer taking the photos, he's talking about her showing them and possibly misleading others into believing that she was the main photographer at the wedding and therefore that the set ups were hers too.
Click to expand...

Exactly, a clear case of deliberate deception. I wonder if it is worth the OP getting in touch with the bride(s?), and asking them what the situation was, and finding out if they were aware of the claims being made by the other tog?
 
artona said:
I covered my first wedding in 1975 and since then have shot over 1000. I have seen a lot happen in the wedding field over the years.

But i have never changed my opinion that the most important people at a wedding are the bride and groom. Professional wedding photographers are assigned to cover the first day of their life together as a married couple. Long after they have eaten the food, drunk the drink, lost the presents and grown too big for the clothes they will still ahve the photographs.

I have seen many photographers pretend to be experienced enough to cover a weddign and many have failed.

Currently we see photographers go off to training days and put the images onto their websites as though they are proficient wedding photographers. Here we see someone putting photographs on that all they did was point a camera that will work out the exposure and focus automatically. The official photographer has got the light right, the composition right and everything else right for them.

Its when the copier gets on their first wedding as the official photographer that they might learn their lesson, very sharply at the expense of a poor unsuspecting bride and groom.

Copying someone elses photograph and prancing around as an experienced pro is fraud, no other way to describe it
Click to expand...

Agree with this gent totally. What the op does next is up to him I don't think hassling the bride & groom over who the official tog was is going to please them too much. I would take the matter up with her, the phantom tog/pretender call her what you will
 
I don't think it's a case of hassling the B&Gs but I wouldn't want to approach this charlatan without full possession of the facts. a simple friendly polite conversation would achieve this.

What happens if the OP contacts the other tog and they lie saying ' oh yeah the b&g are cool with me saying I shot their wedding. Why do you care?' The OP has backed themself into a corner.

Whereas a chat to the customer will let them know that they're good to pursue the fraudster. Personally I'd still go gentle with that, but knowing I'm right would give me confidence in my position.
 
Phil V said:
I don't think it's a case of hassling the B&Gs but I wouldn't want to approach this charlatan without full possession of the facts. a simple friendly polite conversation would achieve this.

What happens if the OP contacts the other tog and they lie saying ' oh yeah the b&g are cool with me saying I shot their wedding. Why do you care?' The OP has backed themself into a corner.

Whereas a chat to the customer will let them know that they're good to pursue the fraudster. Personally I'd still go gentle with that, but knowing I'm right would give me confidence in my position.
Click to expand...

That is the way I see it Phil, just a quiet word with the customer first, and then approach the other tog.
 
Jayst84 said:
Fairly spurious reasoning. If I knick two grand off you, are you going to let it slide because in the past people have had 100 grand knicked off them?

Your reputation is about all you have in photography. In social shooting, like weddings, 'little things' on Facebook and elsewhere, can quickly snowball and cost you a lot.
Click to expand...

Look its a big bad world and it aint fair and no one cares if you feel hurt someone nikked your pov i cant believe this thread is still going ...get over it
 
I'd put it down to experience and watch your back next time.

I shoot an angling festival every August and at the weigh-in, as the official event photographer I have get anglers posing with their catches. I have all sorts of people, local press etc, using my 'set-up' of the anglers posing, but I don't worry about it - I get paid, the shots get used by my employer on the website, in news pieces and in the mags, and I'm happy. If someone else gets a shot that's very, very similar (it won't be identical unless they steal my images) then so be it.... what I was contracted to do has been fulfilled and everyone is happy at my end....
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
I shoot an angling festival every August and at the weigh-in, as the official event photographer I have get anglers posing with their catches. I have all sorts of people, local press etc, using my 'set-up' of the anglers posing, but I don't worry about it - I get paid, the shots get used by my employer on the website, in news pieces and in the mags, and I'm happy. If someone else gets a shot that's very, very similar (it won't be identical unless they steal my images) then so be it.... what I was contracted to do has been fulfilled and everyone is happy at my end....
Click to expand...

But if, as the OP says;
pirateship said:
She's on her facebook business page saying "here are some recent weddings where I was the photographer..." and others are replying saying wow thats a great idea, great shot etc.
Click to expand...

How would you feel about it if people were claiming to be the official photographer and that they set up the shots?
 
Obviously, I'm addressing the issue regarding whether or not having similar images on display is a copyright issue.

Passing off, misrepresentation or whatever you want to call it is a different matter that they (the op) will have to address through correspondance with the other photographer.
 
Last edited:
Is this thread for real? I don't mean the initial possible troll bait but the reactions to it?

Somebody takes pics from a place near where you were standing puts them on FB and it's time to get all medieval on them?

1. I looked at FB this morning at the page of a model I have worked with. I thought he'd added one of my pics to his gallery (which would be fine). It turns out it was shot by somebody else on a different day. Turns out there's a limited number of things you can do with a guy in a suit.

2. 90% of the wedding sites I see contain stuff they shot on courses or as second shooters or using models and don't think to mention it. That's a lot more misleading than saying "I was a photographer at a wedding".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top