other photographer copying my work

My sons a chef, comes up with ideas and writes the menu, within days lesser chefs are copying his menu.

My cousin is a builder, his lost count the amount of times others have photographed his work and passed it off as there own.


Unfortunately this sort of behavior goes on in many trades and there's not much that can be done.
 
The Greek said:
My sons a chef, comes up with ideas and writes the menu, within days lesser chefs are copying his menu.

My cousin is a builder, his lost count the amount of times others have photographed his work and passed it off as there own.


Unfortunately this sort of behavior goes on in many trades and there's not much that can be done.
Click to expand...

There is a lot that can be done. It involves court and money.
 
artona said:
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.
Click to expand...

This ^^^ (all of it actually)

Surely the copyist (?) will get found out sooner or later while on the job and probably have their business implode around them rather quickly.

Sounds like the lady in question is trying the fast track her route to success - cheating.

But we all know what happens in those Terry Thomas films, in the end.
 
Type1 said:
There is a lot that can be done. It involves court and money.
Click to expand...

Your right, But how many of us would want to spend half our life in court and all our money on legal advice .... Not Me!
 
I have been to several Wedding's where I have occasionally stood behind a tog to get good shots. I would not stalk said tog, but have no qualms whatsoever in taking advantage at the right opportunity (personal use only).

If the tog asked me not to take photos, I think I would reply with the middle finger. If tog does not like the idea of others taking "snaps", he should insert a clause into his contact saying no other cameras allowed at the event. See how many jobs he gets then.

You cannot copyright photons.
 
Last edited:
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...

stealing two grand is not the same as standing beside someone and taking the same pictures.
 
JonathanRyan said:
Maybe in a court of law. Facebook, not so much.
Click to expand...
I'll have to take your word for it, I don't do FriendFace so have no idea whether people on there are unable to distinguish between definite and indefinite articles. :)
 
steve_lyt said:
if you have an assistant , they could swan about behind you stoping other taking your shots.

Cheers Steve
Click to expand...

And if other has a friend he could do the same to the Pro!
 
Splog said:
And if other has a friend he could do the same to the Pro!
Click to expand...

I can see that turning into something like a Dave Allen sketch...
 
Catdaddy said:
I can see that turning into something like a Dave Allen sketch...
Click to expand...

Or Benny Hill :D
 
Orville said:
I have been to several Wedding's where I have occasionally stood behind a tog to get good shots. I would not stalk said tog, but have no qualms whatsoever in taking advantage at the right opportunity (personal use only).

If the tog asked me not to take photos, I think I would reply with the middle finger. If tog does not like the idea of others taking "snaps", he should insert a clause into his contact saying no other cameras allowed at the event. See how many jobs he gets then.

You cannot copyright photons.
Click to expand...

If you did that to me Orville, I would go up to you and ask you to repeat the gesture, and if you did, then as a guest you could be guilty of ruining the wedding.
The wedding photographer politely asks you not to do something and you make a very insulting gesture towards him/her.
You need to think long and hard about how you react in certain circumstances.
 
steve_lyt said:
if you have an assistant , they could swan about behind you stoping other taking your shots.

Cheers Steve
Click to expand...

That is a very good idea Steve, could be a good tactic if this sort of behaviour becomes the norm.
 
andy700 said:
If you did that to me Orville, I would go up to you and ask you to repeat the gesture, and if you did, then as a guest you could be guilty of ruining the wedding.
The wedding photographer politely asks you not to do something and you make a very insulting gesture towards him/her.
You need to think long and hard about how you react in certain circumstances.
Click to expand...

Orville, I think you have misunderstood this thread and I agree with what Andy has just said. No wedding photographer I know, including the OP, would restrict any guest from politely snapping their setups once they had finished the shot. That is not the issue under discussion, but rather the fact that this other person is deliberately taking a ride off the OP's posing, directing, lighting and compositional skills in order to gain professional-looking work which she is apparently using to promote her portfolio for commercial gain - and she appears to be strongly implying that those images were acquired in a formal capacity, when they were not. This is ethically, professionally, and morally wrong, and perhaps even legally questionable, though I am not suggesting that route as a remedy.

Lastly, I'm disappointed by the earlier suggestion that the OP might be a troll - there is no evidence to support that and his/her decision to withhold a website address is probably understandable if personal or family relationships are involved in this, which I suspect they are.
 
Once again I am not a troll and yes I have a website, but I'm not here to advertise.

I do appreciate all the feedback though.

I have contacted the other photographer but as yet have heard nothing.
 
Lindsay D said:
Orville, I think you have misunderstood this thread and I agree with what Andy has just said. No wedding photographer I know, including the OP, would restrict any guest from politely snapping their setups once they had finished the shot. That is not the issue under discussion, but rather the fact that this other person is deliberately taking a ride off the OP's posing, directing, lighting and compositional skills in order to gain professional-looking work which she is apparently using to promote her portfolio for commercial gain - and she appears to be strongly implying that those images were acquired in a formal capacity, when they were not. This is ethically, professionally, and morally wrong, and perhaps even legally questionable, though I am not suggesting that route as a remedy.

Lastly, I'm disappointed by the earlier suggestion that the OP might be a troll - there is no evidence to support that and his/her decision to withhold a website address is probably understandable if personal or family relationships are involved in this, which I suspect they are.
Click to expand...

Well said Lindsay, particularly the last part, where certain people were not prepared to take the OP at face value, perhaps they assume that someone has to have a certain number of posts under their belt before starting a topic of their own.
 
OP, this other photographer has 'stolen' your arranging and positioning of a group/person relative to surroundings and natural light.

That's all.

If you don't go further than this with your shots then I'd be looking for another job mate.

You should have everyone looking down your lens, the other tog won't have this unless they are seriously invading your personal space. If your not able to control a group of people to do this, get some training.

You could be using off camera lighting which only your camera will trigger.

You could be doing something really special in pp.

Your final images should be of a quality that
a) it's blatantly obvious who the 'official' photographer was and
b) it's actually unimportant who the official photographer was because your images are superior anyway.
 
andy700 said:
Well said Lindsay, particularly the last part, where certain people were not prepared to take the OP at face value, perhaps they assume that someone has to have a certain number of posts under their belt before starting a topic of their own.
Click to expand...

It's not just starting a topic of your own. The op has only contributed to 2 threads, both of them under some bizarre circumstances. Personally I think it's blindingly obvious what's going on, whether they have a website or not, makes no difference. But if others think otherwise then that's their opinion and they are entitled to advise as they see fit :thumbs:
 
I have reported her to the ASA for false advertising and put comments on facebook that we were the official photographers. Will see what happens.
 
joescrivens said:
It's not just starting a topic of your own. The op has only contributed to 2 threads, both of them under some bizarre circumstances. Personally I think it's blindingly obvious what's going on, whether they have a website or not, makes no difference. But if others think otherwise then that's their opinion and they are entitled to advise as they see fit :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I've always thought this was supposed to be a friendly forum.

It may be that someone sits back and reads only, then has a problem/issue and makes a post. Whether that's an issue with lighting, broken lens or a moral issue I'm more than prepared to help rather than make negative remarks, but maybe that's just something about the way I was brought up.

Pirateship - I've read this with interest as it's a difficult area, but it'll certainly be interesting to hear of the outcome. Sorry if I've missed it, but did you speak to your clients?
 
joescrivens said:
It's not just starting a topic of your own. The op has only contributed to 2 threads, both of them under some bizarre circumstances. Personally I think it's blindingly obvious what's going on, whether they have a website or not, makes no difference. But if others think otherwise then that's their opinion and they are entitled to advise as they see fit :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Joe, if you have an issue with someone's posts/threads the report them, it is not for you to make judgements in open threads.
 
fabs said:
Joe, if you have an issue with someone's posts/threads the report them, it is not for you to make judgements in open threads.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I've expressed my opinion and will leave you to it :thumbs:
 
pirateship said:
I have reported her to the ASA for false advertising and put comments on facebook that we were the official photographers. Will see what happens.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Do you think the rest of us, who have contributed to the thread, will ever find out?
 
I shall certainly report back should anything happen. I have not spoken with my brides. It's a difficult one as I don't want to damage my relationship with them. Also it seems in one case at least that they knew she was doing this, when my contracts say I should be sole professional photographer
 
I daresay something will happen. If nothing else, the ASA will either confirm that they're taking action, or advise you that there's nothing they can do because this doesn't fit into their interpretation of false/misleading advertising. It's in their hands now.

Personally, I would have had a word - tactfully - with the brides first. I wondered if they knew what the other photographer was doing, and if they had asked her to take some additional photographs, or gave her permission to shoot for her own portfolio. They may have felt that there wasn't any conflict with the contract, if she wasn't being paid and it was an informal arrangement. I don't know, but I do think there's more risk of antagonising them by taking this route - particularly if she's a friend/relative - rather than just pointing out what you posted here, and giving them a chance to sort it out quietly.

Anyway, it was your call and I'm not judging you. Just my own opinion.
 
pirateship said:
I shall certainly report back should anything happen. I have not spoken with my brides. It's a difficult one as I don't want to damage my relationship with them. Also it seems in one case at least that they knew she was doing this, when my contracts say I should be sole professional photographer
Click to expand...

This is part of my fear and why I would have spoken to the brides first. It's a more difficult conversation to have but saves you getting egg on your face if your customers later leap to the defence of this girl.

Making accusations that you can't 100% substantiate is a dangerous hobby, I'd have at least checked the 'relationship' between this girl and my customers before I went any further.

Still...
You asked for advice and decided on your strategy - good luck.
 
Were the couples in these 2 weddings related? I'm struggling to figure out how one guest could be at another wedding and be doing the same thing in both of them. Just seems odd. Was it at the same venue?
 
Phil V said:
This is part of my fear and why I would have spoken to the brides first. It's a more difficult conversation to have but saves you getting egg on your face if your customers later leap to the defence of this girl.

Making accusations that you can't 100% substantiate is a dangerous hobby, I'd have at least checked the 'relationship' between this girl and my customers before I went any further.

Still...
You asked for advice and decided on your strategy - good luck.
Click to expand...


100% agree with that post.

If she was asked by the Bride & Groom to also take photographs, then in a way, she's just as entitled to call herself THE PHOTOGRAPHER as you are.
 
The Greek said:
100% agree with that post.

If she was asked by the Bride & Groom to also take photographs, then in a way, she's just as entitled to call herself THE PHOTOGRAPHER as you are.
Click to expand...

If the bride has hired a tog and signed a contract, then this is exclusive - end of.
 
andy700 said:
If the bride has hired a tog and signed a contract, then this is exclusive - end of.
Click to expand...

I'm a little confused, what do you call someone with a camera taking pictures?

Just asked my neighbours 2 year old the same question and she said photogherger, could be wrong tho.
 
Sole rights to someones wedding day?! And they pay all the money to every supplier too?! You wedding snappers make me laugh....a lot!
 
The Greek said:
I'm a little confused, what do you call someone with a camera taking pictures?

Just asked my neighbours 2 year old the same question and she said photogherger, could be wrong tho.
Click to expand...

Very simplistic answer. I was talking about a bride/groom, hiring someone as a wedding photographer, and entering into a contract which gives the said photographer sole "commercial" rights to the photography on their big day.
This has absolutely nothing to do with "uncle Bob" and all the rest of the guests snapping away with whatever equipment they possess.
What it does prevent however, is someone else taking photographs at that wedding, and afterwards using them in a commercial sense, and claiming that they were the official photographer on the day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top