Scanning is Theft

[neil_g]

I'm going to guess you don't know much about the music industry, so we'll cut this debate short.

someone elses sarcasm detector is broke

 

[Kaouthia]

I'm going to guess you don't know much about the music industry, so we'll cut this debate short.

I think the implication was that Robbie was merely an average singer.

 

[petethorp]

I think this link should help anyone doubting Pauls' message

http://www.photographywebsite.co.uk/copyright-in-photography-c494.html

 

[barryhennessy]

wow, that got nowhere fast.
anyway, @HoppyUK:

And on the question raised by BarryH about labs scaning copyright images, while the Barry personally may be concerned about photographer's rights, that is not the reason why labs are cautious. They are trying to protect themselves from possible legal repercussions and couldn't give a stuff about the copyright holder.

Exactly!! You should always cover your ass!
And in the case of people getting your photos reproduced in a photo lab the best way of doing this is marking the back of the photo with the copyright info!

 

[dod]

Pointless excercise. It's not a question of education because people don't see copyright theft as stealing anyway, even when it's explained to them. As I pointed out above.

And secondly, once an image exists in digital form it is impossible to police it.

The reality of the argument is rather less one of copyright theft, but more one of "digital technology has run a coach and horses through my business model". It is better to change your business model than protest - it is a hopeless cause.

The difficulty is that technology has also de-skilled photography to the extent that most general commercial photography can be done to an acceptable level by pretty much anyone.

The message that scanning is theft is technically incorrect, nobody understands it, nobody cares anyway, and it's a futile irrelevance. Why not address the fundamental problem?

Hoppy, I find myself in total agreement with you. My terms and conditions which I've no doubt many will find disturbing are below. However, the images generally have no intrinsic value to anyone other than the subject. There is no repeat sale value. Yes, I retain the copyright, but it's to something which is fundamentally worthless.

On realising that I've started offering small images specifically for facebook with no copyright or watermark on them at all. Why bother, my customers know who I am and will return anyway, especially now that I'm giving them something they actually want.

All the images on this website are copyright George Michie.

Commercial publications use them on pain of having body parts removed with rusty pliers. I'll also invoice you at a rate designed to pay off my mortgage. If you ask however I might surprise you and let you use them for a credit, it's unlikely but you never know. I do guarantee however that the day you give me free display advertising is the same day I give you free images.

Customers however, you're fine. If you've bought an image you're free to do what you want with it, except for handing it to magazines and papers etc for commercial publication. However, if you're using it for advertising a bike, car or horse then feel free to use it. If you're not sure that you're allowed to do something give me a phone and we'll sort something out. If you've bought it though the chances are I'll pretty much let you do anything you want with it.

 

[steve_lyt]

There is a fine line between protecting your work , ans getting a reputaion for being awkward.

if you have a high handed approch to customers , they wont come back or recommend you to others.

when photographs are taken at an event , the only use to yourself is a portfolio , and should you get model release for the photos you use on your website or in your portfolio.

i work with an organisation , we have an agreement that if they wish to use them comerially they get my permission, anyone who asks me for copies , must ask the organisation for release of the images.

the organisation my distribute the image for non profit without my permission

these simpe rules have helped keep a good working relationship

i can understand photographers who make a living at photography , being sensitive about this matter , but please dont cut your throat . Photography works mostly on word of mouth .

Cheers Steve

 

[neil_g]

There is a fine line between protecting your work , ans getting a reputaion for being awkward.

if you have a high handed approch to customers , they wont come back or recommend you to others.

when photographs are taken at an event , the only use to yourself is a portfolio , and should you get model release for the photos you use on your website or in your portfolio.

i work with an organisation , we have an agreement that if they wish to use them comerially they get my permission, anyone who asks me for copies , must ask the organisation for release of the images.

the organisation my distribute the image for non profit without my permission

these simpe rules have helped keep a good working relationship

i can understand photographers who make a living at photography , being sensitive about this matter , but please dont cut your throat . Photography works mostly on word of mouth .

Cheers Steve

my understanding was that model releases were only needed if the images were to be commercially used but were completely unenforcable legally in the UK?

and on the cutting throat point, we had a competitor at an event a few months ago that ripped off 4-5 of our images for facebook which we asked to be removed and then chased via facebooks report feature when we were ignored. that same person has recently ordered quite a few prints including a 18x12 so i think as long as you go about these things in a professional manor then mud shouldnt stick.

 

[steve_lyt]

i might be wrong that if an image is used by a photographer for the purpose of selling them themleves is that not a dommerial use. I concur that a professional approach , make good bussiness sense.

i am just doing photography for pleasure but it is still important to approach a shoot in as profeesional manner.

my contacts are building up and i hope to be doing photography on a more commerial basis in the near future.

the customers need to be informed , in a clear manner before you take the job on, if some breaks your conditions if you are asked back get them to sign a contract.

Cheers Steve

 

[wack61]

Actually, I'm with the noir dude here.
I kow exactly where he is coming from as demonstrated at a prom 2 weeks ago.

Her: hi can I get get a photo with all 10 of us in it?
Me: sure no problem, just to let you know, at least 50% of you have to buy the image.
her: why? we only want one copy, i'll scan it for the rest of them.
Me: (politely) I'm sorry, in that case I wont take the photo.
Her: why not, you're still selling one copy
me: (still politely) yes, but I'm losing out on another 9, and you are effectivley stealing the image

I'm not a pro but I just don't get this logic, you lose out on 9 sales but by not taking the picture you lose out on 10 and make no money at all :shrug:

 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Her: well can we use the backdrop then?

Had that. Then they get stroppy when you say no.

Lynton: "As an amateur I really don't see why not sell the pics with full copyright"

With half-wit comments like this who needs enemies ?

Greenninja: "My take on this is that while copyright is an important subject for photographers, it actually has little meaning with the wider public - who by and large never actually "create" anything"

Correct. There are also too many photographers who are ignorant to the differences between licensing and copyright.

a1ex2001: "Quite alot of the professional photography that people complain about being stolen is just a simple matter of pressing a button, I've witnessed hours of formal shots at Univeristy balls and sat through countless shoots when at school and really there was very little if anything going on beyond pressing a button"

So a photographer who does that hasn't built the business up, bought the kit, bought 5m PLI and had their kit PAT tested ? They've just rocked up and pressed a button ? Another half baked idea. 2/10

Wildsnaps: "We have now taken the view that, should a client be heard discussing the possibility of scanning a photograph we will decline to sell them the image"

Agree 100%. If I had the money I would love to rent premises next door to where some of these people work and put a MASSIVE poster in the window stating that we offer an identical service to the place next door but for FREE. Then watch the fireworks as they realise that they will be out of a job within days.

I suggest that this forum needs to establish some sort of entrance exam with regards to licensing and copyright and the need for photographers who do photography for a living not to have their businesses screwed around by random half wits who happen to own a camera.

I don't understand how people call themselves photographers yet display an almost wilful lack of respect to working photographers and established practices.

<~~~ complaint button there.

 

[Lynton]

Lynton: "As an amateur I really don't see why not sell the pics with full copyright"

With half-wit comments like this who needs enemies ?


Tyrone,

Just exactly why is that a half-wit comment???

Personally I think Dod's small print is pretty good.

We are talking about a prom night shoot etc, where the pics have no commercial interest / value other than to the subject.. so why do people get so hung up on copyright??????

 

[TriggerHappy]

I don't understand how people call themselves photographers yet display an almost wilful lack of respect to working photographers and established practices.

I don't understand why some people who call themselves professional photographers cling to established practices in a market that is very different from the time those practices were established. :shrug:

 

[cambsno]

I suggest that this forum needs to establish some sort of entrance exam with regards to licensing and copyright and the need for photographers who do photography for a living not to have their businesses screwed around by random half wits who happen to own a camera.

Yeah right... if you think that then why not start one yourself and see how many members you get!

All businesses are different, and many have different operating methods despite being in the same industry. Event togging is something I know nothing about and would guess this needs a different approach than say weddings, or babies. Just because some people are more tolerant to the odd scanning does not make them idiots, just realists. I am not too hung up on it as I will never know if a customer scans and does their own canvas - short of doing random home visits!

 

[Mickwreay]

Hi,

From a non-professional point of view.

Both my lads recently joined the Royal Navy and we went down to Plymouth for the pass-out parade.

The professional photographers took some great shots and a high quality video & I would imagine everyone there bought a copy of the parade DVD & presentation shots etc.

However their prices, in my opinion were very high, especially for the extra copies. I can’t recall actual prices but for the portraits everyone seemed to begrudgingly buy one.

The prices for subsequent copies were almost as much as for the first, now I know you are paying for their skills, kit, time etc. But on the day there were approximately 60 young people passing out & on average each family must have spent £60 which is a handsome profit in my eyes!!

The same firm has also been doing the parades for the RAF also since I joined back in 1985.


I’m not saying I agree with copying/scanning peoples work, but if the extra copies of the DVDs & pics were at a sensible level then I’m sure most people would buy from the tog!

Again, let me stress that I’m not saying people should rip the professionals off, but there has to be a balance & people will gladly pay for quality at the right price. :shrug:

Mick

 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Lynton: "As an amateur I really don't see why not sell the pics with full copyright"

With half-wit comments like this who needs enemies ?


Tyrone,

Just exactly why is that a half-wit comment???

Personally I think Dod's small print is pretty good.

We are talking about a prom night shoot etc, where the pics have no commercial interest / value other than to the subject.. so why do people get so hung up on copyright??????

Can I ask you what you do for a living ?

Scratch that, I can't be arsed.

If I have to explain and all that ...

 

[SK617]

Mick, it was probably Tempest, they do the same for the army too.
usually the recruits get told they will buy them!

 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I&#8217;m not saying I agree with copying/scanning peoples work, but if the extra copies of the DVDs & pics were at a sensible level then I&#8217;m sure most people would buy from the tog!

The race for the bottom would mean that the 'sensible' level would be set -by the buyer- at about £5 per disc with all the images on it. Those images would then be taken to Tesco or Asda to be turned into canvases and framed prints.

Are you suggesting that it's better for multinational supermarkets to benefit more from photography than the photographer who took the photographs ?

there has to be a balance & people will gladly pay for quality at the right price. :shrug:

it's called what the market will stand. The earnings from the event you mentioned will - without doubt - go towards mortgage, utility bills, schooling, raising kids, running a car, professional insurance and business development. You know ... the economy.

If any person in this thread can honestly say that they would gladly go to their boss tomorrow and offer to do the same job they did yesterday for half or quarter of the salary then I'll take back everything I've said.

Won't happen, will it ?

 

[Mickwreay]

The race for the bottom would mean that the 'sensible' level would be set -by the buyer- at about £5 per disc with all the images on it. Those images would then be taken to Tesco or Asda to be turned into canvases and framed prints.

Are you suggesting that it's better for multinational supermarkets to benefit more from photography than the photographer who took the photographs ?



it's called what the market will stand. The earnings from the event you mentioned will - without doubt - go towards mortgage, utility bills, schooling, raising kids, running a car, professional insurance and business development. You know ... the economy.

If any person in this thread can honestly say that they would gladly go to their boss tomorrow and offer to do the same job they did yesterday for half or quarter of the salary then I'll take back everything I've said.

Won't happen, will it ?

Thanks for that mate, I think I had realised they were in it to make money!!

My points were meant to make some sense of the reasons why people copy/scan/digitise etc.

The particular event is a captive audience & my point is, if the prices had been more sensible for the extra copies I believe they firm would have made even more money.

I am certainly not suggesting the firm is not entitled to make money from their labours, but simply saying people will turn their backs if they feel that prices are too high.

To address your supermarket analogy, they regularly offer BOGOF, so if the firm had offered similar deals I think they would still be in profit & would have made many more deals.

It’s simple economics supply but no demand

 

[ConfusedChicca]

In the past, I've had a client complain about the quality of a print, and while we were in the process of finding a solution, she scanned them into facebook and uploaded them. As she was insisting on a refund, I sent her a polite message informing her of copyright law, which of course she took no notice of. But reporting her to Facebook and them removing the images, she soon realised I was serious.
People will take the p**s as long as you let them in my opinion.
Another site to direct people to is http://www.dontscrewus.org

 

[Kaouthia]

The professional photographers took some great shots [..] approximately 60 young people passing out & on average each family must have spent £60 which is a handsome profit in my eyes!!

So, £3600 for a day's work, minus printing costs and tax, so about £2000 *maybe*. Then there's the insurance, depreciation on equipment, travel costs, sorry, how many photographers was this shared between again?

 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Thanks for that mate, I think I had realised they were in it to make money!!

My points were meant to make some sense of the reasons why people copy/scan/digitise etc.

I've seen people welch on paying for charity jobs. I've had people lie to me because they think they can get a way with it and act shamelessly when it's obvious that they are lying. I've seen people go to court and then to prison in full denial of their actions. Some people are inherently dishonest.

The particular event is a captive audience & my point is, if the prices had been more sensible for the extra copies I believe they firm would have made even more money.

Doesn't work like that in reality.

I am certainly not suggesting the firm is not entitled to make money from their labours, but simply saying people will turn their backs if they feel that prices are too high.

Didn't happen though, did it ? Setting aside your assumption of the average spend which I'd suggest from experience is way off the mark

QUOTE: "60 young people passing out & on average each family must have spent £60 which is a handsome profit in my eyes!!"

To address your supermarket analogy, they regularly offer BOGOF, so if the firm had offered similar deals I think they would still be in profit & would have made many more deals.

It&#8217;s simple economics supply but no demand

Didn't happen though, did it ?

QUOTE: "60 young people passing out & on average each family must have spent £60 which is a handsome profit in my eyes!!

Trick is, getting yourself from that level of recognition to that level of profitability.

If you're in business you'll know what I'm on about. If you think I'm wrong then I hope that the market forces you're wishing upon other businesses doesn't happen to your boss's business.

 

[Mickwreay]

So, £3600 for a day's work, minus printing costs and tax, so about £2000 *maybe*. Then there's the insurance, depreciation on equipment, travel costs, sorry, how many photographers was this shared between again?

3 togs I believe.

But I still feel like you are missing my point, I would have been happy to pay the cost of an extra print, but don't feel around 90% of the initial shot is a fair price.

The proof of my opinion is, hardly anyone from the 60 families bought extra shots :shrug:

Mick

 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

3 togs I believe.

But I still feel like you are missing my point, I would have been happy to pay the cost of an extra print, but don't feel around 90% of the initial shot is a fair price.

The proof of my opinion is, hardly anyone from the 60 families bought extra shots :shrug:

Mick

Do you have any verifiable evidence that the average spend was £60 and that "hardly anyone from the 60 families bought extra shots" ?

 

[Kaouthia]

I get your point, you don't get the point that working photographers need to keep a roof over their head and food on their table too.

You seem to think that all they do is show up, press a few buttons and go home and their work's done. If they're not printing on site, then they still need to arrange printing for all the images, sort out the shipping, which takes time and more money, and they may only do one event like this every couple of weeks, and spend the rest of the time planning and preparing for it, and doing the follow up work to make sure everybody gets their prints delivered, etc.

I don't see how further prints should cost any less than the first really. It's the same product, why should it not be the same price?

Btw, I don't see that it's possible to "prove" an opinion. Simply having other people of the same opinion, is not proof of anything.

 

[Mickwreay]

If you're in business you'll know what I'm on about. If you think I'm wrong then I hope that the market forces you're wishing upon other businesses doesn't happen to your boss's business.

I'm not in business for myself and I fully understand your points, but just in case you still don't get me ""if the extra copy prices were more reasonable, I & probably most of the families would have spent more"

What's with the Didn't happen blah.

DVD £30 fair price, portrait around £25 I seem to recall. A cd for £5 with some general class shots, mainly distant shots which are not going to be of much use as a canvas etc.

So I am pretty confident on my £60 average spend thanks.

Not sure why you are getting so angry when I'm just pointing out the facts of the day :shrug:

 

[Mickwreay]

Do you have any verifiable evidence that the average spend was £60 and that "hardly anyone from the 60 families bought extra shots" ?

I'm sorry I never asked everyone, but all my son's friends were saying the same thing.

Mick

 

[CT]

Nah, they're right. They use the word "steal" not theft. Steal is a word you'll find in the dictionary, but not in law.

You'll find the word 'steal' right there in Sec1(1) Theft Act 1968 in the basic definition of the offence of Theft.

Theft Act 1968
1.-(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly.

 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I'm sorry I never asked everyone, but all my son's friends were saying the same thing.

Mick

So, hearsay, inadmissible, disregard.

Would you like the company you work for to drop their prices to a price which better suited the buyer ?

Say, drop the at the factory gate product price from £100 per item to a more affordable £20 per item ?

Would you be willing to take a salary hit from £30,00 to £10,000 whilst still putting the same effort in and sustaining the same costs ?

 

[cambsno]

Mick has some very valid points. I offer bundles to give people a good deal and up their average spend. On the baby groups I do, I sell a higher value (and profit) order by doing an almost 3for2. People do buy on price as much as they do quality. If they think (and perception is key here) they are getting ripped off, then they will not buy or find ways round it.

If any person in this thread can honestly say that they would gladly go to their boss tomorrow and offer to do the same job they did yesterday for half or quarter of the salary then I'll take back everything I've said.

Maybe you need to re-evaluate your pricing structure and charge more for prints and reduce the amount of additional prints. It is not about being cheaper but value for money. In most walks of life, the more you buy the better the deal you should get.

Also, and this will vary I appreciate, but the quality of work is key too. Most baby togs charge £0 - £50 for a session fee, a local tog charges £350 for a weekend session and then £40 for a 6x4 or 7x5 print. But her quality of work is such that she can command those prices. We all have customers who may think we are too dear (or even too cheap), but if you provide a really stunning image, people will pay more.

 

[cambsno]

So, hearsay, inadmissible, disregard.

Would you like the company you work for to drop their prices to a price which better suited the buyer ?

Say, drop the at the factory gate product price from £100 per item to a more affordable £20 per item ?

Would you be willing to take a salary hit from £30,00 to £10,000 whilst still putting the same effort in and sustaining the same costs ?

You do talk some rubbish. No-one has been saying that you or anyone should drop prices like this.

If that factory produced 1 item at £100, many would produce the 2nd for say £60, as economies of scale kick in. A 10x8 print costs around £1, so rather than sell one at £15, I would rather sell three at £35 as my costs only go up by around £2 (as post and time hardly change).

This is something I have done over the last few months and have seen an increase in average customer spend!

 

[specialman]

I suggest that this forum needs to establish some sort of entrance exam with regards to licensing and copyright and the need for photographers who do photography for a living not to have their businesses screwed around by random half wits who happen to own a camera.

This forum is for photographers of all experience and for pros and non-pros alike - this is not a professional photographer's site and certainly not a place where people have to explain and prove themselves. Your suggestion is noted however, but I doubt it carries much water with the majority...

I don't understand how people call themselves photographers yet display an almost wilful lack of respect to working photographers and established practices....

That's life. Maybe the exam you propose will thin out the numpties and half wits who are being disrespectful...

 

[Mickwreay]

So, hearsay, inadmissible, disregard.

Would you like the company you work for to drop their prices to a price which better suited the buyer ?

Say, drop the at the factory gate product price from £100 per item to a more affordable £20 per item ?

Would you be willing to take a salary hit from £30,00 to £10,000 whilst still putting the same effort in and sustaining the same costs ?

Ok mate, we'll agree to disagree.

How many togs on the above thread are moaning about the subject of scanning?

If the problem exists, what is your solution?

Mine would be: charge a price on shot number one that covers all your expenses & includes profit. Then any extra prints are a bonus.

Because as many above have said, a picture of my son has little or no commercial interest to anyone outside our family.

Mick

 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Maybe you need to re-evaluate your pricing structure

My pricing structure is carefully worked out to maximise profit whilst deterring the "can we have the images on disc for a fiver" massive.

I do discounts, I do pro bono, if I see someone struggling with facing paying £60 for 6 prints of their kid I'll do all 6 prints for £20 but don't tell the other parents.

What I don't do is have time for people who don't do what I do telling me that I ought to do it for less.

Is there anything else you think you know about my pricing structure ?

 

[Mickwreay]

Mick has some very valid points. I offer bundles to give people a good deal and up their average spend. On the baby groups I do, I sell a higher value (and profit) order by doing an almost 3for2. People do buy on price as much as they do quality. If they think (and perception is key here) they are getting ripped off, then they will not buy or find ways round it.

At last, common sense.

The initial cost of your work must take into account your profit, never in question.
But as I've said above, you are missing a trick if you don't at least make people feel like they're getting a good deal.
The set-up on the day was very ordered as you'd expect & the lads & lasses filed along in an orderly manner, sit, shoot, pay.
Yes the SHOOT part is what you pay for, but when you've gone to all the trouble of getting the shot, why not shift as many copies as you can.

You need to be a sale person as much as a tog surely!!

Mick

 

[Mickwreay]

My pricing structure is carefully worked out to maximise profit whilst deterring the "can we have the images on disc for a fiver" massive.

I do discounts, I do pro bono, if I see someone struggling with facing paying £60 for 6 prints of their kid I'll do all 6 prints for £20 but don't tell the other parents.

So after all that, you have basically agreed with my points :shrug:

Mick

 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Ok mate, we'll agree to disagree.

I'll take that as a firm no to a drop in salary, shall I ?

How many togs on the above thread are moaning about the subject of scanning?

How many of them are in business ?

How many of them have heard 'just buy one and we'll scan it' half a dozen times a night ?

If the problem exists, what is your solution?

The problem exists. There is no if.

Mine would be: charge a price on shot number one that covers all your expenses & includes profit. Then any extra prints are a bonus.

That is so far off reality I will not and can not take it seriously.

Because as many above have said, a picture of my son has little or no commercial interest to anyone outside our family

It is of commercial interest to the person or business who has the task of producing a decent shot of the occasion.

You're on a photography forum, denigrating photographers who make a living at photography. What's your motivation ?

 

[cambsno]

You need to be a sale person as much as a tog surely!!

Mick

Not just a tog thing. I have seen thousands of businesses in over 15 years in sales. Many are excellent at what they do, but have little business sense or customer skills. From "I don't have a website as I don't use the web" to being rude to customers. Some just cannot sell despite having a great product or service.

 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

So after all that, you have basically agreed with my points :shrug:

Mick

No, see my last post on the subject.

When you go in to work, that's if you have a job, and declare that you're earning too much and wish to do the same work output for less pay, I'll take you seriously.

 

[Mickwreay]

No, see my last post on the subject.

When you go in to work, that's if you have a job, and declare that you're earning too much and wish to do the same work output for less pay, I'll take you seriously.

By the way you talk on here mate, I'm surprised you sell anything!

If you are a tog that is :baby:

Mick

 

[cambsno]

What I don't do is have time for people who don't do what I do telling me that I ought to do it for less.

Is there anything else you think you know about my pricing structure ?

For the umpteenth time no-one is telling you that togs need to halve their price. But, they do need to do what they can in order to maximise sales. If you can sell all prints and re-prints at full price then great. If you are having people looking to scan and cheat, anything you can do to sell more will result in more turnover with negligible cost, not less.

You seem to have a real chip on your shoulder about something.