Struggling to know where I stand with this one...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dawn B

Dawn B

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,466
Name
Well Dawn of course!
Edit My Images
Yes
I feel I should know the answer to this, but I dont, so Im calling on you guys once again.:)

Say a pro togger takes a photo of your dog being exhibited at a show, then, an author of a book rings you and asks for the breeding (only) of your dog and can he put it in his book and you say yes. When the book is published, he has used a photo taken by the togger, and its not a good one! Can you object in any way? Should you of given permission for a photo/any photo to be used?
 
Dawn B said:
When the book is published, he has used a photo taken by the togger, and its not a good one! Can you object in any way?
Click to expand...
No I don't think you can object. What exactly would your objection be? The photographer is free to take pictures, they don't need your permission to publish them.
 
Are you asking because he has hurt the feelings of the dog by printing a bad photo or are you after some personal financial gain?
 
Triggaaar said:
No I don't think you can object. What exactly would your objection be? The photographer is free to take pictures, they don't need your permission to publish them.
Click to expand...
She didnt publish them, somebody else did. The author of a book didnt say he was using a photo of the dog, just printing the pedigree.
tiler65 said:
Are you asking because he has hurt the feelings of the dog by printing a bad photo or are you after some personal financial gain?
Click to expand...
Ill ignore that comment, as its a serious question I asked.
 
No, in short. Just...no. Someone obviously thought it was an ok photo, or they wouldn't have printed it.... that and just...no.
 
I honestly don't think you can do anything about it, photographs are subjective, I don't like some pictures of myself but my family and friends love them.

As as said above, what are you hoping to achieve ?
 
itsdavedotnet said:
No, in short. Just...no. Someone obviously thought it was an ok photo, or they wouldn't have printed it.... that and just...no.
Click to expand...
Thanks. :)

dseered said:
I honestly don't think you can do anything about it, photographs are subjective, I don't like some pictures of myself but my family and friends love them.

As as said above, what are you hoping to achieve ?
Click to expand...
Not hoping to achieve anything, but when exhibiting dogs, any "advert" needs to be one that prtrays you and your kennel in the best possible light. The photograph used does not do that.

Xarra said:
Did the photographer give permission for the photo to be used do you know?
Click to expand...
I would imagine she must have, but my problem is the book author never said ANY photo was being used, just the pedigree. If he had, I would of supplied one.
 
Is there any way that your 'kennel' and presumably business, is being misrepresented, or is it just a photo of 'a dog' with no indication of any connection.
 
Copyright is with the photographer not the dog owner, so however good or bad the photograph is, the matter is between the photographer and the licensed user. You gave your permission, not that this will be much or an issue, it being a dog and not a person.

Next time make sure you grant permissions based on you being able to see and authorise the use of images that feature your dog/s and kennels. But I think you'll need to put this one down to learning. Be careful what you agree to.
 
artyman said:
Is there any way that your 'kennel' and presumably business, is being misrepresented, or is it just a photo of 'a dog' with no indication of any connection.
Click to expand...

Its not a business no, but obviously if your dog is portrayed in a less than "good" light, its not desirable at all. A bit like somebody taking a picture of your child in a beauty contest (not anthromorphasising here) and she looks awful, and somebody else used that photo in a publication that all your family, friends and anyone else buying the book can see, giving the childs name etc...
 
Dawn,

I agree that there isn't a lot you can do about this, but I do see your frustration - firstly that the author only asked for the breeding of your dog and didn't clarify the fact that a photograph would also be used and, secondly, that you feel that the photograph doesn't do your dog justice. If I were a race horse owner and an OOF shot of the horses arse was included in a book it doesn't matter whether I had any actual recourse, I would be upset about it, whether or not the name of the owners or stable were included!

You could, perhaps, gently point out that, had the author been more forthright you could have provided a truly amazing photograph at a fraction of the cost s/he paid the tog! May make you feel a little better! ;)
 
ZoZo said:
Copyright is with the photographer not the dog owner, so however good or bad the photograph is, the matter is between the photographer and the licensed user. You gave your permission, not that this will be much or an issue, it being a dog and not a person.

Next time make sure you grant permissions based on you being able to see and authorise the use of images that feature your dog/s and kennels. But I think you'll need to put this one down to learning. Be careful what you agree to.
Click to expand...

Im sorry, I didnt give ANY permission, for ANY photograph to be taken or used! You misunderstand completely.
 
~Sam~ said:
Dawn,

I agree that there isn't a lot you can do about this, but I do see your frustration - firstly that the author only asked for the breeding of your dog and didn't clarify the fact that a photograph would also be used and, secondly, that you feel that the photograph doesn't do your dog justice. If I were a race horse owner and an OOF shot of the horses arse was included in a book it doesn't matter whether I had any actual recourse, I would be upset about it, whether or not the name of the owners or stable were included!

You could, perhaps, gently point out that, had the author been more forthright you could have provided a truly amazing photograph at a fraction of the cost s/he paid the tog! May make you feel a little better! ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks Sam, your first paragraph is pretty much spot on.
 
I don't misunderstand at all - permission isn't in your gift - it's the photographer who has the right to give permissions - you gave permission for your dog's pedigree to be mentioned, inevitably this will be better in a book with a picture. Someone took that picture and granted its usage in a book.

Reading this thread I think maybe you need to step away from the emotion. Come back to the matter when you feel less emotional about it.
 
Dawn B said:
Say a pro togger takes a photo of your dog being exhibited at a show, then, an author of a book rings you and asks for the breeding (only) of your dog and can he put it in his book and you say yes. When the book is published, he has used a photo taken by the togger, and its not a good one! Can you object in any way? Should you of given permission for a photo/any photo to be used?
Click to expand...
If the photographer has permission to take photos at the show, and the publisher has a deal with either the photographers present or the show organisers, then there is nothing you can realistically do. By entering your dog in the show you have agreed to all of the background contractual stuff going on.

At the end of the day, I'm sure John Terrys mom hasn't liked some photos taken at the footy of her son, but unless they actually purchase the photo and rights to it, there's nothing they can do about it. I hope this example gives you a useful parallel.
 
ZoZo said:
I don't misunderstand at all - permission isn't in your gift - it's the photographer who has the right to give permissions - you gave permission for your dog's pedigree to be mentioned, inevitably this will be better in a book with a picture. Someone took that picture and granted its usage in a book.

Reading this thread I think maybe you need to step away from the emotion. Come back to the matter when you feel less emotional about it.
Click to expand...
No you are wrong. Permission was given for the dogs breeding to be documented, NO mention of any pictures was spoken about. What makes you think Im going to be any less emotional about this at any other time, Im bloody furious!

mumrar said:
If the photographer has permission to take photos at the show, and the publisher has a deal with either the photographers present or the show organisers, then there is nothing you can realistically do. By entering your dog in the show you have agreed to all of the background contractual stuff going on.

At the end of the day, I'm sure John Terrys mom hasn't liked some photos taken at the footy of her son, but unless they actually purchase the photo and rights to it, there's nothing they can do about it. I hope this example gives you a useful parallel.
Click to expand...
No, she didnt have permission to take pictures at the show, like anyone else, she just did.
 
Just heard at least 6 other exhibitors have similar "issues" with this concerning their dogs too. Thanks for your input, mr author wont be best pleased soon!
 
:thinking:

I'm confused

:thinking:

If all of us except the person who told you he empathises with you are wrong, I don't understand why you asked for our input

:thinking:

Was this just an opportunity to vent your fury?
 
In the nicest possible way, the issue is between the photographer and the publisher and if the show was on private land and permisson for the images to be taken wasn't saught by the photographer from the landowner, it's between them too.

OK, so the images of the dogs are supposedly crap, but the the person/owner of an animal in the image has no copyright or say whatsoever on how the image is used, unless there was a specific modelling contract with the photographer (which by ths sounds of this there wasn't).
 
I dont think you need to grant permission firstly for someone to take a picture of your dog, and secondly for any pictures to be used. There is not a thing you can do about it legally as far as I'm aware. But I'm sure if word got around about the situation, people would be less forthcoming with their pedigree details in future.

It might just be one of those things you have to suck up Dawn unfortunatly. But I can understand your annoyance.
 
ZoZo said:
:thinking:

I'm confused

:thinking:

If all of us except the person who told you he empathises with you are wrong, I don't understand why you asked for our input

:thinking:

Was this just an opportunity to vent your fury?
Click to expand...
Yes if you say so. :whistling:
 
MagicMynx said:
In the nicest possible way, the issue is between the photographer and the publisher and if the show was on private land and permisson for the images to be taken wasn't saught by the photographer from the landowner, it's between them too.

OK, so the images of the dogs are supposedly crap, but the the person/owner of an animal in the image has no copyright or say whatsoever on how the image is used, unless there was a specific modelling contract with the photographer (which by ths sounds of this there wasn't).
Click to expand...

Thank you, thats what I wanted to hear, appreciated.:)
 
dougiew said:
I can't believe you lot are having this discussion over a bad photo of a dog....? :thinking:
Click to expand...

Well if I said we had turned down £12.000 for the dog, is it any clearer? Plus a blank cheque for one of her puppies sitting at my feet!;)
 
Jo said:
I dont think you need to grant permission firstly for someone to take a picture of your dog, and secondly for any pictures to be used. There is not a thing you can do about it legally as far as I'm aware. But I'm sure if word got around about the situation, people would be less forthcoming with their pedigree details in future.

It might just be one of those things you have to suck up Dawn unfortunatly. But I can understand your annoyance.
Click to expand...
Thanks Jo, Im told he isnt doing any more of these "books" wonder why??:thinking::thinking:
 
im very confused Dawn.

a pro-togger can do what they like if they have been commisioned for the show, I dont think dogs have to sign release forms. The publisher can publish what they like if they have permission, ie, from the photographer. Im not sure i understand what you are upset about..a crap photo?
 
Matty, I'm guessing it's something like this:

Dawn's dog is worth in excess of £12,000. The photo published along side her dogs pedigree in a book bought by pedigree breeders and those looking for a pedigree dogs. The image is of poor quality, making her dog look like it is worth a lot less than £12,000. It may also devalue any potential pups, as folk looking at the pictures and pedigree will go for better looking dogs.

Dawn is obviously upset about this and is trying to find a way of doing something about it.

:shrug:
 
12k for a dog?:runaway: Is it gold plated? :thinking:

if she aint selling, then whats the problem? breeders will know the value of a pedigree animal, a dodgy photo of a dog that isnt for sale (or are its pups) isnt going to devalue the animal

is the animal named in the photo?
 
I'm sorry to say, but it is your fault. You did not check what was happening, and gave away your information without enquiring what else would go along.

I know you are upset, but in reality you should check what you are giving your information away to a little more closely in future.

You win some, you lose some. I am sure the blank cheque makes you feel a little better though.
 
matty said:
im very confused Dawn.

a pro-togger can do what they like if they have been commisioned for the show, I dont think dogs have to sign release forms. The publisher can publish what they like if they have permission, ie, from the photographer. Im not sure i understand what you are upset about..a crap photo?
Click to expand...
As I said, the pro togger was NOT commissioned by the show at all whatsoever, she just turned up and took photographs from inside the ring when the awards were given, as did other people from around the world.
neil_g said:
likewise im not sure i understand the problem, especially if youre already turning down offers of £12,000 for the dog and more for its puppies.. :shrug:
Click to expand...

To answer you both in the second part.:) When a picture of anything is shown to "all" and put into publication, you want the best possible picture to be used. My gripe is there was never any mention of ANY pictures being used in said publication, just the dogs pedigree with the owners and breeders names. Should there of been mention of a photo being used, I would of provided one, one that showed the animal to its best advantage, not one that makes it look rubbish, or one I did not even know existed! I simply wanted to know if I had any stance on a picture being used without my knowledge or consent in a publication who's author made NO mention of any photo being used at all, to my knowledge the article was text only. Using pictures that could see your kennel in a poor light "could" obviously be detrimental to that kennel and its stock, when the book can be purchased by anyone in the same field across the world.

Thanks for your replies, Im now leaving this as it seems its trivial to many, but to me its very important, Im sorry if I wasted your time.
 
ding76uk said:
I'm sorry to say, but it is your fault. You did not check what was happening, and gave away your information without enquiring what else would go along.

I know you are upset, but in reality you should check what you are giving your information away to a little more closely in future.

You win some, you lose some. I am sure the blank cheque makes you feel a little better though.
Click to expand...

My dogs arent for sale thanks.;)
 
technically you wouldnt of had any say about the content of the article and any photos anyway.

im surprised about the organisers of the event let "joe blogs" inside the arena ring though, normally theyre strictly off limits to togs with media passes. how do you know the tog didnt have a media pass?

anyway in my honest opinion, if you really wanted to spend that much money on a dog you would go and see it first and chances are you would know 99.9% of the info about it anyway so 1 "dodgy" photo wouldnt make any difference.
 
Legally there is still nothing you can do ... The photographer owns the copyright to his /her image.

It could have been anybody that took the picture, i.e. some bystander at the show but because you feel it is somebody profiteering from a picture of one of our dogs, albeit shown in a less than acceptable light, you feel hard done by ???

Is that it or am I miles off ??

Cheers,

Si.
 
Jo said:
Matty, I'm guessing it's something like this:

Dawn's dog is worth in excess of £12,000. The photo published along side her dogs pedigree in a book bought by pedigree breeders and those looking for a pedigree dogs. The image is of poor quality, making her dog look like it is worth a lot less than £12,000. It may also devalue any potential pups, as folk looking at the pictures and pedigree will go for better looking dogs.

Dawn is obviously upset about this and is trying to find a way of doing something about it.

:shrug:
Click to expand...

We were offered that price Jo, but she was never and will never be for sale, nor will her puppy. You are correct in what you say though, it makes the dog look really rubbish, its not nice to think people who havent seen her in the flesh will judge her on this picture. It may seem like nothing to most, but I have exhibited dogs for 23yrs and its something im very fond of and passionate about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top