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

Status
Not open for further replies.
matty said:
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?
Click to expand...

What you say is true to a point Matty. But people dont just go by the pedigree. The most expensive dog in the world (because of it's pedigree) could produce a litter and have pups that don't match up to her/his build, coat, stature etc. They would still hold the same pedigree, people still need to see what the dog looks like to make a decision to even contact Dawn if her dog has pups for instance.
 
actually I have 2 pedigree dogs myself, but if your dog is not for sale then I dont see the issue. If your dogs are prize winning pedigree animals worth more than a small car then you will have a fair few cracking shots in print and about the place already. It does sound like you've been sold a pup this time round (see what I did there?) so send a good piccy to the publisher and ask them to use that one in future.
 
Simonhi said:
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.
Click to expand...

No thats not it Si. I dont feel hard done by, I feel angry that the author didnt tell us what exactly the article would include. Should I have known Id of provided a photo. We were not aware of the authors intentions, he told us only that he wanted her pedigree, no mention of pictures at all.
 
Dawn B said:
No thats not it Si. I dont feel hard done by, I feel angry that the author didnt tell us what exactly the article would include. Should I have known Id of provided a photo. We were not aware of the authors intentions, he told us only that he wanted her pedigree, no mention of pictures at all.
Click to expand...

So when you asked about photos, the author said there wouldn't be any?
 
Simmotino said:
So when you asked about photos, the author said there wouldn't be any?
Click to expand...

We didnt ask about photos, the author made no mention of any being used. He asked if he could include the dogs pedigree in his book, we said yes.
 
matty said:
actually I have 2 pedigree dogs myself, but if your dog is not for sale then I dont see the issue. If your dogs are prize winning pedigree animals worth more than a small car then you will have a fair few cracking shots in print and about the place already. It does sound like you've been sold a pup this time round (see what I did there?) so send a good piccy to the publisher and ask them to use that one in future.
Click to expand...
:D:D

He's isnt doing another one.:thumbs:
 
Dawn B said:
We didnt ask about photos, the author made no mention of any being used. He asked if he could include the dogs pedigree in his book, we said yes.
Click to expand...

So you were/are that concerned about representation of your dogs, you didn't even enquire as to the full nature of the entry in a book you had no editorial control over?
 
matty said:
actually I have 2 pedigree dogs myself, but if your dog is not for sale then I dont see the issue. If your dogs are prize winning pedigree animals worth more than a small car then you will have a fair few cracking shots in print and about the place already. It does sound like you've been sold a pup this time round (see what I did there?) so send a good piccy to the publisher and ask them to use that one in future.
Click to expand...

That's when pride comes into it Matty. Like Dawn said a few posts back, although her dog and any pups are not for sale, it still feels a bit crap to see her dog not looking it's best.

The world of pedigree animals is quite a wild one. It's competition to own the best looking animal. People go to great lengths to show off their prized pedigree, and I am guessing it must be embarrassing to see your prized dog published in a book looking awful. Those with less valuable dogs will see it a sneer "that dog is supposed to worth £12,000".

OK so my imagination is going into overdrive :lol:, but I can empathise with Dawn here. Unfortunately it doesn't help her situation, as the really is nothing she can do about it if the publisher sends/ has sent his book to print.
 
Chaz Photos said:
Ah got it you wanted to have your photo published and not someone else
Click to expand...
:bang::bang::bang: No Chaz, to my knowledge NO pictures we being included!

Simmotino said:
So you were/are that concerned about representation of your dogs, you didn't even enquire as to the full nature of the entry in a book you had no editorial control over?
Click to expand...
See above!:bonk:
 
Jo said:
That's when pride comes into it Matty. Like Dawn said a few posts back, although her dog and any pups are not for sale, it still feels a bit crap to see her dog not looking it's best.

The world of pedigree animals is quite a wild one. It's competition to own the best looking animal. People go to great lengths to show off their prized pedigree, and I am guessing it must be embarrassing to see your prized dog published in a book looking awful. Those with less valuable dogs will see it a sneer "that dog is supposed to worth £12,000".

OK so my imagination is going into overdrive :lol:, but I can empathise with Dawn here. Unfortunately it doesn't help her situation, as the really is nothing she can do about it if the publisher sends/ has sent his book to print.
Click to expand...

:thumbs::thumbs: Cheers Jo.
 
Dawn B said:
See above!:bonk:
Click to expand...

What, the bit where you said:

Dawn B said:
We didnt ask about photos.........
Click to expand...

Sorry, but if I were that concerned about how my dogs were portrayed to the wider public, I would be damn sure to make sure I knew EXACTLY what was going to be included.

As such, complaining after the fact is, well, laughable to be honest.
 
Dawn B said:
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.
Click to expand...
I wasn't suggesting that she published them, only that you don't have the right to stop someone taking pics or allowing their pics to be published, or for the publisher to publish them. Why would you think you could have the right to stop them? As you were helping the writer of the book with the pedigree details, you have the right to feel annoyed that they didn't mention the photo etc, but that's all.
 
Erm, the 'pro' photographer has to make money too. After all, how do you know that they were a pro? They may have been an amateur with a knowledge of the market.

Ridiculous topic for a thread.
 
Dawn.....the same scenario with different characters

Tony believes Cherie to be stunning and seductive :thumbs:

A "pap" captures an image of Cherie that doesn't quite capture her radiant beauty :suspect:

Cherie-Blair.jpg


The "pap" sells the aforementioned image to a glossy weekly :cuckoo:

Can Tony object in any way?

Bob
 
Dawn, I don`t suppose it was taken at Crufts was it ? If it was you can possibly do something about it as photography there is prohibited without a permit - if it was at any other KC show you would need to check with the Show sec if they had anything in the rules about photography, some do some dont, but at a show where it`s prohibited without Permit you should be able to get it pulled I would think ?

[ I understand why you are angry, a poor photo results in a poor looking dog and that can definitely be detrimental to perceptions of the lines involved ].
 
Is it as bad as this pic, the dog doesn't even fit his skin..........

162254-bigthumbnail.jpg
 
The dog and it's worth are irrelevant to the argument.

The relevant part of the argument is that someone has taken a photograph of your property and published it. Yes?

The photograph was taken at a show.
The photographer did not have permission from the show's organisers.

The only thing you may be able to do is get the photographer censured by the Show organisers and maybe banned from future events, but it's unlikely - they may turn around and say: 'So what?'.

As others have said, there is nothing that you personally can do about an unwanted, unflattering or unauthorised image of your property appearing in a third-party publication, providing the publisher has the photographer's permission to publish.

It's nothing to do with you simply because you own the subject being photographed.
 
If there are lots of crap photos in the book, then surely anyone who knows there dogs will realise that the book is not up to much?

I can't see there is much you can do about it unforunately, barring printing a load of copies of a better shot of your dog and inserting them into every copy being sold.
 
All sorted and Im delighted with the outcome, thanks for being so patronising (some of you) and thanks for understanding everyone else, couldnt be happier at present. :) :) I appreciate the help those of you gave without judgement. ;)
 
Well done on getting a result you are happy with.

But Dawn, I really, truly am confused - I haven't read patronising comments - you asked a question, people gave you honest answers (regardless of the outcome you achieved the answers you received were factual). Whilst you may not like or agree with those comments it doesn't make them patronising. Your thread started in this manner

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?
Click to expand...

You didn't ask for understanding, you didn't ask for empathy, you asked if you could object in any way. And the answers related to that question. You then came across quite aggressive to those of us who took time to answer the question you posed but who didn't tell you that we felt for you and that you deserved justice.

So I am really truly confused as to why those that answered the question that you posed became patronising. :thinking:

I'm glad for you that you managed to achieve an outcome that you are satisfied with, it's good when our disappointments turn good - it doesn't change the facts that based on the question you posed, the answers that many people gave you were factually correct and not in any way patronising.

I remain very confused :thinking:
 
Not to worry ZoZo, I get confused sometimes. :)
 
ZoZo said:
Ah, right, it's like that.

:exit:
Click to expand...

Not at all, Im just not concerned with arguing anymore. Had a fab day, not spoiling it.:D:D:D Thanks for your help.
 
Dawn B said:
I get confused sometimes. :)
Click to expand...
Only sometimes? You asked a question and most people here gave you an answer without taking the mick, but you don't seem over grateful that they've taken the time to help.
 
Dawn B said:
All sorted and Im delighted with the outcome, thanks for being so patronising (some of you) and thanks for understanding everyone else, couldnt be happier at present. :) :) I appreciate the help those of you gave without judgement. ;)
Click to expand...

TBH I think your original post left more questions than answers. Sorry if I came acorss as patronising, that wasnt my intention but you didnt do yourself any favours by your wording of the post.:)
 
Triggaaar said:
Only sometimes? You asked a question and most people here gave you an answer without taking the mick, but you don't seem over grateful that they've taken the time to help.
Click to expand...
Ive thanked people more than once in this thread, you could read that if you choose.

matty said:
TBH I think your original post left more questions than answers. Sorry if I came acorss as patronising, that wasnt my intention but you didnt do yourself any favours by your wording of the post.:)
Click to expand...

No apology necessary Matty, thank you for your advice.:)
 
neil_g said:
dont leave us dangling.. what was the outcome?
Click to expand...

Cant give all the details yet Neil, nothing has been finalised, but suffice to say it wont be happening again. This person has overstepped the mark too many times apparently.

What I mean is the person is being held accountable for his actions and Im delighted about that. Nothing has been set in stone as we speak.
 
If your dogs/puppies/kennel are that highly regarded and sought after, I'm sure you'll - somehow - manage to overcome this bad press.
 
nope

Dawn B said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
Dawn, good that the out come pleases you.

However, I do feel a sincere apology to Zoe and others would be well recieved.

Just read the whole thread, and think you came accross as a very ungrateful sort of person.

I know you're annoyed, but people on here were only trying to understand and help you.

I'm sure that you are a great person and the subject was an emotional one for you, so please take this into consideration next time.

Good luck and perhaps you could post some piccys of your doggies? ;-)
 
Im glad you got the result you were wanting. After reading the thread its obvious it was something that greatly upset you. Like already said it would be nice to see one of your pics of your dogs :)
 
Perhaps next time you'll take a little more care over who you grant permission to without checking the details fully?

Hopefully, you'll also be a little more receptive to people's (free) advice even if you don't agree with it, rather than choosing to insult them.
 
Hi Dawn

I know its sorted but when you say book, do you mean like an annual? I don't know what breed you have but with SBT's two annuals are produced each year by two authors.

The books publish leader tables etc, critique from champ shows, the top stafford for that year, etc. You can also have your stud advertised (fee payable). In the SBT fraternity, there's a handful of respected photographers whose photos appear in the annuals.

Or do you mean it's a breed specific book (for example) with information in it?

I just wondered how the author of said book rang you without already knowing your dogs name, where did he get your contact details from? I would have thought the photographer would have looked in the catalogue and got the dog's name when he took the pic, or is does he have an onsite printer and work that way?

Surely both the photographer and author are both at fault. They should have both realised it was a crap photo and not used it.
Lisa
 
Dawn B said:
Cant give all the details yet Neil, nothing has been finalised, but suffice to say it wont be happening again. This person has overstepped the mark too many times apparently.

What I mean is the person is being held accountable for his actions and Im delighted about that. Nothing has been set in stone as we speak.
Click to expand...

I dread to think what that's supposed to mean.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top