Unethical? Unprofessional?

TylerW · May 8, 2007

A few weeks ago I competed in my first motorcycle race of the season with the Stockton Mini Road Racing Club. Of course, I also brought my camera.

Any time I wasn't taken up with dutes on track or performing bike maintenance, I was shooting the on-track action at the time. I wasn't the official photographer for the day - and the race director had appointed one for the day, and a fairly published pro at that. I'd asked the race director if I could shoot from the infield, and he said that only the pro photog would have access to that, but I was free to shoot from the spectator areas. So that's what I did.

I came away from the day with a large number of high quality images, and I had them available for sale before the Pro did, and I've made some of my first sales from them. However, now I'm starting to wonder, is it bad business that I treaded heavily on the turf of the appointed pro? Or does the biggest meal go to the most aggressive shark once the blood is in the water?

gus · May 8, 2007

You stuck by what was asked of you & thats fair. I say let the strongest survive in any retail world. This aint communism your talking about.

Art Scott · May 8, 2007

In many ways marketing is very simply cut throat.....and if the pro puts the knife to his own throat by being a PP slacker then that is his own fault.....

YOU DID NOTHING WRONG.

thumb

Scott_Quier · May 8, 2007

with above opinions.

Good on you for getting to market firstest with the bestest!!

Congrats on the sales!

Nikolai · May 8, 2007

Early bird gets the worm

He had an advantage of shooting infield. You had an advantage of being faster and more eager..

TylerW · May 8, 2007

My thoughs exactly. I was just worried that sense of entitlement and an unprepared race director might lead to hurt feelings between the pro and the race club. Its nice to get the sales, I can't really compete with him, since I'm splitting my time between racing and shooting, so I think he and I (if he comes back) should be able to co-exist harmoniously.

To my credit, I did try to talk to him to try and clear things up. Every time I tried to talk to him, he'd turn away, and whenever he was shooting near me, he'd stand right infront of me!

dogwood · May 8, 2007

TylerW wrote:

To my credit, I did try to talk to him to try and clear things up. Every time I tried to talk to him, he'd turn away, and whenever he was shooting near me, he'd stand right infront of me!

I had a chance to photograph presidential candidate John Kerry at invite only event back in 2004. I remember crowding up to the front with the rest of the photographers and thinking, "No way am I gonna move from my great position." Right next to me was the big-time daily newspaper photographer.

There was a woman with a point-and- shoot trying to get some photos in the crowd behind us. I was amazed when the newspaper photographer actually stepped back, motioned to that lady to take his spot, and let her shoot a couple of front row photos with her p&s.

Talk about a professional! Yeah, the newspaper photographer missed a couple of shots, but his good deed really made an impression on me. Even in a cut-throat press situation, there's still room for kindness from photographers.

Anyway, my point is, take the high road. People will remember you for it, and they'll respect you a lot more than if you're always a jerk who stands in front of people. You may miss a shot or two, but the good will you generate is worth it. Sounds like the "pro" you were dealing with would be well advised to learn this lesson!

sirsloop · May 8, 2007

I suppose the only thing that could be wrong about it is if you were advertising that you were going to be selling photos. If you were just shooting and somone asked for a card, etc I dont think its wrong. Its not your fault that your photos were up first, and possibly better than the other guys. Actually, I've found that a lot of "pro" people get lazy and tend to slack off on shooting. They figure that they have one decent shot of X so why shoot more? I see a lot of people that buy ever single shot I have of them, even if its virtually the same damn shot! (horse trot shots in different sections of the ring for example).

At any rate, I hope your reputation as a photographer was not hurt by selling these photos. The hired pro obviously has the "in" at that event. If he/she finds out that you were selling photos on their turf they may bad mouth you to the management and prevent you from shooting there in the future. I personally don't care if someone else with a nice camera shoots at one of my events, as long as they dont advertise to sell prints. My advertisments are all in the show packets and I shoot all of the people in the event. Some pro's will care and will confront you...

Seamus · May 8, 2007

dogwood wrote:

There was a woman with a point-and- shoot trying to get some photos in the crowd behind us. I was amazed when the newspaper photographer actually stepped back, motioned to that lady to take his spot, and let her shoot a couple of front row photos with her p&s.

great story, I have seen a couple of examples of this trackside.

rich56k · May 10, 2007

TylerW wrote:

A few weeks ago I competed in my first motorcycle race of the season with the Stockton Mini Road Racing Club. Of course, I also brought my camera.

Any time I wasn't taken up with dutes on track or performing bike maintenance, I was shooting the on-track action at the time. I wasn't the official photographer for the day - and the race director had appointed one for the day, and a fairly published pro at that. I'd asked the race director if I could shoot from the infield, and he said that only the pro photog would have access to that, but I was free to shoot from the spectator areas. So that's what I did.

I came away from the day with a large number of high quality images, and I had them available for sale before the Pro did, and I've made some of my first sales from them. However, now I'm starting to wonder, is it bad business that I treaded heavily on the turf of the appointed pro? Or does the biggest meal go to the most aggressive shark once the blood is in the water?

Hi Tyler,
Just wondering if you made your intention to sell your photos clearly known to the race director / track personnel ??
As a motorsports event photog. I've been on both sides of that fence - my .02 is be totally upfront with your intentions with owner/director of facility and you'll have a much smoother time of it - many tracks contract out the photo services ( as it sounds like in your example) you were denied access to certain areas for a reason, had you done the 'professional/ethical ' thing and explained your true / full intentions (to not only shoot but to sell also) you may have gotten a different response - some of the events I cover are run w/auto drags and they have event photogs and the condition i shoot under is only shoot the m/cycles and no onsite sales.. I comply and as a result have built friendships with the event pros that have given me tips, loaned me equipment when mine malfunctioned ( saving my day!!), and generally welcome me when we cross paths...(which has become fairly often over the last couple years)
I don't doubt that this may even result in some opportunities for me as time passes -- I think the phrase is 'you'll catch more with honey, rather than vinegar' (you know what I mean-lol) Again to ask permission to shoot is one thing to shoot and sell when the event already has photo sales services provided in concert with track officials is a COMPLETELY different situation and - the early bird logic just doesn't quite apply the same way under those conditions....

"(complete)honesty is the best policy" will always serve you well,

good luck,
rich56k
ps: To answer your orig thread Q: unethical? yes, unprofessional? yes

(my .02)
and your conscience is already giving you the right answer!!
pss:And you've got some great shots on your site... well worth pursuing --and your prices are pretty low -- probobly less than his - good chance you're taken money out of his pocket--how would you feel??

dragon300zx · May 10, 2007

rich56k wrote:

good chance you're taken money out of his pocket--how would you feel??
some marketing going on that

It's called capitalism. It's one of the foundations of american society.

cdonovan · May 10, 2007

Yeesh...I was burned at the stake for doing something similar to this last summer. Well figurativly, on another message board. I went to a horse show, there was another official photog there. I had been asked by a client to follow her to the show...so I did. I took numerous shots, not only of her but of others as well(which i didn't sell). I asked on the other board if I was wrong, and they told me that I had no business going there with my camera, let alone shooting the gal who hired me to be there

I had been to all of the other shows that this gal had been to that summer, she was going to be placing a large order of ALL of the photos that I had snapped of her. it worked out to be in the end an order of $200

I can see it from the two sides. If I put myself in the same situation, I'd be pretty miffed to see another photog show up and hone in on something that was rightfully awarded to me. I have the right to advertise, and to display my work. It's a small window of opportunity to sell these photos, and when you've invested the money and time to be there as an official photog and then someone comes in and starts taking and selling pictures right out from underneath you...well it hurts.

I did talk to the official photog, who was rightfully upset with my presence, I told her that I was there only to follow a client, and that I wanted her to know that I wasn't trying to take over, and that the other shots I was taking was meerly for practice(horrid lighting in an awful arena). She was quite happy that I approached her and told her my intentions.

I think full disclosure in this type of situation is the best way to go about the business....Regardless of having photos up first or second...the official photog was exactly that....just my .02

Nikolai · May 10, 2007

Explain me please...
So, the official photog has
1) better shooting position
2) access to exclusive places
3) way to advertise and sell his work on premises
5) experience in shooting this particular thing of activities
6) etc, etc.

And it's still not fair to go and try to get some biz going?

As Gary said, it's free enterprise and market economy. If the "official" gets lazy, it's in the patrons' best interests to have somebody else to provide the coverage, even if it's from a total stranger..

One's gotta stay on top of his game if s/he want to keep his/her business.

cdonovan · May 10, 2007

So what I would suggest and what was suggested to me...which completly makes sense to me now...

Is that you take these opportunities to grow and learn...take a particularly difficult spot and master it...get all the money shots that the official doesn't have the time to get or time to master....own the shots...but don't sell them...use them as promo's for you and what you can do to showcase your talent...and when it comes time to figuring out the official photog at the next event...you'll have more chance of being named that person. Look attractive to the clientel...as in what you are selling and your prices..be competitive..but don't low ball so much to drive everyone else out of business, value your work, and the work of others.

A photog that I know who really does beautiful work recently moved, and to get herself and name known in the community was doing free shoots...she's hurting everone else out there...she's pissing the folks off that have always been there and had the business. I think that "free" low myself, just with the competition in mind. But I have to admit, she did get herself noticed by the people who do actually need to see the work-those who will be buying it. I think the only thing she will suffer from now is perhaps getting those who got the freebies to actually pay for the next visit.
Think of yourself in that same situation...as an official photog..and try to imagine how you would feel after investing your time into an event only to have it smothered by someone else who didn't have the designation...perhaps they aren't as good as you are...that's not your fault...talk with the competitors, get them talking about you and your work and have them so excited about what you can do that the choice the next time around will be easy!

I have signed contracts for my events this coming summer that I will be the only photog on site, aside from ma and pa with the point and shoots. It's in the contract that others won't be allowed to show up and start honing in on my business...

TylerW · May 11, 2007

Wow. Lots of different opinions here. That's good, makes for a better discussion.

I never made any effort to hide the fact that I was intending to sell my shots - in fact, in short of openly advertising my services visually in my paddock area, I made it pretty clean and open what my intentions were, to the racers and race organizers alike. I would have made this clear to the pro, and worked out any static at the same time, if he had bothered to talk to me.

And yes, in comparison to his prices, mine were pretty low - that stems from two justifications, neither of which have to do with being cutthroat, though it may seem so on the surface. Trackday photography is a pretty common business model around here, and people are used to buying CDs of images of them going fast (which is typically the usual delivery model of images, instead of prints) within a certain price range. His prices were far above that price range. And while I'm not saying he shouldn't sell his images for what he thiks their worth, I think his pricing reflects a certain lack of research into the market.

the other reason for my low pricing is because I'm splitting my duties between racer and photographer. By that very nature I'm not going to deliver as comprehensive a product as some people are used to. But that shouldn't stop me from taking photos nonetheless, and providing them to people who want them for a price that reflects a lowel level of service, should it? If you run a an auto service shop that provides a package of changing oil, transmission fluid, brake service, and general check and tune-up for a package rate of, say $60, is it cutthroat is the shop down the street offers a service of only changing oil (and none of the rest) for $40?

I'm aware that I crossed a few lines here, but my feeling is that I did them as fairly and ethically as possible, and the only aggression i acted with was to provide as good a service to the consumer as I could possibly do. I don't feel like I actively tried to undermine his business. In my day job I work as a video producer in an extremely competitive field - and I'm taking a lot of my cues from there. If he wanted absolute exclusivity, my feeling is that he should have worked out a more tightly worded agreement with the race director. However, I realize that the pro photographer's world is perhaps a different game where the bullishness I take from my day job may be taken as something else. I'd like to know, because I'm not intending to leave this club, either as photographer or a racer, any time soon, and I'd rather build relationships than burn them.

But, in saying all this, I'm not trying to bury the hatchet. Its still an interesting discussion, carry on. There's lots to learn here.

com3 · May 11, 2007

as trackside photography is all i do to make a living, i would be upset if you were to show up to an event where i was named exclusive photog and you tried to undercut me by taking biz (irrespective of pricing).

i've kicked MANY photogs out of 'my turf' before... "i'm sorry, do you have a photo pass? i'm going to have to ask if you return back to the spectator area, please." nyuk.

if there was no exclusive rights (and sorry people, "free market" and "capitolism" doesn't apply to a private event with a privately appointed photog, else more people would be wedding crashing with twinklings of speedlites) to said event, then by all means, shoot away, sell away, market away, race away... however, there were exclusive rights, and you may have just taken $5 outta the appointed photog's pocket.

best way to do it is like i did... rally everyone up, and get them to tell the appointer that they'd like to see someone else in the position.

that's how i got the trackclub and zoomzoom.

EDIT// i think it was fred durst who said it... "put yourself in my position, man!"

jonh68 · May 11, 2007

I don't think you did anything wrong. It's a bad comparison to compare track photography to wedding photography. There is one person paying at a wedding and they asked you to be there. If you want to use the comparison, it would be more like a church has signed rights to one photog and the bride didn't have a choice in who could take pictures of her wedding. If you are on the field, and you want to take shots of friends who have requested that you take their pics or just to take pics, I don't see a problem. You stayed out of the infield as per the agreement.

I freelance for the local paper and I was covering a HS golf tournament. The mom of one of the players noticed I was taking pictures and asked if she could get some or see them. Whatever pics I don't send to the paper, I can use. She had her camera and she was taking pictures of her son too. She bought some of the pictures I took of her son, even though she followed him for 18 holes and was taking pictures herself. The point is, the customer had a choice between her pics and mine, and she bought some of mine. If you provide a better service or product, you don't need exclusive rights.

Bodley · May 11, 2007

TylerW wrote:

And yes, in comparison to his prices, mine were pretty low - that stems from two justifications, neither of which have to do with being cutthroat, though it may seem so on the surface. Trackday photography is a pretty common business model around here, and people are used to buying CDs of images of them going fast (which is typically the usual delivery model of images, instead of prints) within a certain price range. His prices were far above that price range. And while I'm not saying he shouldn't sell his images for what he thiks their worth, I think his pricing reflects a certain lack of research into the market.

How much did you pay the track and the event promoter? What cut did they get of each sell? How much insurance were you required to carry? How much did your business license cost? How much tax did you pay the City/County/State?

I'm guessing you answered zero-zero-zero-zero-zero. So comparing your pricing to the track photog is bogus.

What your doing is more "Black Market" than "Capitalism".

Sorry if this seems SA but I hate it when someone tries to compare their "show up and shoot" prices to someone that is doing it as a business.

Nikolai · May 11, 2007

There are always two sides for one fence (sometimes more than two).
However, that's life, and life is not fair. If a "designated photog" is getting lazy and not getting the right shots (which a hungry amateur does) - well, he is going to suffer the consequences. The track is a public place, right? If the contender takes better shots from the outfield - well, sorry, but he's taken better shots.

BTW, it's not about photography only. I'm positive every business has its "pro" and its "wannabees" (IT/SW surely does). If you want to stay on top of your business - you have to do it every freaking day. Don't think for a moment that if you got rid of all the competitors for today, you can rest - simply because you just did everybody else a big favor and cleared the playing field, and at the same put a huge "kick me" sign on your back.

And yes, they will sell for cheap (or even for free), just to get you out of the game. And unless you can prove that you ARE better - they surely will succeed. If you can't live with it - you've chosen a wrong industry to be in, sorry. If you can't use your experience, your marketing connections and your knowledge to wipe out the "youngsters" - they'll wipe out you.

Really sorry if that upsets you, but that's life.

Art Scott · May 11, 2007

As Nik said one fence many sides.....If I read the OP correctly....je had permission to shoot...just not from the best vantage points.....so permission was granted......this should have either sparked the "pro" to work harder / better and get his images out quicker or to have him asking the venue manager / promoter what the **** is going on get that camera out of my paid for venue, itis not P/S.....

One thing I will advise to be careful ofthis photog spreading lies about you...it does happen...and you could be banned from that venue completely and a lot of times the venue managers and promoters all of a sudden have deaf ears for your side of the story...............

Nikolai · May 11, 2007

Art Scott wrote:

As Nik said one fence many sides.....If I read the OP correctly....je had permission to shoot...just not from the best vantage points.....so permission was granted......this should have either sparked the "pro" to work harder / better and get his images out quicker or to have him asking the venue manager / promoter what the **** is going on get that camera out of my paid for venue, itis not P/S.....

One thing I will advise to be careful ofthis photog spreading lies about you...it does happen...and you could be banned from that venue completely and a lot of times the venue managers and promoters all of a sudden have deaf ears for your side of the story...............

I hardly think anybody can ban you from the bleachers, even if you carry a large format camera with 6,000mm lens attached to it. Not in US... And if they do, you can sue their batt(erie)s off for the violation of your civil rights.

wxwax · May 11, 2007

Not really, Nick. A private event on private grounds, they can set whatever rules they like for photographers.

Nikolai · May 11, 2007

Sid,

wxwax wrote:

Not really, Nick. A private event on private grounds, they can set whatever rules they like for photographers.

Absolutely!

But if those are not private grounds...

I guess in Tyler's case we was pretty open with the owners about his intentions. If they let him do it - it's all fair game after that, the "pro" can take it to the owners...

wxwax · May 12, 2007

Nikolai wrote:

Absolutely!
But if those are not private grounds...

I guess in Tyler's case we was pretty open with the owners about his intentions. If they let him do it - it's all fair game after that, the "pro" can take it to the owners...

Stockton Mini Road Racing club.

Nikolai · May 12, 2007

wxwax wrote:

Stockton Mini Road Racing club.

I hear ya.. But they let him shoot, just not infield, no?

Bodley · May 12, 2007

Nikolai wrote:

The track is a public place, right?

Not always. Around here the tracks are privatly owned.

Nikolai wrote:

Really sorry if that upsets you, but that's life.

Doesn't upset me (if it's directed toward me), mainly because my response had to do with people comparing their pricing to the "official" photogs pricing. Chances are the people that compare their pricing have never been the "Official" photog themselves and don't understand the cost involved. It's kinda like selling bootleg copies of CD's. Sure you can sell them cheaper because your not paying the artist (riders), producers (event promoter) or label (track owner) a cut. So comparing the bootleg pricing to the over-the-counter pricing isn't fair.

I shoot events on both sides of the fence. When I'm not the official photog I try to direct people to the the official photog and I don't bad-mouth their pricing. After all I don't know what extra overhead (event cost) they are paying. Have I sold shots from events that had other photogs, yes but only after enough time had passed that their shots were out of the loop. I also don't advertise during the event.

Bodley · May 12, 2007

Nikolai wrote:

I guess in Tyler's case we was pretty open with the owners about his intentions. If they let him do it - it's all fair game after that, the "pro" can take it to the owners...

Did he tell them he was shooting to sell?

Nikolai · May 12, 2007

Greg,
In any case, it's a competition. Sometimes it's done in the white gloves, sometimes it goes below the belt and uses a "bottle rose" and a baseball bat.

CookieS · May 12, 2007

This is tuff subject for anyphotog. ( cars, bikes, horses, baseball.) If there is an official photographer, Normally THEY are the ONLY ones allowed to sell photos to the spectators, you can take images for yourself, Stock images or art work , maybe of a friend, but you are NOT supposed to offer them for sale to the spectators. that is why there is an official . I have shot on occasion for One rider that needs many shots of their horseand wants me to get as many for webpage or advertising etc. . But in the horse world such " trolling" is considered very bad form.

In the original post when you asked permission to shoot, did you also say you were selling???? or did yu just let the organizer assume you were just taking them for pleasure. Yeah, If it was my horse show and you did it, id be pissed too.

Ive been on both sides. last week I aksed two different "official Show photographers" to shoot some stock images and stuff at their event. one said 'we would rather you did not bring your camera. going as far as saying " if needed a model release and started talking to someone , i may mention I also do frm calls and since they do too, its conflicting for them. well the last part is hooey, i could go without my camera and talk to whomever about private farm calls. but since the director stood by them, i did not go and take a chance of being asked to 'leave'.

#2. photographer said, sure as long as you are not selling to the spectators and not shooting behind me, not a problem. i shot a few hours practiced with my flash, and got 3 model releases for images. Did not sell or offer any images I took for sale.

Respecting those others is part of being professionsal

Unethical? Unprofessional?

Comments