Asked to remove photos on smugmug
junalcordo
Registered Users Posts: 9 Beginner grinner
i took photos during a triathlon and posted it on my site, today i got an email from the organizer Prez to remove the photos because the Pros that they hired is having a "cow" over it. what should i do? all the the photos where taken on a publicm place.
0
Comments
www.kvtphotography.com
It should be covered here? Good luck!
If there is an OP than it's not up to you to sell photos....find an event that doesn't already have an official....and ask for that to be you. You can use your photos that you took to showcase what you can do and what you produce.
Will you be burning any bridges by keeping them up?
I'm assuming (eek, yes I know the breakdown ASS. U. ME. lol rarely stops me, however accurate the outcome) that the Pro had nothing in his/her contract else the wording of your original post may have differed. On that assumption, I'd ask the President to refer the Professional Photographer to you directly so that the two of you could work it out independent of the triathlon's involvement. This graciousness may work in your favor if the President likes your work and your overall vibe as compared to that of the Pro. Or it might do nothing
Once I was working directly with the Pro, I'd handle the situation much differently than if we were working via the President.
Can you obtain an athlete's release from the event? Might be something in there about photography.
Another source here you can search for about your situation possibly.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
no i wont be burning any bridges,
david
and as far as i know no one was barred from taking or posting their photos
Ask the "prez" what his request to remove your photo's from your Smugmug site was bassed on. Just because some guy is having a cow isn't a reason.
The "pro" may not be happy with you selling an 8X10 for $4.79, but that's not his choice.
I did a quick search, and found all kinds of photos online for this event, and even found one site that was encouraging users to e-mail photos to their friends.
Never did see a "pro" site with photos for sale.
There is no way the event organizers can forbid you, or me from photographing on public property.
Sam
I won't sell out even if the whole world think's I'm crazy.
Putting your legally-obtained images on Smumug so the world can see them and/or selling images without a release is o.k.
Publishing and/or advertising using the images of recognizable people without a release is not o.k.
Now the original poster may have legal issues as to whether or not the images were obtained legally. If they were then no problem. If they were not legally obtained; e.g., the event was on private property, there were no photograph rules, etc., then the photographer may not be allowed to sell them. Remember, the paparazzi can take images of famous people all of the time in public and sell them to whatever news rag wants them. It's the new rag that may be culpable for publishing.
Check out Dan Heller's primer.
GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy
From reading the various thread and doing searches on the web, I have discovered a few things and I tend to run through questions BEFORE I shoot (as a spectator) at an event, and it normally takes less than five minutes.
- Where’s the policy of the venue? Is it at a public facility? Standing on the sidewalk in street corner to shoot is different than standing in a building in the *exact* same street corner. You might think that the building is public, but it’s owned/run by someone and they have their own regulations. When in doubt, ask.
- What’s the policy of the event? Are other people taking photos? In other words, are all cameras banned, like at theater performances and concerts, and are there signs clearly posted (e.g.. on the ticket, posted on the entrance) or is someone telling people to put cameras away? And do they have camera limitations posted (e.g. limited the length of the lens)? When at an event, ask the organizers if you can take pictures during the event. This might be different than the regulations of the facility. The purpose of those photos is a completely different issue. The key question is… are you legally allowed to shoot in this specific location and while the event is running?
- Is there an official photographer? Does the photographer have an “exclusive” contract? An official photographer has a contract with the event organizers to shoot and is tied in to the event in some form, but other cameras are allowed. They have they advantage due to better access, location and advertisement (maybe e-mails of all the participants), etc. The event participants know to go to the official photographer for photos! I once remember reading a spec sport shooter mentioning that taking the photo is only 5% of the work and that the marketing makes up the other 95%. However, for this right, they give up something by either paying for the privilege or giving back a percentage of profit to the event itself. Things are slightly different if it’s an exclusive contract where he/she has the only camera in the venue. For me, an exclusive contract is only useful if someone (event official, photographer) enforces it and making it publicly clear that all cameras are banned. I don’t think it is a general CWG’s (guy/gal with camera) responsibility to seek out if they can take a photo of his/her kid or friend. I believe it’s the responsibility of the official photographer to see that the exclusive contract is enforced (pro’s might disagree with me on this point). In general, I believe that an exclusive contract is pointless unless the venue is a contained enclosed space with the policy posted and policed. I believe it should only be given out except safety reasons, e.g. the theater. (another point pro’s will disagree with me).
The three questions basically tell me if I can legally shoot. However, I final myself pondering another question… Is it ethical for me to display/sell photos?The pro’s make a living doing this work… There is a reason why they charge more for their services. They tend to have more equipment (backups bodies), pay a higher premiums on insurance, have to be responsible for *actually* being on the event full time. They charge more since they are running an actually a business and have expenses associated with it. As for me or any other GWC, we’re doing it for fun, and no one cares if we show up or if we just do it for a few hours. They get pissed off (threaten?) when random GWC shows up shows up 30D and a 70-300; some even get pissed off with a P&S camera. I believe that any GWC can shoot as long as it is legal (facilities allows it & cameras are allowed). The pro’s are just that… professional. They have to produce a better product than general GWC, and if they don’t, they must do something to improve since they have the advantage of location, marketing, equipment and hopefully, skills. A good GWC can easily undercharge the pro and do as good, if not better job. At the same time, the CWG is hurting the pro's business, but can have the right to shoot at the same time.
I have a tougher time with this last question, but I think I finally made peace with this issue.
From the little details given from the original poster, it seems that you can post/sell photos – open venue where everyone can shoot. You might not make friends that way, but you should be within your right to shoot.
Ask the “prez” what rule did you violate…
I have a lot of fans of my work in the local area...some don't care, and some appreciate the work...I'll never convince everyone to buy their photos from me, but if I have been assigned as an OP then I don't want to be there spend the whole day/weekend covering the whole event only to have someone else pop in and out get some good shots and try to sell them.
If there was an OP then I still say that you should bow out and step off their job!
That's debatable, if that was the case, every photographer in Hollywood would be in court
website | photoblog | facebook | twitter | deviantArt | RedBubble
Then I submitted my gallery to them as a portfolio suggesting that their sales would go up if they hired me to do some shooting.
I've been shooting regularly for them for the past 2 years. It's been a whole lot of fun.
You never know where your opportunities come from.
cheers,
Trish
That's one way to handle the situation and it'd certainly be the path of least resistance. However, from what I've read of your situation I see no reason why you should feel that you have to do that (unless you have a personal relationship with "the prez", in which case you may want to just to help him to get this guy off his back).
For what it's worth the "pro" should be worrying about being more professional than you: in this case it'd be by producing better images and MARKETING them properly. The most telling comment here so far has been that "I searched and found tons of images from this event online, but couldn't find any from the official pro".
If that guy wants to make it he should concentrate on running a successful business and not whining about you.
If the Pro had a contract to shoot the event with exclucivity rights - meaning no one else is allowed to "sell" photos. You are required to remove your photos for sale or possibly get sued.
Are you allowed there to photographe a friend(s)? yes
Are you allowed to photograph the whole event for practice? sure
Are you allowed to sell your photos from the event to the general public or commercially? NO...well you can, but could be sued.
If the hired Pro does not have a contract - your free to do what your good concense tells you is right.
Example - I am the "official" photographer for a regional mountianbike race series. Everyone there knows I am, my logo and link are on the race series website, ect. Do I have a contract? Nope......So everyone and their mother can come shoot the event and give or sell photos. Do they? Sure, there are often several photographers at each race (one is a good friend as well). But they have limited coverage and the quality of their images are generally laughable so I really do not worry all that much.
Now if I had a contract with the series with exclusivity wording saying I am the only event Photog and O am the only one allowed to sell images from the evants these photogs could still continu to shoot the events for personal use or practice, AND as long as they were not selling their photos - or worse yet giving them away (what a stupid thing to do
Michael
Whether or not the pro has a contract with the event coordinator is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not any other schmoe is within his rights to sell photos of the event. While it may be a question of ethics, that is not the point of this conversation.
If the photog is in a public place, taking pictures of a public event, how could one assert that he's required to contact all present photographers and evaluate the details of any contracts they've entered into? Furthermore, it is flatly un-American to suggest that two parties entering into a contract could affect the rights of an uninvolved third-party who would otherwise be free and clear. (Of course, I'm making a not-so-safe assumption here that we're talking USA.)
Consider this: If an agreement between two people could limit others' rights in a public place then there would be a whole new market created: Every celebrity in hollywood would hire a "staff" photographer with whom they would grant exclusive rights to shoot & sell photos of them in public. The paparazi would be relegated to chasing around the celebs who either like the publicity or didn't think to contact someone on iStockPhoto who will do it for free.
Obviously every situation is unique and on any given day one judge will see things differently than another... the only way to know is to have your day in court. BUT, in this situation (again, presuming that the photographer is in a place where they could otherwise sell photos) it seems to me that the Pro has a much better case against the Event Coordinators with whom he had a contract. The pro should have been asking them to enforce his contract, possibly by closing off the event as "non-public" and stipulating "no photographs". ...Had they known that they were signing up for that I kind of doubt that they'd have gone along with it.
We can agree to disagree!?
...and I think you are correct - Legally anyone can take pictures on public land, but many times these event organizers have contracts and agreements with the local government, parks and land owners to use these avenues for the event, where they now have the say of how, what and who can attend or not attend. You would have to dive into these contracts to see how they are legally worded. The photog could have in his contract an exclusivity clause as well with the organazition....that now the event promoter has by contract with the land owner all power as said above. They ask you to remove photos for sale and you refuse - what could happen?
Nothing?
Get sued?
Banned from other events?
...and try showing up. I bet if the event called the policy and asked you to be removed from "THEIR" event - you would be removed.
Legally - sure you could take the chance no contract was in place...or in place.
Morally - not the topic of the thread.
Michael
Fine by me. I think it was a good discussion.
One final point I'll add is that our local news web sites now all have a link next to each of the pictures they run with their stories allowing anyone to "buy a print" of that photo. That in itself doesn't make it right, but it would allow you to ask the question "are you asking the news to stop selling prints on their site?" (presuming of course that the event was interesting enough that it got press coverage...)
@OP - How'd they even know your shots existed and were for sale?
In your specific circumstance, I think I would have just converted the gallery to a new name, made it 'private' and/or password protected, then provided access to the right people.
BTW, I've never come across a pro who felt so insecure that s/he would bother me about anything, but I've also contacted her/him whenever I think that their company might have an exclusive right to pave the road.
http://midnightblue.smugmug.com
Canon
Not picking specifically on you rdlugosz, but I wish people wouldn't use so many uncommon acronyms in their posts, as if everyone knew what they meant. Anything aside from "BTW" should be spelled out (then again, I discovered some people who didn't know what "BTW" meant, so I guess it's all relative!
For those wondering, IANAL means "I am not a lawyer" (and I recently discovered on another site that SAHM means "Stay at home moms"
Oh, and BTW means "By the way"
CWC Photography: “Painting pictures with cameras.” • Nature & Animals • Around the World • New York City • Miscellaneous • Sunsets • Central Park
If the event organizer had an official photog, then s/he would have all access that the public does not, but s/he does not have right to stop others, who are not associated with the event promoter, from selling their pictures.
The OP has no obligation to limit his sale of the pictures legally. If he wants to, it's out of being nice.
I was never "officially" contacted by the photographer or the group in charge, so a rogue post on a non-sanctioned forum I did not consider official. Had I been officially contacted, I might have reconsidered my stance. I did notice there were a lot of people posting photos for free in the event.
Glass: >Sigma 17-35mm,f2.8-4 DG >Tamron 28-75mm,f2.8 >Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro >Canon 70-200mm,f2.8L IS >Canon 200mm,f2.8L
Flash: >550EX >Sigma EF-500 DG Super >studio strobes
Sites: Jim Mitte Photography - Livingston Sports Photos - Brighton Football Photos