Some of you might remember a distant post where a music store wanted to use some of my images for a promotional.. Problem was they did not want to pay!! I now have met someone "Stupider".. I was contacted and ask to photo a motorcycle event.. When I advised we would need a binding contract regarding usage and fees I was met with the following response... "We own this course.. any photos taken here belong to us.. why should we pay you anything??".. I left in total disbelief.. I waited a couple days and advised them I would not be attending due to their "photo property misconception" and advised them to look into copyright laws.. The response was, "we always get the pictures for free.." Could they be that dense, are am I missing something ?? Thanks for letting me rant... Jim
People believe lots of different things so ardently that for them it is their reality/truth ... and for those who believe them, it becomes thiers as well.
This isn't to say that the course owners don't have legal rights regarding photography on their property,etc. (not going there now) ... but here again, they are omitting the valuation on your time, effort, energy, experience, equipment etc. Do you suppose they'd tell a mechanic or electrician the same thing ... i.e. we're letting you work on our property, why should be pay you?
Lots of ways to structure things ... this one strikes me as 'mismatch' where they have zero concept of usage fees, but might have a clue at hourly rate / work for hire. Understanding the valuation system of others can require some flexibilty in that you either have to get them to think like you, or you think like them in order to achieve an agreement.
If they believe they are doing you a favor by letting you shoot, you are either going to have to go along with that notion, or you're going to have to change them ... or you agree to disagree and pass. I shot a band a couple of times in exchange for access to some venues (years ago) and while I did gain some experience from it and it was valuable to me at the time (i.e. they were doing me a favor / fair trade) ... I'll take cash or trade, but please don't disrespect me so much that you won't even acknowledge the cost of gas to get there ... sadly, "A lie believed becomes truth."
Some are worth the effort to try and educate/change ... but that is becoming increasingly more rare.
Hmmm, so who is "stupider" ... the guy who has been getting free pics (adequate quality for his needs presumed) ... or the people that have been giving them to him for free such that he believes that's the way it is supposed to be.
If someone says it enough, a certain number of intellectually challenged will start believing it. I suggest that you simply roll your eyes and move on, do you really want to work with those kinds?
Though copyrights clearly don't run with the land by default, there are ways for event organizers and venue owners to try and "grab" such rights.
Some venues and event coordinators establish arrangements whereby they bar photography on their land or events generally, but allow it on condition that they own copyrights on any photography taken on their premises (I think "burning man" has done this before). Of course, they typically inform photographers in advance, usually on an admission ticket.
I even heard recently that certain celebrities (i.e. Lady Gaga) refuse to grant press passes unless the celebrity obtained the copyright on images captured by press photographers.
RustyBug wrote:
Some are worth the effort to try and educate/change ... but that is becoming increasingly more rare.
Hmmm, so who is "stupider" ... the guy who has been getting free pics (adequate quality for his needs presumed) ... or the people that have been giving them to him for free such that he believes that's the way it is supposed to be.
You said it.. I can not believe somebody would agree to this, but some have.. I would rather eat a cock-roach than give them my images.. Thank you
tcphoto wrote:
If someone says it enough, a certain number of intellectually challenged will start believing it. I suggest that you simply roll your eyes and move on, do you really want to work with those kinds?
This was an opportunity to "Run, do not walk away".. I was afraid being too close could result in lower IQ..And God knows mine is low enough.. Thank you..
lordarka wrote:
Though copyrights clearly don't run with the land by default, there are ways for event organizers and venue owners to try and "grab" such rights.
Some venues and event coordinators establish arrangements whereby they bar photography on their land or events generally, but allow it on condition that they own copyrights on any photography taken on their premises (I think "burning man" has done this before). Of course, they typically inform photographers in advance, usually on an admission ticket.
I even heard recently that certain celebrities (i.e. Lady Gaga) refuse to grant press passes unless the celebrity obtained the copyright on images captured by press photographers. ...Show more →
I always ask for the photography rules & regulations at any venue I attend. Usually it is simple, ie:: no tripod, no flash, shoot at your own risk, etc.. But this is a first.. GaGa and like minded can take their own images, I have given away enough over my life-time.. Thank you..
Mark_L wrote:
The sad thing is, they probably really will get someone for free but hopefully they will get what they pay for.
Well it seems like they have been surviving getting their photos for free. Sometimes good enough is good enough and anything more expensive is a waste of money.
I just have one question here. How many of you downloaded music illegally. How many made copies of software? How many used music in their slideshows without permission from the authors?
I believe I see everyone's hands up.
Just something to ponder while you get off your high horses.
Umm, actually ... I refuse to do any of those things and teach my family it is wrong as well. I'm quite certain there are other fellow FM'ers who strive to uphold that as well.
No "high horse" here ... just that while your point is noted that people do apply a double standard (and yes a lot of people do so without really considering it) to other areas of their lives ... there are also people who have the conviction to do what is right even when the masses of society believe the "lie" that it's "okay" to do it such that it has become a "truth" for them that it is okay. That same argument / perspective is what leads to things like Enron, etc.
I won't say that I've been fully successful in getting all of my friends/family to always adhere to what I've told them ... but they know where I stand on the issue, despite the fact that "the rest of the world" goes along like there's nothing wrong with it.
RustyBug wrote:
Umm, actually ... I refuse to do any of those things and teach my family it is wrong as well. I'm quite certain there are other fellow FM'ers who strive to uphold that as well.
No "high horse" here ... just that while your point is noted that people do apply a double standard (and yes a lot of people do so without really considering it) to other areas of their lives ... there are also people who have the conviction to do what is right even when the masses of society believe the "lie" that it's "okay" to do it such that it has become a "truth" for them that it is okay. That same argument / perspective is what leads to things like Enron, etc.
I won't say that I've been fully successful in getting all of my friends/family to always adhere to what I've told them ... but they know where I stand on the issue, despite the fact that "the rest of the world" goes along like there's nothing wrong with it. ...Show more →
Rusty, I commend you. You are the rare breed that can criticize others regarding copyright infringement. Unfortunately, you are the minority on this topic. I just find it ironic that people scream when copyright infringement involves photography, and at the same time they turn their cheek to software, music or movies.
Yes, there are lots of us (self included) that have our hypocritical elements ... I just didn't feel it was fair to condemn all FM'ers to a guilty sentence. I'm good with "none of us are perfect" and a little self-reflection is a good thing ... just not so much @ instant mass condemnation ... but your point goose vs. gander is a meritable reminder.
I've even seen college professors/instructors DIRECTLY suggest to their classes that students photocopy to intentionally avoid the need to purchase a $$$ school textbook, some even offering to let the students use the instructors textbook to make such photocopies ... and we wonder how/where/why the 'lie' becomes 'truth' for so many. (And yes, I bought or rented every one of the $$$ books) ... not for the "high horse" so much, but so that my children don't have a leg to stand on and can't try to say, "But Dad, you blah, blah, blah, just like everyone else does."
chez wrote:
Well it seems like they have been surviving getting their photos for free. Sometimes good enough is good enough and anything more expensive is a waste of money.
I suppose the world has individuals that would drive two hours, shoot for 4-6 hours and then give a total stranger their finished product for nothing, but does that make it morally or ethically correct.. The fact that they contacted a photographer indicated to me that they were not looking for point & shoot perspectives.. Is it surviving when we take advantage of a persons generosity, or is it devicize..
I understand what you are saying, or I think I do, but I was raised to respect others, and to treat them the way you want to be treated.. What are the chances they would allow me to watch the race free of charge, because everyone does..
chez wrote:
Rusty, I commend you. You are the rare breed that can criticize others regarding copyright infringement. Unfortunately, you are the minority on this topic. I just find it ironic that people scream when copyright infringement involves photography, and at the same time they turn their cheek to software, music or movies.
Hypocrite anyone?
Hypocrisy has become an art form among a portion of society.. Politicians lie, Lawyers manipulate, Police bully, and photographers just want to have fun... Anytime we choose to lump "All" into compartmentalize generalities we dishonor some.. Can I say that you are not entitled to your opinion if it disagrees with mine?? Certainly not.. I am in no position to judge the individuals motives for wanting the images for free, but to say that because you pirated a CD puts you into a Category is totally incomprehensible.. Theft is wrong whether it is a car, bank or an individuals time & resources..
oldrattler wrote:
Theft is wrong whether it is a car, bank or an individuals time & resources..
I like a bargain as much as the next guy (more so than most) and if someone is willing to let me have something for free, I kinda like that. But, I can't recall a time when I ever requested/demanded/expected that someone do something for me on a professional basis ... and expected them to do so without compensating them in one form or another. I might ASK for a freebie or discount, but to expect/demand it to be WITHOUT compensation ... too rude.
Your time is valuable to you, my time is valuable to me ... please don't insult me by demanding it to be worthless.
RustyBug wrote:
I like a bargain as much as the next guy (more so than most) and if someone is willing to let me have something for free, I kinda like that. But, I can't recall a time when I ever requested/demanded/expected that someone do something for me on a professional basis ... and expected them to do so without compensating them in one form or another. I might ASK for a freebie or discount, but to expect/demand it to be WITHOUT compensation ... too rude.
Your time is valuable to you, my time is valuable to me ... please don't insult me by demanding it to be worthless....Show more →
But, I can't recall a time when I ever requested/demanded/expected that someone do something for me on a professional basis ... and expected them to do so without compensating them in one form or another. I might ASK for a freebie or discount, but to expect/demand it to be WITHOUT compensation ... too rude.