posted April 30, 2008 08:57 AM            

If these pictures are good enough to post for others to see, aren't they good enough to pay the photographer who took them?

Have the pictures been paid for?...in which case one would have a nice copy without the photographers imprint across the front of the print?

Personally, I consider it an unethical use of the picture, if one has not paid the photographer for the picture....

posted April 30, 2008 09:07 AM            

The photographer paid for the very nice, expensive camera and equipment, schooling, has made thousands of practice shots to learn the best way to photograph your horse and you at a show, and you go ahead and steal their prints with no appreciation for their work and dedication. Not cool.

posted April 30, 2008 09:25 AM            

Having children that model for one of the biggest firms in the world I am quite familiar with professional photographers and signing rights for BOTH parties involved. My boys get paid a hefty sum for their photo's. That isn't the case for animals now is it?

People might buy them if they were reasonably priced or offered to them on disc. In Ocala I was willing to purchase ALL of the photo's taken of my horses but the photographer was only willing to print hard copies. This is 2008 folks and who has photo albums anymore!

The photographer that does the Friesians at Friesian events and Warren form Action pix have my Credit Card info on file and send me a disc with every photo they take without question. The prices are fair and I have them nicely placed on my computer in iphoto rather than on a table or wall collecting dust.

There are people willing to buy a full disc but a lot of photographers will not burn one. Finally in Ocala I asked them not to take photo's because I can't stand them having the pictures and only willing to make hard copies. Sorry folks I am not into dust I have enough at the farm.

This also raises the question of permission. Who gives photographers permission to snap photo's and use them on photo sites or better yet sell them?
A dog owned by my mother who won the Eukanuba Classic in Florida 2006 showed up on a dog food bag in China! After hiring lawyers and retaining the rights back to the photo it was found on Shutter stock for sale.

I am sorry but I didn't grant any photographers permission to use photo's of my horses on any website let alone sell them to companies/people for profit.

It works both ways!

posted April 30, 2008 09:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by gigizach:

This also raises the question of permission. Who gives photographers permission to snap photo's and use them on photo sites or better yet sell them?

---

By taking your horse, child, dog out into a public venue where it is common knowledge (and most likely the caliber of event you are talking about would have a website that lists the name/company the photographer is from ahead of time for your knowledge) you are essentially granting permission or at least acknowledging that you are aware of the fact that your animals are going to have their pictures taken.

It's like going to the Macy's parade and then flipping out when you spot yourself on TV...

I agree your mom's dog should not have been printed on a dog food bag... but having photographers at an event is a given.

And for the record, I like tangible copies, call me old-fashioned

posted April 30, 2008 09:47 AM            

Where does one draw the line? My moms dog , my horse come on?

Your right anyone can snap photo's thats why after 3rd week I asked them to stop taking photo's. I want them and am willing to pay for them but not hard copy.

I am sure most people have not done a search for their photo's. Try it. Type in photo stock, photo's for sale etc. All of those photo's are for sale and the majority of people don't know their animals photo's are being sold.

So what is the difference my moms dog on a dog food bag in China or my Friesian on a horse food bag in Dubai?

posted April 30, 2008 09:53 AM            

I agree with Gigizach that it is a two way street; but yes most horse shows etc. will state that there is going to be a photographer there. That gives them the right to TAKE the pictures. Does it give them the right to PRINT/PUBLISH picts of you without your permission? I'm not sure.

I also agree I would buy if reasonably priced, and preferably a disc. I realize the "disadvantage" to the disc is that you can just print off as many as you like-if you are so minded-and the photographer stops getting income from those photos. However I have seen contacts/purchasing agreements that theoretically cover that.

posted April 30, 2008 10:27 AM            

..People getting the proofs of their show pictures

..People who don't pay for the proofs and don't buy the pictures, nor in any way reimburse the photographer for their efforts, time and expense

.. People who use those proofs and post them on websites

This question is not about copyright or release.

This question is about whether it is ethical to display the photos without reimbursing the photographer FIRST.

I consider it to be UNETHICAL if the person has not paid for the photos.

posted April 30, 2008 11:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ride on:
My question was not about photographer's use of the photos, but rather......

..People getting the proofs of their show pictures

..People who don't pay for the proofs and don't buy the pictures, nor in any way reimburse the photographer for their efforts, time and expense

.. People who use those proofs and post them on websites

This question is not about copyright or release.

This question is about whether it is ethical to display the photos without reimbursing the photographer FIRST.

I consider it to be UNETHICAL if the person has not paid for the photos.

---

Not only is it unethical, and rude, simply, it's illegal. I will do some research today and post a link to confirm this.

posted April 30, 2008 12:04 PM            

If I'm buying a 8 X 10 for $120 dollars, I'm sure as hell going to make my own copies of it for giving the winning pictures to the correct individuals (coach, trainer, etc.) The thought that I have to pay $400 for 3 - 8 X 10's, 5 - 4 X 6's.. is robbery and taking advantage of people when they most want to brag!

posted April 30, 2008 12:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by QhChick:
Like the CAW, I think photographers can often price themselves out of the market.

If I'm buying a 8 X 10 for $120 dollars, I'm sure as hell going to make my own copies of it for giving the winning pictures to the correct individuals (coach, trainer, etc.) The thought that I have to pay $400 for 3 - 8 X 10's, 5 - 4 X 6's.. is robbery and taking advantage of people when they most want to brag!

---

Agreed! I usually buy the nicest pictures but I also keep all the proofs. I would buy them all if they weren't so expensive! But the fact is I pay for the photographer's nicest work, but I'm not going to buy second rate pictures. At the same time, if I have the proof why throw them out? And I will admit some of them have appeared on facebook.

posted April 30, 2008 12:35 PM            

As to models, I believe there is an agreement whereby if you have entered a competition/event/show etc. with an official photographer you have effectively signed your release before the fact and no other release to use your image is needed. If your image is used in a way that demeans you or conflicts with your own business or belief you will likely have a case but I suspect you would have to sue to stop it. (This is similar to the agreements which allow dressage riders, figure skates etc to use copywritten music for arrangements in competition. The show has in effect already made the agreement.)

The reality is it's hard to catch people. The internet makes it easy to steal. In most cases, if someone is found out, the photographer simply asks them to cease and desist from using the image. If this ever happens I would advise complying because they photographer does have the right to pursue legal action.

posted April 30, 2008 04:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by eventing_QH:
[B] the fact is I pay for the photographer's nicest work, but I'm not going to buy second rate pictures. At the same time, if I have the proof why throw them out? And I will admit some of them have appeared on facebook.

---

So in essence you're saying a "second rate" photograph is not good enough to purchase, but good enough to steal? Simply because you do not qualify it as "first rate" photo does not mean that the photographer did not expend the same time and effort on the "second rate" photo as on the "first rate" one. Shouldn't the photographer be compensated for that, or at the very least, not ripped off based on your subjectivity or criticism of their work? If you do not particularly care for the photograph(s), simply decline to use it entirely instead of blatantly stealing it and trying to justify it.

I am a Professional Photographer, and also, conveniently, a Paralegal. The majority of the above posters are correct - using photographs that have not been purchased, or are still watermarked by the Photographer, is most definitely illegal (not to mention disrespectful).

In raising the issue of consent, when doing Wedding photography, we have all our clients sign a very detailed contract, and explicitly mention that the photographs are our property and we assert the right to use them for advertising purposes. If clients take exception to this, they are more than welcome to decline our services and seek out another Photographer. Our equipment, time, effort, and talent equates to meaning that the resulting product is our property.

At a show, I can see how the same situation may arise. However, riders who take exception to the possibility of their photographs being used for advertising purposes have two options: do not participate in the show, or express to the Photographer that you do not want photos of you used for advertising purposes. The Photographer should then respectfully either decline to take their photos entirely, or note that those particular photos are not to be used for advertising purposes. Short of actively expressing that you do not wish to give consent, Photographers are able to assume implied consent in public situations such as horse shows. Decent Photographers will try to contact you in some way, shape, or form, in the event that they wish to use photographs of you for advertising. However, I would certainly consider it unethical to sell them to another party for profit.

Keep in mind that a Photographer’s profit is two-fold. They either make money from sales of photos, or use those photos to advertise in the hopes of obtaining more business. Rarely, if ever, are Photographers paid to take photos at a horse show by the venue or horse show manager. They only make money from sales of resulting photographs. If people steal these proofs, it is the same as walking out of a grocery store without paying for your groceries, or filling up your car with gas and driving off without paying. Sadly, the internet makes it harder track those that steal photographs, but we have managed to figure out a way to track people who steal (not all, but most). Once we’ve discovered who has stolen proofs, we black list them, and will not take photographs of them at subsequent horse shows. We have, on occasion, threatened legal action.

posted April 30, 2008 05:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by gigizach:
The question was raised in a Canadian court why are photo copiers in libraries??

---

If I remember the giant poster above the library photo copiers at Brock correctly, you are legally allowed to photocopy up to 10% (or X many pages, whichever comes first) of a published work owned by the Uni free of charge, after that you are to contact the publisher for permission and to pay for the use of the works.

For some of our classes we buy 'reading packages' which are photocopied booklets of articles or excerpts from published books and journals. For my last reading package which consisted of about 300 pages from a bunch of different sources I paid $75. So, although the photocopiers are there you are not given permission to just photocopy an entire book, that, like stealing photographs, is illegal.

posted April 30, 2008 08:57 PM            

I would never use them for sale as she specifically asked me not to and I respect that (tho I still owe her a cd).

I haven't even gotten that far in my photography yet to consider selling the pics I take for stock photos. I have done a few portrait's and that's it.

posted April 30, 2008 10:17 PM            

No disrespect was intended. I love the photographers and think they do great work. By second rate I by no means intended to insult their work, rather what I meant was those pictures where the horse is in an awkward position. Would photographers rather the prints go in the garbage? I just hate to throw them out when I have them! Seems like a waste! But I do understand that the picture belongs to the photographer. How is putting it on facebook any different than showing your friends the prints? Surely photographers have no issue with you showing the prints to others when you receive them. There's a fine line between plagiarism and simply keeping the prints. I don't blow the prints up or frame them. I guess my question is what are you allowed to do with the prints? Is it okay to keep them? Is it okay to show them to some friends?

posted April 30, 2008 10:20 PM            

I've decided to stop paying the high prices for one hard copy picture o/f. I'm pretty sure my original cash outlay will more than compensate itself, over the next 2 summers.

Perhaps if the show photographers were a little more willing to lower their prices, or negotiate on an entire package, infringement wouldn't be a normal concern? That said, I've never infringed, nor copied. I've just decided to take it out of their hands completely, after being held ransom for the last 3 years.

posted May 01, 2008 10:40 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cruiser:
As to models, I believe there is an agreement whereby if you have entered a competition/event/show etc. with an official photographer you have effectively signed your release before the fact and no other release to use your image is needed. If your image is used in a way that demeans you or conflicts with your own business or belief you will likely have a case but I suspect you would have to sue to stop it. (This is similar to the agreements which allow dressage riders, figure skates etc to use copywritten music for arrangements in competition. The show has in effect already made the agreement.)

---

For competition when you play music - like with airing music on TV you must get permission from the owner and pay to be able to use it. If you are not getting permission and paying from the owner of the music you are breaking the law. ( of couse they can choose not to charge you money for use of their music)

posted May 01, 2008 11:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by meister:
This is a great topic and I haven't read all the posts but I can tell you that upendis is right and gigizach is wrong. I am studying marketing and this is one thing we have studied dur to the use of photos in advertising. The ownership of the photo always belongs to the photographer first. If you are in a public place and you have your photo taken, the photographer still owns all rights. The only time that changes is if the photo is used to promote or advertise something. That is the only time you have a say in where your photo can be used. But the photographer still owns copy right on it.

---

I think that is what is bothering some people - using a photo of thier horse for promotion or advertising without getting permission from the owner/rider

I just wanted to add - I would buy a lot more photo's if they were not so expensive.

posted May 01, 2008 11:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by dekka:
For competition when you play music - like with airing music on TV you must get permission from the owner and pay to be able to use it. If you are not getting permission and paying from the owner of the music you are breaking the law. ( of couse they can choose not to charge you money for use of their music)

Also if there is an agreement if you are at a show for your pictures to be taken and used and sold for what ever and to whom ever, that should be written somewhere.
Does anyone know where in the show agreements this is written for riders and owners?

---

posted May 01, 2008 01:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by mercedespony:
this is why I just spent a fair chunk of change on a new camera, with several different lens. (Happy Mothers Day to me..) And I'm heading to a course for photography over the next 8 weeks, to learn how to use the different lens, and work a picture.

I've decided to stop paying the high prices for one hard copy picture o/f. I'm pretty sure my original cash outlay will more than compensate itself, over the next 2 summers.

Perhaps if the show photographers were a little more willing to lower their prices, or negotiate on an entire package, infringement wouldn't be a normal concern? That said, I've never infringed, nor copied. I've just decided to take it out of their hands completely, after being held ransom for the last 3 years.

And I'm guessing I'm not the only parent who is doing this, especially with the quality of cameras available that are actually reasonably priced. For the shows, you just need to increase your lens. (and, of course, know how to use them).

---

Good luck in your photographic endeavours!

However, please remember that the best professional photographers have years of experience behind them and that capturing a great image in a photo has not got a whole lot with the amount of money you spent for a camera! Yes, of course having a camera with a telephoto/zoom lens is going to make the job a whole lot easier, but the quality of the image is not in the camera - it lies in the ability of the photographer to "see", just like an artist learns how to "see". Just about anyone can learn to use a pencil, but not everyone is going to produce art! Those photos published in National Geographic (IMO the absolute best source of great photography) aren't just snapshots. In order to get a single image good enough to publish in that magazine, the photographer will have shot HUNDREDS, IF NOT THOUSANDS of photos for that story alone. In 40 years of photography on a strictly amateur level, I can count the number of my REALLY good shots on the fingers of one hand.

My personal pet peeve is when someone sees one of my good photos and says "oh, your camera takes really good pictures!" I just want to scream!

So, with respect to the cost of show photos, give the photographers their due. They have spent years learning their craft and many, many hours in lousy weather condiditons taking their shots, so maybe their prices aren't so out of line after all!

posted May 01, 2008 03:25 PM            

- One photographer
- 10 hour day photographing
- $5000 in equipment
- mileage
- meals
- cost of running vehicle
- living accomodations
- 6 hours of editing time on top of the 10 hours of photographing
- internet for emailing proofs
- expenses in producing proofs
- time spent in matching pictures with entry numbers
- time spent distributing photos to POTENTIAL buyers

All this done for a one day or two day show, maybe a week show.

In many cases a liveable wage is generated perhaps over two days average per week?

Would that net out more than a stall mucker?

My thought is a photographer takes 10 pix of your horse and you buy only the best one. What's the return on the cost of doing business with you?

posted May 01, 2008 07:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by dekka:
For competition when you play music - like with airing music on TV you must get permission from the owner and pay to be able to use it. If you are not getting permission and paying from the owner of the music you are breaking the law. ( of couse they can choose not to charge you money for use of their music)

---

Is this not a situation where the show needs to have a SOCAN performing rights license that covers all music played at the venue? It was my understanding that shows hosting kurs have to have this arrangement (through EC?) already in place. SOCAN looks after "small" rights specifically so venues/performers that use a great deal of copyrighted music do not have to make individual arrangements but can pay a blanket fee for the administration of the proper [national and international] royalties. (The other category, a "grand" right is for the use of music in theatrical shows and requires contacting the publisher directly).

Now, mechanical rights - the actual reproduction of the music in the first place - is perhaps a different situation. Presumably riders SHOULD have a SOCAN license to do that in the first place.

posted May 01, 2008 08:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ride on:
For those who speak of expensive photos, try this scenario.

- One photographer
- 10 hour day photographing
- $5000 in equipment
- mileage
- meals
- cost of running vehicle
- living accomodations
- 6 hours of editing time on top of the 10 hours of photographing
- internet for emailing proofs
- expenses in producing proofs
- time spent in matching pictures with entry numbers
- time spent distributing photos to POTENTIAL buyers

All this done for a one day or two day show, maybe a week show.

In many cases a liveable wage is generated perhaps over two days average per week?

Would that net out more than a stall mucker?

My thought is a photographer takes 10 pix of your horse and you buy only the best one. What's the return on the cost of doing business with you?

No, using the proofs or pictures without paying something is unethical.

---

posted May 01, 2008 08:51 PM            

Back in the days of 35mm, I took my $1500 Nikon F3 and $800 telephoto lens and shot all day at a few shows. After burning through hundreds of dollars in film and chemicals (I processed myself), I was making 10 cents an hour so I quit. I would specifically show people flawless shots of their perfect horses over attractive jumps and was often put off. They always thought there would be another day, a better shot. Now, almost 30 years later, people will ask me if I will print a pic of their dearly departed, best horse they ever owned....I can't be bothered digging out the negatives for people who wouldn't even look at the proofs at the time. I always enlarged a few of the nicest shots for display. One was of a little girl and her pony. The parents wouldn't buy it, but wanted me to pay her a modeling fee for my use of it. I just took it down. If people can do something themselves, they don't want to pay someone else to do it.

posted May 01, 2008 09:05 PM            

It's too bad some make comments like, well maybe you should rethink your photograpic hobby if you want to make money.

posted May 02, 2008 05:27 PM            

1)People who take the proof they haven't paid for and use it to advertise the horse for sale, or as a stud.

2)People who wait for me to set up the champion horse and rider, and then shoot over my shoulder, and offer to give the photo to the owner.

3)People who refuse to pay $9.00- yes, that's only $9.00- for a 4x6 because they feel I should give it to them instead. I had one mom accuse me of being mean to her child because I wouldn't do this. She also mentioned that she wanted to copy it to send photos to all her family.

4) People who DO pay for a $9.00 4x6, then proceed to scan it and make poster size prints- not only is this theft, but now there is a poor quality photo out there with my name on it. I worked hard to develop my skills, and am really particular about the quality of my prints. All this does is ruin MY reputation.

5) and finally, show organizers who refuse to be accomodating, by not giving me a space for a table and some signage, buy not announcing that I am at the show so people know how to get in touch with me. I am there to make their show better- often I am treated by organizers as a nuisance.

6)e forgot to mention the riders who tell my the click of my camera spooked their horse from 200 yards away, and caused them to blow the show...come on, really! How about all the commotion, papers that blow around, horses that whinny, spectators who walk around the ring and clap.....

In the last two seasons I have photographed several shows, each is at least a 12 hour day in the sun and dust, and financially it does not pay. Most people will only order one photo, usually the smallest available. If they want only a CD, I will provide it, but then I have no control over how my photos are used or printed ( back to the quality issue). I now only shoot at horse shows if I receive a retainer from the show to cover my time for the day. I also shoot aerials, and commercial work, and there is a whole different attitude in those fields, in that my work is valued for its quality and originality.

Regarding selling photos for advertising, if there is a recognizeable person in the photo, I obtain a signed model release, even though I don't really need one for editorial uses, or if it's a public event. I only sell photos for appropriate uses, and control the licensing. If the photo is of an animal, I do not need permission to use it for any purpose. This is the law. Your dog or horse does not have the rights to privacy that a person does. Having said that, as a courtesy, I often ask the owner, but not because I need their permission. If I give you a free photo as a thank you, this does not mean you can reproduce it or use it for advertising.

And finally, I now make it my policy to go after anyone who copies or uses my photos for anything without my permission, after too many years of being ripped off. I send you an invoice, for at least twice as much as I would normally have charged, and proceed to collection if you do not pay. And it's surprising how often I DO find out- I had a call from WalMart in Florida once, where a lady was trying to get all her daughter's wedding proofs copied, after I specifically told her she couldn't. You can run, but you can't hide. I stamp all my photos with my contact info, and " Reproduction Prohibited!" This should not be hard to understand.

I think we all expect to be paid when we go to work, but for some reason it seems photographers are supposed to work for free.

posted May 03, 2008 06:22 PM            

I hope the parents, equestrians, everyone else really, understands better why it is important to pay for the photos, to keep the photographers coming out....

posted May 05, 2008 10:13 AM            

When I run a horse show, I pay a photographer to be there. They are not going to make enough money by selling prints alone to justify coming out. Plus, I need specific shots for sponsors and advertising, and that will cut into "ring time" occasionally. But then I promote them as our official photographer and help them get as much business as a result. Do I restrict other photographers from coming? No, but they can't sell on site or solicit at all.

Not enough time to get all the way into this today, am still editing Rolex photos... Great topic BTW

posted May 05, 2008 08:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdunnphoto:
just jacks - this is the thing - scanning the print for "reprint purposes" is still stealing. You buy the print means you buy THAT PRINT - not the rights to scan it and reprint it electronically in the future. If you want to do that, buy it on CD, pay more for it since you're going to cut into future print sales, and have at it. That is why we charge more for an image on CD - because you can make your 8X10's, your 5X7's and your wallets and we see none of that revenue. Not to mention have no control over how the final image comes out...

[/URL]

---

I completely agree with you. I was just grateful that I was able to scan and edit a purchased print to correct it. This was a photo printed off a horrible photo printer at a horse show that literally faded to nothing from being framed and on a wall! I simply replaced the faded/ruined print with the scanned and reprinted version.

posted May 19, 2008 06:42 PM            

I charge $5 for a 4 x 6, $15 for a 5 x 7, and $25 for an 8 x 10. I do not see those prices as being expensive.

Many horse shows do NOT pay photographers to attend. They do not budget for this. The photographers then have to rely on sales to riders, magazines, stock agencies etc. As someone already said "I have photographed several shows, each is at least a 12 hour day in the sun and dust, and financially it does not pay."

To take a proof and post it on facebook, myspace, etc. or scan the one 4 x 6 that you purchase and make your own enlargements is unethical and is theft.

posted May 19, 2008 06:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandi:
I, too, am a professional equine photographer. I totally agree with many of the posts from fellow photographers.

I charge $5 for a 4 x 6, $15 for a 5 x 7, and $25 for an 8 x 10. I do not see those prices as being expensive.

---

posted May 20, 2008 05:02 PM            

If so, THAT is something I'd be willing to pay (since I've seen a few people charge $60-70 for 10-15 photos on a CD).

I think it's just tough to fork out money (even just $15-20) for a photo/print that you can only print and stick on a wall in your home - and cannot even legally show your friends unless you took that print over to their house.

posted May 20, 2008 05:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrialEnError:
Just curious -
if you buy a CD of the photos, do have you the legal ability to put them on such places as Facebook, webshots, send them to friends, etc. etc.?

If so, THAT is something I'd be willing to pay (since I've seen a few people charge $60-70 for 10-15 photos on a CD).

I think it's just tough to fork out money (even just $15-20) for a photo/print that you can only print and stick on a wall in your home - and cannot even legally show your friends unless you took that print over to their house.

Though I'm sure it's fustrating for both photographer and customer..

---

posted May 20, 2008 05:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonic1015:
Technically no, BUT most photographers won't mind and it is legal if you have a written agreement (or an agreement of some sort).

---

Ah-hah! Thanks
I think that's something I'd seriously look into purchasing then, but I guess I'll have to talk to the photographer first

posted May 21, 2008 12:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrialEnError:
I'd might as well purchase a camera and take photos myself..

---

Good luck getting that perfect shot of yourself showing your horse
Not to mention you'd need ~$1000 for a photo that compares in quality (camera and photographer-wise).

Why can't we just appreciate this service? If it costs too much for a print, don't buy it, but don't steal it either; Go purchase the thousand dollar camera and high-quality lenses and get a friend to snap your pictures of you for free.
You wouldn't steal an artist's painting or sculpture, so what makes it OK to steal an artist's photo?
Like Cruiser (and a few others) said, most photographers will give permission to use their photo if you give them credit. So just ask, and if they say no, you probably shouldn't steal their photo out of respect, if nothing else.

Edited for typo

posted May 21, 2008 07:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrialEnError:
I'd like to figure out all the laws about copyright..

I just can't justify spending money on a print that will sit in a frame getting dusty on a shelf, that I can't even scan in to show friends and use for personal use (aka showing friends, family, facebook, webshots) and not commercial use (ie. advertising). I'd might as well purchase a camera and take photos myself..

---

I am reminded of the story, perhaps apocryphal, about the author Margaret Laurence.

She was at a party and was speaking with a neurosurgeon. The neurosurgeon said that when he retired he was going to turn his hand to writing novels. Laurence responded that when she retired she was going to take up brain surgery.

Talent in the arts, whether writing, painting or taking photographs is not easy. When you buy a photograph you are paying for raw talent, considerable experience gained through hard work and the cost of the equipment to produce the photographs.

Anybody can take snapshots (I have some very nice ones of my mare when she had her foal. The mare is the fuzzy white white blob on the left, the smaller brown dot on the right is the filly), but very few people can take a decently composed photograph.

posted May 21, 2008 08:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by infamous:
Good luck getting that perfect shot of yourself showing your horse
Not to mention you'd need ~$1000 for a photo that compares in quality (camera and photographer-wise).

Why can't we just appreciate this service? If it costs too much for a print, don't buy it, but don't steal it either; Go purchase the thousand dollar camera and high-quality lenses and get a friend to snap your pictures of you for free.
You wouldn't steal an artist's painting or sculpture, so what makes it OK to steal an artist's photo?
Like Cruiser (and a few others) said, most photographers will give permission to use their photo if you give them credit. So just ask, and if they say no, you probably shouldn't steal their photo out of respect, if nothing else.

Edited for typo

[This message has been edited by infamous (edited May 21, 2008).]

---

My digital camera does just fine for what I'd like (just clear, clean pictures).

Heck, I'd have no problem doing the whole "Photo credit © to _______" in the headline of a photo and giving them credit.. but I just can't understand spending money for something you can't even (proudly) show your friends.
I'm just saying, if the law like that is so strict.. it's probably so much easier to just get amateur shots by letting a friend snap some up with your own personal camera..

posted May 21, 2008 10:34 AM            

Obviously many people take their own photos (hence the huge numbers of digital recreational cameras for sale) and are just fine with it. But professionals that succeed do so because they have a talent the rest of us lack. I remember talking to a professional photographer years ago and she figured she took 80 pictures for every one she could sell for decent money. Obviously digital has changed the mechanics of doing that but it's still a likely ratio.

posted June 17, 2008 06:49 PM            

Last summer I took photos and, did not sell them, but it was insane the number of people who would take my photos without asking, without crediting myself, and when there was a copyright on them. And that's when I was just learning how to correctly use my camera and lens[es], I still am!

Reading through this thread has given me lots of ideas for selling my photos.
I will and want to be very reasonable with selling.

What sizes and CD options would you like?
4 x 6
5 x 7
8 x 10
Any others?
I will for sure have the option of CD's as I see its a popular choice. I'm guessing I will offer pictures from one rodeo, or a year end CD.
What does everyone think would be a reasonable price to pay for a day CD [maybe 5 photos?] or a year-end CD [20-25 photos, say?]

I'm still going to decide on what to do with letting people use my photos for posting on facebook and what not, as I know that a lot of people buying the photos would want to post them there. If I were to charge, what would be reasonable?

posted June 17, 2008 09:01 PM            

Just this year I started photographing horses and shows. I think I am pretty good, not to slag anyone out there but I have seen some pretty crappy show pictures. I take alot of pride and what I do and spend many hours editing my photos to look just perfect. I want them to look the best so people will want to buy them. Not like other "photog's" who just shoot whatever and as many as they can get with no attention to composition, colour, sharpness, blurry jumping pictures etc ... drives me MAD!!

When I edit a photo, I look at it and say to myself "would I buy this photo? is this something I would frame and put on my own wall?" if the answer is no, I scrap it.

Since I spend so much on all of my photography, equipment, website, editing, gas, lunch, paper of all kinds - it is really upsetting to see someone steal my work, cause that is what it is, stealing period. Take this past weekend for example, I drove all the way to Palgrave took about 100 stunning images and found out the show had a photographer, I didn't know. So the entire days was a complete waist of time for me and lost money instead of making money. Not to mention all those beautiful images are now going to be tossed. oh well you live and learn ...

I think my rates are very reasonable.
Buy just the digi files for $50.00

or buy my fine art prints that are not walmart! They are from a pro print lab and are printed on acid free archival paper that will last over 100+ years.

5x7 $16
8x10 $24
8x12 $26
11x14 $50
16x20 $80
20x24 $120

posted June 18, 2008 09:36 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda Tourangeau:
Since I spend so much on all of my photography, equipment, website, editing, gas, lunch, paper of all kinds - it is really upsetting to see someone steal my work, cause that is what it is, stealing period. Take this past weekend for example, I drove all the way to Palgrave took about 100 stunning images and found out the show had a photographer, I didn't know. So the entire days was a complete waist of time for me and lost money instead of making money. Not to mention all those beautiful images are now going to be tossed. oh well you live and learn ...

[This message has been edited by Amanda Tourangeau (edited June 17, 2008).]

---

posted June 18, 2008 12:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda Tourangeau:

Since I spend so much on all of my photography, equipment, website, editing, gas, lunch, paper of all kinds - it is really upsetting to see someone steal my work, cause that is what it is, stealing period. Take this past weekend for example, I drove all the way to Palgrave took about 100 stunning images and found out the show had a photographer, I didn' know. So the entire days was a complete waist of time for me and lost money instead of making money. Not to mention all those beautiful images are now going to be tossed. oh well you live and learn ...

[This message has been edited by Amanda Tourangeau (edited June 17, 2008).]

---

posted June 18, 2008 01:47 PM            

At my old house on Hwy 8 (regional road 81) when I was really young the Olympic Torch came past our house.
The whole family came out and we sat outside waiting for the runner with the torch-- when he finally came my dad was there with the camera (an ammie photographer). He got some okay shots of the man smiling and waving with our family and house in the background which were cool but one shot in particular that dad KNEW would be something special was one he got of the man when my dad crouched in the ditch and got it as a 'worms eye'.

Well, dad sent the film in to be processed and a week later he got back all the prints...but that one...also the film itself had been cut out from the rest...

Dad regrets not fighting it but he had the film done at Shoppers or somewhere where they sent it out to be processed so at the time he felt it was a futile battle since it would have been passed through so many different hands. Plus we were a young 'poor' family and he couldn't focus time money and energy on something like that.

posted June 18, 2008 02:54 PM            

I know personally, I am annoyed when people steal photos I have taken, on my own property of my horses, and then place them on their websites. I find it very rude. My email is on my site, all they would have to do is email and ask permission.

posted June 18, 2008 11:03 PM            

A the end of the day, I can't control other people's actions and policing it would be rather difficult...but I have to admit after being outside all day (on one of the hottest days so far this year), trying my best to get some good shots despite some very rough rounds (hard to take a good picture if the horse isn't going well!), and then spending a hours cropping/re-touching colours and suffering through a lovely bout of poison ivy as a result of tromping through the fields...its disheartening to stumble onto a facebook profile using one of my photos - a photo that was not purchased. 10 more minutes of searching and I found 4 other profiles.

posted June 19, 2008 07:09 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Backstage:
Frankly, its one of the reasons I'd never be a professional photographer!

---

And it's one of the reasons why many professionals are backing away from show and event coverage over the past few years.

The "digital age" has had a huge impact on the photography business. I remember speaking with a wedding photographer who had covered a friend's wedding in 1999. He was no longer in the business. He said it was just too easy for people to scan, copy, steal etc. images, and his profits were declining exponentially. When it was no longer worth his time, he stopped.

While the use of the internet and email continues to rise...and people are getting better at manipulating digital media...there seems to be a disconnect between what "theft" is, and that taking things off of those electronic forms of communication is indeed theft. I would hazard a bet that many of those same people who steal photos wouldn't walk into a store and try to pocket merchandise without paying!

Beyond all of that... Photography as a profession still seems to suffer from a common public misconception that it's not a "real" business, skill or craft. The number of times I've heard people say "all you're doing is taking a photo, it doesn't cost you anything" really is amazing.

Adding to that problem is how easily accessible quality digital cameras are to the "average joe", and the number of new, (often young and uninformed) people out and about wanting to do this as a business who are undercutting Official Photographers at shows, as well as the going professional rates and practically giving away their images for free. What those individuals don't realize is that they're devaluing the industry as a whole.

If there's any advice I can give to individuals considering equine photography as a business....it's talk to the other professionals in the area. Look at websites...ask questions....look at pricing structures. Price accordingly. It's okay to price lower when you start out, but if the industry standard is $20.00 for a specific product, don't price yours at $5.00. You need to value your work, your time, and the product you produce.

posted June 19, 2008 09:28 AM            

This Photgrapher was sick of fighting with people over the use of their pictures on Equine.com and on sale flyers.---WITH THE COPYRIGHT PRINTED ON THE PIC!!!!

posted June 19, 2008 10:11 AM            

It could be collected with the horse show fees. Simply check off the box and the entry number is provided to the photographer, so they know who will be having pictures taken that day....or just have some identifying colour mark on your number.

Black numbers for those having pictures taken and red numbers for those who are not wanting pictures to simplify.

I know how hard it is to get that one perfect picture and it saddens me that people think nothing of using the products of other people's hard work without thought to financial compensation. I suppose that type of person also downloads music without compensating either. It's an (un)ethical mindset.