I Am Slightly Irritated!!

[FatNakedGuy]

This past weekend the senior home where my dad lives had a Christmas performance by a few friends of my dad.

I brought the camera down and shot a bunch of photos of the event and then uploaded them to smugmug with a custom copyright message across the middle of the images (c2006 rickweller.com), right-click and large images are disabled. Since I was feeling charitable, I lowered the 4x6 price of the prints to my cost plus 1 penny (to track orders).

After doing this, I ordered a set of prints for my dad and then emailed the smugmug link to the performers and senior home so that they could check the photos out and order their own prints if they liked them (at my cost + 1 penny).

Here's a email I just received from one of the performers...

Dear Rick,

We enjoyed the photos immensely. I ended up screen capturing them because we were happy to just have the digital images with your logo in the center... they actually look good that way and remind us of the event. You are a kick butt photographer!!! Wow, those photos were fantastic... you got the gift!

Merry Christmas,

JD


Prints at my cost and they still decided to rip off the images.. grumble.. Just venting... thanks for listening

[DJ-S1]

Wow, that's just ridiculous. Some people just don't get it...:huh

[DavidTO]

Maybe if you put some clothes on you'd get more respect? :dunno



Seriously, take a look at what our culture has come to. People freely admitting that they've stolen your images, and they see nothing wrong with it. Sheesh.

[urbanaries]

Wow, so blatant and unapologetic! As much as we want to fight it though this is the culture we live in. No one values your time or work as much as you do. I know veteran photographers turn their noses up at "shoot and run" photogs but the "pay for time and not prints" structure increasingly makes sense given current market conditions and attitudes.

People are by nature cheap, and the internet has created a shareware society mentality. We're all going to have to adapt.

[dogwood]

Wow. Amazing story. That's one reason I still use the SM "PROOF" as my watermark. It's big and ugly (in a good way) and makes it very clear those are just the proofs. And even the biggest penny pincher would be embarassed to display proofs-- maybe...

But selling at your cost (actually, below your cost since your time and digital storage and downloading and gear and website all cost money) and still having folks swipe the photos (and admit to it?) is amazing. I'd probably write the guy back something like, "Dear Scrooge: Glad you enjoyed the photos but those are just proofs. However, you can purchase images at cost ..."

[FatNakedGuy]

Thanks for the vent, I feel much better this morning!

And to your point, I switched back to the large PROOF for all of my photos. I think you are right in that it may stop more knuckleheads from displaying the images.

[claudermilk]

Just amazing.

People are by nature cheap, and the internet has created a shareware society mentality. We're all going to have to adapt.

"SHAREware" is not "FREEware" and is a valid marketing method. I've paid for all the shareware tools & games I've found useful and kept using (have you?). Anyone read about id software (of Doom & Quake fame)? They ended up with a number of high-end Ferraris & an informal company competition of who could have the most hopped-up one (IIRC the president won with a twin-turbo, nitrous-fed F40)--all based on shareware revenue.

We photographers are facing a different issue with the file-sharing screw-the-copyrights mentality--ok, sum it up as Napster-mentality.

[brjphoto]

I'm sorry, but I laughed when I read your story. That is just amazing. Some people don't get it. It makes me wonder who is using my photos without my permission. If I were you I would be sorely tempted to write a nasty email.

Good luck.

[urbanaries]

Just amazing.



"SHAREware" is not "FREEware" and is a valid marketing method. I've paid for all the shareware tools & games I've found useful and kept using (have you?). Anyone read about id software (of Doom & Quake fame)? They ended up with a number of high-end Ferraris & an informal company competition of who could have the most hopped-up one (IIRC the president won with a twin-turbo, nitrous-fed F40)--all based on shareware revenue.

We photographers are facing a different issue with the file-sharing screw-the-copyrights mentality--ok, sum it up as Napster-mentality.

ok I stand corrected....but I do think there's a "if its on the internet (intangible) it should be free" mentality larger than the copyright photography issue. Many studies show folks are very reluctant to pay for content online, and photography IS in that gray area. You can't steal a hard copy book from amazon, but *obviously* you can steal an electronic image and turn it into something tangible. Granted this is a nebulous issue but my point is its not going to be roped in...its only going to get worse.

[mercphoto]

Wow, so blatant and unapologetic! As much as we want to fight it though this is the culture we live in.
Many on the Sports Shooter and the Pro Photo forums do not like the Internet model for event photography for exactly this reason. Many stick strictly to on-site ordering. You cannot stop people from screen capture. And it is surprising how many people do not feel it is theft, and will admit to doing it with a smile because they honestly think they are paying you a compliment. Like the father of two young boys in karts who admitted he did it for a background to his custom letterhead. Or the young racers who often come up to me and ask "how can I get my photos without "PROOF" written on them?".

I've decided to "fight" this problem by not doing the karts and motocross photoghraphy any longer. Sigh...

[devbobo]

Maybe if you put some clothes on you'd get more respect? :dunno

:lol3 :lol3 :lol3

[Dna]

I had a guy come up to me while I was shooting and tell me that I took crap photos. After a bit more talking, it turns out he had screen captured a 600x400 image, used his l33t photoshop skillz to remove "proof" and then printed it A4 size. Luckly I had some 12"x8" there and showed him what the real, paid for ones looked like. He was suitably impressed and eventually ordered some ...

Some people are idiots ...

Andrew

[devbobo]

I had a guy come up to me while I was shooting and tell me that I took crap photos. After a bit more talking, it turns out he had screen captured a 600x400 image, used his l33t photoshop skillz to remove "proof" and then printed it A4 size. Luckly I had some 12"x8" there and showed him what the real, paid for ones looked like. He was suitably impressed and eventually ordered some ...

Some people are idiots ...

Andrew

:rolleyes

[gavin]

:rolleyes


WOW, some people eh...... Sigh... :scratch

[claudermilk]

ok I stand corrected....but I do think there's a "if its on the internet (intangible) it should be free" mentality larger than the copyright photography issue. Many studies show folks are very reluctant to pay for content online, and photography IS in that gray area. You can't steal a hard copy book from amazon, but *obviously* you can steal an electronic image and turn it into something tangible. Granted this is a nebulous issue but my point is its not going to be roped in...its only going to get worse.

I WAS being a bit pedantic here, but still...

I do agree with your main point on photos & the 'net. It does seem to be getting worse--I am seeing more and more of these kinds of threads. Some of the incidents are simply amazing & in the posters' shoes I'm not sure how I'd react beyond :dood ... "you DO realize you just walked up and admitted you stole from me?"

[wellman]

Might be overkill, but could you have something like this as your watermark?

PROOF
Copyright <Year> <Your name>
Unauthorized printing and/or downloading of this photograph constitutes theft and is punishable by law.

[TomaS]

Agree with everything said here. I am eliminating my online event biz (at another site) becasue of low sales due in part to theft. I found people are just displaying the image on their monitor as wallpaper in some cases, have their friend shoot some crappy pics, or dont care about prints in others. Marketing is also difficult. I have tried inserts in goodie bags, links to the event site, and handing out flyers. None worked very well. The folks that set up a booth at the event and print on the spot seem to do OK. Instant gratification.

What to do if you want to hang in there? Watermark, disable right click, no Original or Large sizes, note on homepage about copyright info, how to order and what sizes will look good. Shoot at big events and be very visible, have a connection with the promoter so participants can find you.

[rosselliot]

completely understand! I'll have photo shoots of people and the next day, without giving them a CD or anything and of course, right clicking my photos, I see them the next day as their myspace and facebook profile pictures and have a whole album of them on facebook...it's CRAZY and annoying! I completely know how you feel! and I don't watermark my photos, just because I think it takes away and it's hard to see if it's really a GREAT picture....but I might need to start doing it.

- RE

[rosselliot]

Might be overkill, but could you have something like this as your watermark?

PROOF
Copyright <Year> <Your name>
Unauthorized printing and/or downloading of this photograph constitutes theft and is punishable by law.

maybe add something like....WILL PURSUE PROSECUTION....yep...might add some legitmacy so people don't think you're kidding.... :) mwwwuuuhahhahaha!!!!!!!

- RE

[SteveM]

ROFL! Sorry, I don't mean to laugh, but in the future, perhaps you shouldn't directly market towards the Depression-Era fixed income crowd. LOL! Sorry man, I feel for you.

Computer savvy foggies kill me! Love em!

[wellman]

maybe add something like....WILL PURSUE PROSECUTION....yep...might add some legitmacy so people don't think you're kidding.... :) mwwwuuuhahhahaha!!!!!!!

- RE

Maybe a bit too philosophical of a question, but do you think people downloading images w/o paying for them is an issue of education or apathy? I prefer to go with education - a la if someone KNOWS that something is illegal and/or unethical, they'll change their ways. Maybe I'm too much of an optimist. :D

[jfriend]

Dear Rick,

We enjoyed the photos immensely. I ended up screen capturing them because we were happy to just have the digital images with your logo in the center... they actually look good that way and remind us of the event. You are a kick butt photographer!!! Wow, those photos were fantastic... you got the gift!

Prints at my cost and they still decided to rip off the images.. grumble.. Just venting... thanks for listening
I'm a late comer to this thread with a contrarian point of view, but maybe I don't get something going on here. Certainly people shouldn't be trying to steal something that is protected, but I don't understand why you are trying to protect them at all in this circumstance.

You don't intend to make any money off these images. You took them and are posting them as a charitable service to the attendees. If all of that is true, why are you even trying to protect the images?

Are there any interests that aren't served better by just letting them do whatever they want with the images?

I ask because I've made different choices in this regard that, I think, are better for all. Let me describe what I do. I have two kids who play soccer (one of them plays year around). I'm also passionate about photography. So, I combine the two and I take pictures of every one of my kid's soccer teams. At the end of the season, I post the pictures online for the team parents to see. I do this as a charitable service. I don't intend to make any money off them. I mark the images up 1 penny just so I can see how many prints are ordered. I think it's just like you so far.

Now, here's where we are different. Because I don't intend to make any money off them and my whole point of offering the charitable service is to let them get the maximum benefit out of the photos (while I have fun and improve my photographic skills), I don't protect the photos in any way. No watermark, no right-click protection, larges and originals fully enabled for download. In my email announcing that the images are posted, I explain that they can order prints at cost (no markup) or they can download the originals to add to their own digital albums or make their own prints. The parents absolutely love what I do and aren't hindered at all in using the photos however they want. If you're really just doing this for the benefit of the attendees, why wouldn't you do it this way too?

[caroline]

As a newcomer to smugmug and dgrin I have read this thread with interest.
I made my sole income from photography for almost 20 years until April 2005 when I decided enough was enough for precisely the kind of reasons you all refer to. In the past I have had 3 books of my pics published, consistently sold in galleries and been modestly in demand for commissions - all the time the price I was getting for the work, pic whatever was decreasing and I was spending more on equipment, framing etc. I turned over a significant amount of money each year but the profit had reduced to almost nil.

I made a concious decision to finish with photography and started a dog walking business www.dogdays-care.co.uk. I've earned more money in the past 2 years than I did in 5 with photography, alot more, - maybe I wasn't any good with the business side, but I think it had more to do with the "want it now, want it cheap/for nothing, I've got a camera therefore am photographer" mentality.

So now I'm back here and nothing has improved BUT I love taking pics, people like to see them and maybe buy them. I have to accept that they will steal them, use them, and some in the past have even put their own copyright mark on them. I never miss a chance to try and educate people about copyright theft and that is about all I can do to make myself feel better. There is no point in pursuing most of these people through the courts though sometimes if the abuse is significant enough it is posssible to get the proper redress

Just a few thoughts from a UK photographer,
Caroline

[claudermilk]

I'm a late comer to this thread with a contrarian point of view, but maybe I don't get something going on here. Certainly people shouldn't be trying to steal something that is protected, but I don't understand why you are trying to protect them at all in this circumstance.

You don't intend to make any money off these images. You took them and are posting them as a charitable service to the attendees. If all of that is true, why are you even trying to protect the images?

Are there any interests that aren't served better by just letting them do whatever they want with the images?

I ask because I've made different choices in this regard that, I think, are better for all. Let me describe what I do. I have two kids who play soccer (one of them plays year around). I'm also passionate about photography. So, I combine the two and I take pictures of every one of my kid's soccer teams. At the end of the season, I post the pictures online for the team parents to see. I do this as a charitable service. I don't intend to make any money off them. I mark the images up 1 penny just so I can see how many prints are ordered. I think it's just like you so far.

Now, here's where we are different. Because I don't intend to make any money off them and my whole point of offering the charitable service is to let them get the maximum benefit out of the photos (while I have fun and improve my photographic skills), I don't protect the photos in any way. No watermark, no right-click protection, larges and originals fully enabled for download. In my email announcing that the images are posted, I explain that they can order prints at cost (no markup) or they can download the originals to add to their own digital albums or make their own prints. The parents absolutely love what I do and aren't hindered at all in using the photos however they want. If you're really just doing this for the benefit of the attendees, why wouldn't you do it this way too?

What they SHOULD have done is at least contact him beforehand and ask permission. I'll bet they could have gotten clean copies with no trouble. In similar situations, I have made the point that if the performer would like some shots for personal use, I'd be happy to furnish some with the simple stipulation that they give proper credit & a link back to my site--which they have all done. At the very least I know where the images are being used & I get some free advertising in the community. We both end up getting something in the deal even if no money is involved. It's a matter of honesty and principle.

[jfriend]

What they SHOULD have done is at least contact him beforehand and ask permission. I'll bet they could have gotten clean copies with no trouble. In similar situations, I have made the point that if the performer would like some shots for personal use, I'd be happy to furnish some with the simple stipulation that they give proper credit & a link back to my site--which they have all done. At the very least I know where the images are being used & I get some free advertising in the community. We both end up getting something in the deal even if no money is involved. It's a matter of honesty and principle.

Please don't misinterpret my posting. I'm not condoning what the people did that ripped off the images, so I agree with your thought. I was just thinking out of the box here and wondering why the images needed to be protected in the first place.

Because we have some protection tools now and they are easy to turn on and because we hate getting "ripped off", I find that people are using these tools in cases where there is no good reason to use them - when no objective they are after is served by making it harder for their target audience to use the images. I just wanted to stimulate some thinking about this so that maybe some other readers would realize that they don't need protection on some of their images and that many would benefit from leaving it off.

I am not trying to make a case for turning off protection on all images, particularly "for profit" or "for business" images. But images posted purely for the fun and enjoyment of friends, family, fellow school parents, team parents, etc... are a lot more useful to all if you just let the audience use them however they see fit and you often have absolutely nothing to lose by doing so and the audience has everything to gain. If you want them to enjoy the images without compensating you, then let them truly enjoy the images however they see fit without locking the gate and tempting them to climb the fence.

[Jeffro]

Everybody that has NEVER EVER right clicked and saved a photo off the web please raise your hand.....:dunno :rolleyes

The people to blame are the computer designers themselves, who decided to allow screen captures in the first place.

[Ken CCP]

This past weekend the senior home where my dad lives had a Christmas performance by a few friends of my dad.

I brought the camera down and shot a bunch of photos of the event and then uploaded them to smugmug with a custom copyright message across the middle of the images (c2006 rickweller.com), right-click and large images are disabled. Since I was feeling charitable, I lowered the 4x6 price of the prints to my cost plus 1 penny (to track orders).

After doing this, I ordered a set of prints for my dad and then emailed the smugmug link to the performers and senior home so that they could check the photos out and order their own prints if they liked them (at my cost + 1 penny).

Here's a email I just received from one of the performers...

Dear Rick,

We enjoyed the photos immensely. I ended up screen capturing them because we were happy to just have the digital images with your logo in the center... they actually look good that way and remind us of the event. You are a kick butt photographer!!! Wow, those photos were fantastic... you got the gift!

Merry Christmas,

JD


Prints at my cost and they still decided to rip off the images.. grumble.. Just venting... thanks for listening

Wow, what a nice complement... not only did they get much pleasure from your work, but they like your watermark...

What you are dealing with here is a common buisness mistake.

You offered them prints, they only wanted the screen readable versions.
Somehow it is thier fault that you didn't offer them the product they wanted?

And since you told them you weren't making money, but being nice.. they didn't understand all the order tracking, copyright nuances. They just gracioulsy accepted your gift. Is it really their fault that they don't get your tracking needs?

I think everyone here that saw this as some kind of disrespect etc. Needs to back off a bit, and think like a person... not business person or photographer protective of thier work. Geeze..

They got proofs, that's all they needed. Anyone ever use the free edition of a program because it did what you needed, so you never bought the full version? Same thing.. sometimes the sample is all they need.

Make pictures people want large prints of and they will buy them. Take good pictures that work well for screen and 4x6s prints... and your samples may be all they need.

This is part of building a business model. The local camera store pays to have demo models and staff to let you hold and try the camera. People often then leave and order it from an online store with none of those costs. If you evert did that, you "stole" service from the local store. They now have to adjust thier business model for that.

Maybe you should have offered them digital downloads for a penny since that is what they wanted?

In the end they liked your work, maybe they will remember that when someone needs to hire a person for an event. And each picture has your watermark.

They could have said "Thanks but we liked Aunt Emma's pictures better."

Ken