# Thieving Scumbag Facebook shoplifters- Rant follows



## spidge (5 July 2010)

For those of a nervous disposition, please be aware rant follows.

As one of the photographers at the Area 46 2010 BSJA show at the weekend I have seen reduced sales based on last years figures, reduced competitor numbers as it fell just a week after Hickstead ( very local for those who don't know the geography). Ok so show numbers generally are down and we are all having to work a bit harder to stand still. That I can deal with.

Having put 3 days worth of pictures online we have sold just 2 pictures through our web site from that show.   Yes just 2 low resolution digital download files for a total of £10 from a total of some 4000 images.  Yet my web site viewing stats have been really busy.  Busy that is with  riders updating their Facebook pages with sometimes as many as 30 images on which they are getting fulsome praise and compliments from their mates for their successes etc at the weekend.  The issue is not cost as via my web site there has been the option of a Facebook suitable downloadable image for just £3. That's the price I paid for my bacon and egg roll before the show on Sunday and cheaper than the butty and a cup of tea at £4.  Yet when I look around the showground I see £100k lorries and £50k horses. Mistake or  pi**take?

So as of tonight I have hidden all my BSJA event galleries and will only make these available to people who register their name, address and email details with me.

A rider has suggested to me that I name and shame the guilty parties for bringing the BSJA into disrepute. An interesting suggestion and one I shall pursue tomorrow.  My business will of course suffer temporarily whilst those genuine customers are made to go through an extra step and I have to keep changing the gallery URL'S weekly to keep ahead of the shoplifters.  Why do riders think they have the right to help themselves to images on my website as if it is some magical try before you buy pick'n'mix sweetie counter.

I'm not the only photographer suffering. We are talking here about BSJA competitors who compete regularly at venues as far apart as Addington, Cricklands, Towerlands etc not just your local spit and sawdust venue. I see shoplifted copyright images in their hundreds and thousands- it's an epidemic of thieving that has no moral justification and very little price justification either when one considers the cost of a print in relation to lorries, livestock, training, logistics and accomodation costs.

Thank you if you are still reading this, I feel better now.


----------



## Eriskayowner (5 July 2010)

There is a way of disabling right click (and therefore save picture as &#8230 on websites bit I can't remember the coding. Of course the more determined can still print screen and crop, but you could put a massive watermark across the whole image with "stolen from www.abc.com"?!


----------



## spidge (5 July 2010)

I strengthened my watermark last week to something more direct, right click is disabled but it makes no difference.

A thief is a thief is a thief, if it can be made by man it can be broken by man.


----------



## UnaB (5 July 2010)

Thats awful behaviour, and isnt it illegal??

I dont compete my horses anymore but I do compete my dogs and we have photographers in attendance at show who upload pics to buy on their website, much like you do from the sound of it.  You are unable to right click of C&P any of the images (there is a message on the website saying this) and i cant think why anyone would anyway!!  You spend all day there doing your job, if ppeople want the benefits of that they should pay for it

I would put a comment on the website saying any unauthorised use of the pics will be prosecuted or something and see if that deters people...


----------



## Twizzel (5 July 2010)

The problem is people want something for nothing these days. I photograph shows too for a pro down here and this year profits are right down... sometimes I walk away with £30 for a 9 hour day. Last year I photographed a BE event and took home £20, spent £10 in petrol getting there and back and was out of the house for 18 hours and had a 15 min break inbetween classes. 

Bad times... and those people who nick photos from the website will be the first to complain if the pro isn't at the show because it's not financially viable anymore for them to attend.


----------



## UnaB (5 July 2010)

Twizzel said:



			The problem is people want something for nothing these days. I photograph shows too for a pro down here and this year profits are right down... sometimes I walk away with £30 for a 9 hour day. Last year I photographed a BE event and took home £20, spent £10 in petrol getting there and back and was out of the house for 18 hours and had a 15 min break inbetween classes. 

Bad times... and those people who nick photos from the website will be the first to complain if the pro isn't at the show because it's not financially viable anymore for them to attend.
		
Click to expand...


Wow!  I cant believe photographers make so little money!!  Thats shocking...

I keep meaning to order 3 beautiful prints of my dog at a recent show to put on my wall, will go do that now i think lol


----------



## Weezy (6 July 2010)

How about charging for the right to see the photos?  Charge £10 for their album to be unlocked, redeemable on purchase of photographs?  At least then if theft takes place you are earning something out of it?  You cannot be any worse off than you are now.


----------



## JessPickle (6 July 2010)

Thats appauling! unfortunetly I do have aquantainces on facebook who have some of those photos on there facebook!


----------



## spidge (6 July 2010)

Weezy, if I genuinely thought people would pay it I would.  I just can't see that idea succeeding.

Twizzell, that is not even minimum wage.  Move to Sussex I pay my togs substantially more. You must really love what you do.

Jesspickle, I bet I know who some of them are too! The type of customer that wastes 5 minutes of your time looking at their pictures, then can't make up their mind and confirms that the pictures will be on the internet. So they can most likely shoplift them later...

Well not any more


----------



## MissSBird (6 July 2010)

Spidge, I spend a lot of time on an art website (for literature purposes), and I know many members of that website have had pictures stolen for use on facebook. They contacted facebook and the offending pictures were removed.

I know it's a lot of effort, but maybe it would be worth it. Once you've done it a couple of times, people may take your copywrite more seriously. 

Unfortunatly, this does seem to be a huge problem anywhere in the art/photography online sector. Other than big fugly completely in the way watermarks, I don't know what else you could do.


----------



## George Michie (6 July 2010)

Spidge, I'm a mod on a photography forum, would you mind if I copied your post to it please?


----------



## Twizzel (6 July 2010)

I do love it... but I'm now wondering whether it's actually worth doing it which is something I never thought would go through my mind  I just can't take the risk (especially as now we compete, so often leave the horses at home to try and make a bit of £££), sometimes we have a good day sometimes we have a bad day but we never know until we are there and then it's almost too late.


----------



## spidge (6 July 2010)

MissSBird, I have shied away from doing that as I always thought of it as free advertising and fear of upsetting my customers.  The thing is a lot of them are occasional customers and some just perennial browsers ( timewasters?) 

Today gave me the right hump, having spent three 14-16 hour days photographing, selling, editing, uploading etc.  Perhaps reporting to Facebook is the only answer.


----------



## spidge (6 July 2010)

George Michie said:



			Spidge, I'm a mod on a photography forum, would you mind if I copied your post to it please?
		
Click to expand...

George not at all, which one?  I dip into 2 or 3 occasionally.


----------



## spidge (6 July 2010)

Twizzel said:



			I do love it... but I'm now wondering whether it's actually worth doing it which is something I never thought would go through my mind  I just can't take the risk (especially as now I compete, so often leave the horses at home to try and make a bit of £££), sometimes we have a good day sometimes we have a bad day but we never know until we are there and then it's almost too late. I did a show a couple of weeks back, took my card back in between a class at about 3pm, and was told not one of my photos had sold so far that day... totally demoralising 

Click to expand...

Send me a PM, something sounds not quite right there.  Best discussed offline methinks.


----------



## HammieHamlet (6 July 2010)

if you know who has stolen the photos on FB, could you message them directly and tell them that you intend to prosecute them/inform BSJA, unless they pay up for the photos they have nicked? Perhaps even send them a link to the payment page of your website? 

even if you get a few replies, at least the word might start to spread, and they may think twice about doing it again?


----------



## Rambo (6 July 2010)

Sorry to hear you had such a fruitless day (or days!) at Ardingly over the weekend. We were there on saturday and were shocked at how down the numbers seemed to be. That said, 4000 images is a hell of a lot for only 2 or 3 sales ! You weren't the only photographer there that weekend either were you ? Do you know if the other (Southdown Stables) had a similarly poor show ? Was it always the Cuckfield Ring that you were covering ? There were a lot of pony classes in there (on saturday at least)....you would have thought if anyone was going to buy memento's then it would be parents of their little darlings ! I really don't know what to suggest but i guess the registration option on your website is one small deterrent.

I don't buy many photo's as i've explained before....but i would hate to see people like you disappearing from our shows....perhaps i will make the effort in future to buy a photo or two....just need to get the horse jumping some fences in the ring first but that's a different story....


----------



## xspiralx (6 July 2010)

That's such a shame, I am sorry to hear that.

In all honesty I can understand it when buying a photo is £10-£15 each but if you offer downloadable ones for just £3 then there is no excuse.

I would contact facebook to get the photos removed, and if it is not already, make it abundantly clear on your website that downloadable photos are only £3 each - and that due to your business suffering, you will be contacting facebook etc to get any stolen photos taken down.


----------



## spidge (6 July 2010)

Rambo said:



			Sorry to hear you had such a fruitless day (or days!) at Ardingly over the weekend. We were there on saturday and were shocked at how down the numbers seemed to be. That said, 4000 images is a hell of a lot for only 2 or 3 sales ! You weren't the only photographer there that weekend either were you ? Do you know if the other (Southdown Stables) had a similarly poor show ? Was it always the Cuckfield Ring that you were covering ? There were a lot of pony classes in there (on saturday at least)....you would have thought if anyone was going to buy memento's then it would be parents of their little darlings ! I really don't know what to suggest but i guess the registration option on your website is one small deterrent.

I don't buy many photo's as i've explained before....but i would hate to see people like you disappearing from our shows....perhaps i will make the effort in future to buy a photo or two....just need to get the horse jumping some fences in the ring first but that's a different story....
		
Click to expand...

Yes numbers were definitely down, takings were never going to be huge as we were only covering 1 ring.  What saddens me is that we have so many genuinely loyal customers who appreciate the professional standards that we offer- we consistently receive compliments on our photography, the diversity of shots we offer per rider and the excellent quality of the prints, together with generally very knowledgable customer service ( excludes me as I am not a rider- just the photographer). 

Regarding what level of sales Southdown had, I'm sorry I have no idea.  What I do know is that I have also seen high levels of shoplifting form their website for the same event, so I imagine their web sales have been as poor. Pony classes are notoriously poor sellers for me: so much so that I will choose to have the day off rather than photograph a Junior BSJA day. My takings on say a 100 rider junior BSJA would be roughly 30-40% of the equivalent number for seniors.  No, I have no clue why.

The registration option will be a small deterrent coupled with enforcement action to get Facebook images removed that have been shoplifted.  I  rather suspect that my onsite sales will now go up which has to be a good thing.


----------



## spidge (6 July 2010)

Thank you for all the support. comments and suggestions so far.  I am off to do a days photography now so will be offline till this evening, but will ping back replies then.

Have a good day all.


----------



## jrp204 (6 July 2010)

We were at Winkleigh BE on sunday, the photographer there only prints them off on the day, they are not on the website at all. Must admit I was hoping to have a look at them at home but can now perfectly understand why they no longer do this.


----------



## Weezy (6 July 2010)

I see their point too jrp.

Spidge I think the memory stick with all images on is the way to go, not sure how fast you will be able to do it tho, convert to low res and then upload.  Charge them on the day of show perhaps?

Sales on day v sales from internet - statistics please 


Oooh, another idea - you could charge on the day for a password to access the site?


----------



## Gamebird (6 July 2010)

jrp204 said:



			We were at Winkleigh BE on sunday, the photographer there only prints them off on the day, they are not on the website at all. Must admit I was hoping to have a look at them at home but can now perfectly understand why they no longer do this.
		
Click to expand...

I was going to make a similar point. The photographer at Eland at the weekend only sells on the day (then posts prints first class, though printing on the day would be more popular) and has no website. You'd have thought that would be bad for business but there was a half hour queue and everyone was putting their hands in their pockets. I believe he will send you watermarked proofs if you email him but he doesn't advertise this service and once you've emailed him he's got your address so if the proofs turn up somewhere they shouldn't he could get hold of you.


----------



## Rosiefan (6 July 2010)

The thing is, I'm not sure the toe-rags who illegally copy photos to their FB would buy photos anyway, so I'm of the opinion you need to somehow prevent that without putting off genuine would-be buyers by making it difficult for them to look at what's available - tricky I'm sure. 
We rarely buy at shows and mostly don't even look tbh - too much else to do usually - so the ability to browse a website is a welcome option.


----------



## spidge (6 July 2010)

Weezy said:



			I see their point too jrp.

Spidge I think the memory stick with all images on is the way to go, not sure how fast you will be able to do it tho, convert to low res and then upload.  Charge them on the day of show perhaps?

Sales on day v sales from internet - statistics please 


Oooh, another idea - you could charge on the day for a password to access the site?
		
Click to expand...

I have offered memory sticks for the last year but to be honest is not something we have actively marketed, will do so more now.  The conversion to low res is actually dead simple so no worries there.

Sales on day v internet- depends on the event.   BSJA perhaps 3-5% online, riding club or unaffiliated ODE perhaps 30% online.


----------



## Capriole (6 July 2010)

the thing is, IMO, with charging for passwords or access to the website just to see the pictures  with or without the fee being taken back from your purchase, is that there may not be anything you want to buy.

I see a lot of pictures from one particular photographer where frankly, IMO (and others) , the quality and composition mostly suck, and id be reluctant to pay up just to see HIS pics just IN CASE there was something nice, and reluctant anyway as i know i normally seem to be unintentionally pulling a face when im snapped, lol, i try not to buy those ones . 
the deposit would have to be refundable to me even if i didnt buy, which yes, defeats the object as i could nip in and nick pictures if i was that way inclined.


----------



## flyingfeet (6 July 2010)

Ok I had a look at your site to see what the problems are and here is my 2 pennies worth

1. Your images are too high res - far too crisp. Either drop down the quality or stick a blur on them 

2. Your file protection is shocking - I'll PM you what I can see 

3. Your watermark is still too 'nice' - I'd put in "Image Stolen From www.spidge.co.uk" in much larger thicker letters and more opaque


----------



## _Rach_ (6 July 2010)

I have had a look why not try something like this and also but what CotswoldSJ suggest 'image stolen from.......' diagoanle (sp) across the middle.
http://www.johnbritterphotography.com/eventpics/salp10/4/
Images to small for any benifit from the person stealing them and with the writing across you wouldnt be able to see much, If they had to email you to find out if it was them or see picture without watermark you would have there email contact etc.......
Just a thought


----------



## Kat (6 July 2010)

If you see one of your images on facebook, why not comment on it to the effect that the image has been lifted from your site illegally and is in breach of copyright. Then give the offender 3 days to pay for an unwatermarked version before you report it to facebook and have it removed. You could just make a standard wording that you could cut and paste everytime you become aware of it. It would embarrass the perpetrator into paying hopefully, and if not discourage them from doing it again. 

I'd also contact the shows that you are planning to attend and for the rest of the year and ask them if it is not too late to put a warning in the programme about abuse of copyright. If BJSA competitions are the worst then a general letter to the BSJA before you start naming individuals, maybe asking them to publish something in their newsletter. Make the point that it is going to result in photographers not turning up.


----------



## Santa_Claus (6 July 2010)

I was also at winkleigh and gave up in the end with the photographers there, I was there for several hours past me finishing due to travelling with a friend in a different class but my SJ photos weren't up even 5 hours after i jumped and from my XC photos I was perhaps tempted by a couple but decided against with not being able to see them all. Also every time I went to ask if they were going to be put up the poor girl manning the desk was more than a tad busy! (so hopefully they did have some good sales!)

I again though had my OH to hand with my DSLR so got several from him in both jumping phases (couldn't drag him there early enoguh for my before 9am dressage  ), but even with him there I would have still purchased a good pro pic or 2 especially as they had very reasonable prices (about £7 I think if I remember rightly!)

I can feel for your rant as only 4 photos being sold is unbelievable. I really don't know what the answer is other than as you say passwording the albums so requiring details for the images to be viewed.

As for contacting facebook it will take you some time but at least with the images having a copyright they should be easy to prove have been copied illegally. I had a lot of problems persuading facebook I owned the copyright to some of mine last year but managed it in the end and that was for only one girl but she had taken about 100 of my images from various events!!


----------



## Saratoga (6 July 2010)

Agree with some of the suggestions above, protect your images up to the hilt, stick a big copyright over them, and make them too small on your website to be any use if copied!! That way people can see if it's a good pic, and purchase if they want, but can't pinch them as an image the size of a couple of postage stamps are no good to anyone.

Charging for viewing is a no go i think. I wouldn't bother wasting money on what could be 3 or 4 naff photos.


----------



## Booboos (6 July 2010)

I do feel for you, you are entirely right this is just theft. 3 pounds per photo download is an extremely reasonable price!

I don't have any helpful suggestions, but would say that I am one of the people who prefer to buy on line. I am always a bit hurried at a show and prefer to take my time looking at the photos at home (I do pay for them though!).


----------



## kit279 (6 July 2010)

I would make the images really poor quality so that you can see whether the photo is nice but it is not useful as a photo in itself.  They can always screen capture so disabling right click is useless. But if the image is fuzzy, that would solve your problem.


----------



## Mike007 (6 July 2010)

I agree that copyright theft is wrong,but I have to say this does not sound entirely true.I dont know anyone who can resist buying a nice picture of their horse at a show,and the queues at the photo stalls bear this out.Personaly I doubt whether a high profile show is a good place to photograph at.


----------



## 251libby (6 July 2010)

Agreeing with Mike here.
BSJA shows probably aren't the best money makers, alot (not all) of the people there compeate alot and aren't really interested in photos. I would imagine local shows and county showing shows would be the money makers as people like something to remember the day.


----------



## combat_claire (6 July 2010)

Speaking to friends who run a sideline photographing our hunt events this is a familiar tale. They make very little from the amount of effort they put in. There was one notable hunt member who had a veritable collection of photos that she had screen grabbed and printed out for her fridge.

I don't purchase a lot of photos, but put in a great frame they do make great presents for those awkward hunting friends. If I get snapped on the hunting field, in a show ring or at a party then I like to buy the picture and have the genuine article on my wall. I've got some lovely ones from Sarah Farnsworth and our local chaps. 

Quite frankly if people are too tightfisted to put their hand in the pocket and shell out a few quid for a wonderful image then they don't deserve to have a photographer at events.


----------



## Saratoga (6 July 2010)

What makes me cross is that it will end up we'll have no photographers at events anymore, and that would be so sad as i love pics of my boys!


----------



## pedilia (6 July 2010)

I am another that didn't realise how little money show photograpehrs make. I nearly always buy photos at an event, so glad I did last year as I lost my boy in January. My house is full of pro pics of him.

I was at an event two weeks ago, the day after I visited the photographers website and was told I needed a code to see the images. I emailed asking for the code and have had no reply over 2 weeks later!!


----------



## pootler (6 July 2010)

I was going to tell Spidge all about the lovely photo I recently purchased and had emailed to me by the pro photographer.... Just looked back at the email and it was actually Spidge!

Wondering whether it would be worth clearly advertising that you do provide this service.  I personally would never buy a hard copy photo if I could buy the digital image to do with it as I wish.


----------



## lucyandhenry (6 July 2010)

I have only been doing BSJA just over a year and at first I brought loads of photos but as I haven't moved up a height and I go to the same shows its difficult as a lot of the photos are similar 

I think all the pictures taken (mostly by Spidge) are fantastic and I am lucky to say that on a Sunday evening when I look through the pictures online there are often six or seven I want. The trouble is that this soon became too expensive to buy all the prints and I could never decide on one that I really loved it was more like several that I liked and this meant I'd end up not buying any at all! Especially as it used to be that the online prices started at a more expensive price (can't remember what this was??) there wasn't an option to pay £3 or £5 a photo as I recall...?

I would be gutted to lose Spidge at our local events as they are really nice and friendly and take excellent photos.

I was a the area show on the Friday so I am going to buy some of the prints and I hope other people do too.


----------



## JessPickle (6 July 2010)

Agree Spidge never seen the £3 option advertised?

Also have you considered trying places like oakwood park, its smaller, and probably has more people likely to buy photos


----------



## spidge (6 July 2010)

Thank you for all your responses today and the support, both directly on the forum and via email, text etc.

I shall address all those areas that have been highlighted including publicising the £3 FB download option.  This is a new product and price point for us as a result of a recent posting of mine on here and all the responses I received.

I will be putting additional registration steps in place and the requirement to sign a disclaimer agreeing not to screen print/copy/shoplift/thieve the copyrighted images.  I shall also be requesting removal of copyrighted shoplifted FB images by the individual or failing that by FB.  

Cotswoldsj thanks for the PM, I shall respond to that when I get a moment. New gallery software required I think.

Thanks again.


----------



## spidge (6 July 2010)

JessPickle said:



			Agree Spidge never seen the £3 option advertised?

Also have you considered trying places like oakwood park, its smaller, and probably has more people likely to buy photos 

Click to expand...

JessPickle I thought you favoured the photographers from the dark side ;-)

Odd that you should mention Oakwood, that's where we started 3 years ago.  Friendly event, lovely people but very often same faces week in, week out.  Anyway they have a resident tog as I understand it.


----------



## humblepie (6 July 2010)

Hope you manage to get it sorted.  Separately but to do with photos, sometimes they are quite expensive and I don't buy because of the price whereas if they were say a couple of pound cheaper might do.   Not aimed at Spidge but  sometimes wonder if they were a bit cheaper they may sell more in volume so make more on the numbers game.  Obviously have no idea how the prices and costs stack up so am prepared to be told that at £15 there is still no profit to be made.  

I wonder if there was a photographer who does a lot of shows at a show centre could do some sort of loyalty card rather like when you get a discount for multiple buys.


----------



## spidge (6 July 2010)

My cheapest product starts at £3 online for a FB suitable download through to a canvas at £90.  Hopefully somewhere in there is something for everyone.  

Onsite at shows I do volume discounts such as 6 times 6x9 photos for £40 as opposed to £10 each.  We have no problem with friends clubbing together to get the discounts and will even do the maths for them when they can't divide 40 by 6, to work out who owes who money in the group.  See we're good like that!


----------



## jack9 (6 July 2010)

the little money show togs make is why i will never do shows. just not worth it.

ive seen many facebook images of people i know with copyright accross thr front.  if you like the picture  - buy it!!!


----------



## TGM (6 July 2010)

spidge said:



			New gallery software required I think.
		
Click to expand...

I agree - apart from the image security problems, I must say I find the current system not particularly easy for finding and viewing specific photos.


----------



## glitterfuzz (6 July 2010)

The photographer that is a regular where I work has found the only way to solve this problem is to not have a website.  They have a facility to view the pictures on the day and complete an order form.  You can take a memory stick along and have your pics transfered straight to it at a high resolution for £15 for one image or £35 for all the pics taken of you that day (this is what I do as its quicker and means less work for the photographer!)

If you dont see your pics on the day then you can email for proofs, the photographer then has a record of who has the proofs and if they turn up elsewhere theres no excuses

He seems to find it works well


----------



## teapot (6 July 2010)

Spidge - is it ok for me to copy and paste your original post onto another forum that I use? Only asking as I know a.) there are two photographers on there who would whole heartedly agree and b.) a lot of the pics people post are print screens from photographers like yourself which has never sat right with me.

Just thought you'd like the message spread


----------



## humblepie (6 July 2010)

Spidge - sounds like you do an excellent range and like that you are happy for friends to club together.

If I am going to purchase I do normally do it at the show.  Have bought a few subsequent on line (generally when OH is with me at show, going why do you need another photograph of the horse looking exactly the same as he did last week).     Do like looking on line and sometimes have actually purchased quite a time after on a couple of occasions.


----------



## alwaysbroke (6 July 2010)

glitterfuzz said:



			The photographer that is a regular where I work has found the only way to solve this problem is to not have a website.  They have a facility to view the pictures on the day and complete an order form.  You can take a memory stick along and have your pics transfered straight to it at a high resolution for £15 for one image or £35 for all the pics taken of you that day (this is what I do as its quicker and means less work for the photographer!)

If you dont see your pics on the day then you can email for proofs, the photographer then has a record of who has the proofs and if they turn up elsewhere theres no excuses

He seems to find it works well
		
Click to expand...

Love the photos he takes, bought some from the last ODE and asked permission to post them on here with  a credit to him, got a lovely note from Bill in with the photos saying how nice it was to be asked if I could use them for a web site not many people bother, I just thought it was good manners to ask in the first place.........

As a complete pc numpty wouldn't know how to start downloading from a website, so I am of no use to the OP sorry!


----------



## spidge (6 July 2010)

teapot said:



			Spidge - is it ok for me to copy and paste your original post onto another forum that I use? Only asking as I know a.) there are two photographers on there who would whole heartedly agree and b.) a lot of the pics people post are print screens from photographers like yourself which has never sat right with me.

Just thought you'd like the message spread 

Click to expand...

No problem


----------



## Roasted Chestnuts (6 July 2010)

I have to say i copied some of the images of Eowyn and I at our first XC but I actually bought the images (still waiting for them to come through the post btw weeks later) and onlt posted them to show what i had bought.

I post the links to ask which ones to buy is that against you rules as well???

Nikki xxxx


----------



## spidge (6 July 2010)

NiknKia said:



			I have to say i copied some of the images of Eowyn and I at our first XC but I actually bought the images (still waiting for them to come through the post btw weeks later) and onlt posted them to show what i had bought.

I post the links to ask which ones to buy is that against you rules as well???

Nikki xxxx
		
Click to expand...

No that doesn't offend me as ultimately all that does is link to the photographers gallery. It's the shoplifters who nick all the images then you get all their mates saying lovely pictures etc etc.  Meantime I have stood in a field for 12 hours to provide them with fresh chatter fodder with nought to show for it except some Facebook advertising.  That offends me and is now against my rules.

Digital is immediate, I prefer to look at images online but I prefer to read a physical book rather than an online or electronic version.  It's all about preference.  See Nikki if you order your pix from me had I been the tog you could have had the jpeg immediately plus the print shortly thereafter when ordered online.


----------



## natalia (6 July 2010)

Hi Spidge, 

As one of your regular customers (I almost curse when I see your van there as know I'll end up with something from you) I can completely see where your coming from. However, I do think that your gallery needs updating drastically. Agree, put photos more low res and slightly smaller. The viewing gallery on andrewgilham.co.uk is very easy to navigate and use but even still the photos are too high res to stop thieving. I also love that you'll do 2 images on one sheet (as I'm way to indecisive) and think this is a real bargain! I would be happy to pay a £5 for an unwatermarked but small high res image online, but wouldn't pay for a watermarked low res one for £3, as wouldn't have the option of printing it (and although I prob wouldn't, still would want to know I could if I wanted too!). RE area show at weekend, shame you didn't do all the rings, your images were much sharper than the other photographers.


----------



## spidge (6 July 2010)

natalia said:



			Hi Spidge, 

As one of your regular customers (I almost curse when I see your van there as know I'll end up with something from you) I can completely see where your coming from. However, I do think that your gallery needs updating drastically. Agree, put photos more low res and slightly smaller. The viewing gallery on andrewgilham.co.uk is very easy to navigate and use but even still the photos are too high res to stop thieving. I also love that you'll do 2 images on one sheet (as I'm way to indecisive) and think this is a real bargain! I would be happy to pay a £5 for an unwatermarked but small high res image online, but wouldn't pay for a watermarked low res one for £3, as wouldn't have the option of printing it (and although I prob wouldn't, still would want to know I could if I wanted too!). RE area show at weekend, shame you didn't do all the rings, your images were much sharper than the other photographers.
		
Click to expand...

Hi Natalia, I'm glad you love our photos and that you think we provide value for money.  I drive my O/H nuts plus any staff as the prices, products etc change regularly.  But I believe you have to innovate and provide the customer with what they want.  Still testing the water with the £3 watermarked ones but most people do prefer the £5 option without the watermark.

Area Show, lovely venue, lovely weather, trying to find positive things to say here and avoid saying what I really want to say.  Sitting on my fingers makes it really hard to type...


----------



## Mike007 (6 July 2010)

LOL,When I said earlier about people not being able to resist a nice picture of their horse, I was specificly thinking of Natalia who always comes back with armfulls of photos.


----------



## spidge (6 July 2010)

Well you wouldn't want a cr*p one now, would you?


----------



## SpruceRI (6 July 2010)

spidge said:



			JessPickle I thought you favoured the photographers from the dark side ;-)

Odd that you should mention Oakwood, that's where we started 3 years ago.  Friendly event, lovely people but very often same faces week in, week out.  Anyway they have a resident tog as I understand it.
		
Click to expand...

I recently attended Oakwood on my youngster and won the WH class... looking on the photographers website later was gutted to find no photos of us at all, so wish you had been there!

I agree with others that perhaps these 'local' shows and Eventing are where there is money to be made.  I used to Event and ALWAYS bought at least one XC pic which I could ill afford (as it was all so expensive to do in the first place!!)

If I'd have been able to pay £3 for some pics on a memory stick, I could've bought them all !!!


----------



## figbat (6 July 2010)

As an am-tog myself I also see my pictures posted about the place, from my own personal website that I share with people through courtesy and thinking they just want to see my pictures.  It isn't destroying revenue for me, but I still challenge whenever I see my copyright breached (in fact a member of this very forum was recently kind enough to update their website with a credit to me!)

I genuinely think though that most people either (a) are ignorant of the laws (and consequences) of copyright theft and/or (b) because it is so easy to swipe pictures, it must be OK.  I have challenged picture use on this and other forums and found myself defending against a barrage of "it's only professionals that can claim copyright", "you have to watermark/use a copyright symbol for it to count", "if you have been given a picture you can do what you want with it" and other nonsense.

I feel for you, I really do (in fact your story has made me think again about my little dream of getting into it myself on a professional level).

I would add though that I have seen some horrific pictures for sale from the event "pro" at prices that make you wince.  I rarely buy pictures from the pro anyway as I usually take my own.  Sorry if that dents your business but at least I can do what I like with the images!


----------



## TGM (7 July 2010)

Got to agree with you Figbat.  I often come across my photos on adverts on Horsequest or similar, and people haven't even bothered to ask me if it is OK to use it.  The thing is I do it for a hobby and wouldn't charge them anyway, but it would be nice if they would ask my permission first!  As you say, a lot of people just do not seem to understand about copyright.

It is just a niggle for me, but I can understand how it can be a huge nightmare for pros.


----------



## Frances144 (7 July 2010)

I feel your pain.

What would you do about this?







I, too, am a professional photographer who has recently gone into horse event photography.  I am feeling rather disillusioned now.

The thing is she is so pleased with herself and so blatant!

All suggestions gratefully received.


----------



## Santa_Claus (7 July 2010)

what would i do? click the 'report this photo' button. She admits its stolen so no work needed on your part!

I actually came across a photographers site not long ago which had the ideal gallery software to stop stealing. on page you see small preview covered with watermark you can then hover over image and you get part of it in detail without watermark. move your mouse around to see all bit by bit but never more than about 1/20th of the image at once. can't remember which tog it was though.


----------



## flyingfeet (7 July 2010)

Sounds like a good idea, as all I generally want to do is check how gormless I look in the pic!


----------



## Frances144 (7 July 2010)

For £3.00 she could've bought a Facebook quality image.  I am going to invoice her, I think.


----------



## flyingfeet (7 July 2010)

Trouble is can you invoice people?

Should I chase the people who pinched this pic (I don't sell pics, just the gear)

Stolen photoshopped image - emailed about it and they just photoshopped it more! 






My original


----------



## TGM (7 July 2010)

Perhaps invoice her, give her a deadline to pay (say, 7 days) and if no payment received, then report the photo?


----------



## Santa_Claus (7 July 2010)

ok found site with software its www.xcphotos.co.uk BUT if you hover over the image it gives you the URL of the full photo which you can inturn view which has no copyright stamp so defeating their attempt at stopping people. So that software but with ability to hide URL would work well I would have thought as the URL itself of the image was not going to be guessed!


----------



## SJFAN (7 July 2010)

It is difficult to invoice anyone unless you have contact details for them!  I would report it to the administrators of the relevant website.


----------



## spidge (7 July 2010)

Last night I was pointed in the direction of the Facebook account of a your rider who we photograph fairly regularly. Mum only very occasionally buys a picture, maybe twice a year?

But the rider has over 100 shoplifted images in her "Ponies" photo album on FB?

Advertising for me or blatant theft?

Do I:

A:  Report it for Facebook and get them removed 

B: Invoice the parents for the full amount of £312 for the 104 images at £3 each

c: Be nice and offer a volume discount for prompt settlement as they are such discerning customers

Your answers please audience.


----------



## HotToTrot (7 July 2010)

C, followed by A if they don't comply!!


----------



## Frances144 (7 July 2010)

I have emailed her an invoice for £3.  If she pays, it stays.  If she doesn't but removes it, I will still invoice her again with a copy to her father plus the evidence.  If she doesn't but it stays, I will inform FB.

The ruddy cheek tbh.


----------



## Admirable (7 July 2010)

I would have charged her double.


----------



## Frances144 (7 July 2010)

I will if she doesn't pay the original invoice.


----------



## teapot (7 July 2010)

santa145 said:



			ok found site with software its www.xcphotos.co.uk BUT if you hover over the image it gives you the URL of the full photo which you can inturn view which has no copyright stamp so defeating their attempt at stopping people. So that software but with ability to hide URL would work well I would have thought as the URL itself of the image was not going to be guessed!
		
Click to expand...


No need for the URL - you could just print screen on that website with no issue at all especially as there's no watermark...


----------



## CastleMouse (7 July 2010)

I could understand how frustrating it is, but the only way to really stop it happening is by having very poor quality proofs (or ones covered well by a watermark), and if people are interested in seeing better proofs with the intention of buying then they e-mail you with a request. 

I know a well known Irish photographer had to do as above, as it was getting out of hand. 

Pretty much everyone knows how to use 'print screen', so blocking any right click action is useless.


----------



## bogpony (7 July 2010)

Only a general observation, but sadly i think it is time for many photographers to fully understand how much the industry has changed, and quite simply, digital imaging and photography no longer requires the skilled ability to photograph that they used to.

Anyone who has the equipment can stand in front of a fence and take good photographs and what is more, there are plenty of photographers around, and therefore the value of the product is lessened.
I'm sure there are many very skilled photographers out there, i know several, but the whole market is not as wide ranging as it used to be...it is saturated


----------



## brushingboots (7 July 2010)

john britter has an ideal one..a small image so small you can barley see it you cant print screen and zoom as it blurs! Good choice


----------



## teapot (7 July 2010)

My local pro-tog used to have a fantastic website with decent quality and sized thumbnails to view his work. They're now heavily watermarked and pixelated


----------



## Mike007 (7 July 2010)

There is another side to all this too,since photographers are effectively placing images taken of people,without their prior consent on the internet  for the entire world to see,and for third parties also to copy. Once you put somthing on the internet you have no control over it. My advice to all you professional photographers ,is that the problem of unauthorised use of images,while annoying ,may be viewed by some as a far lesser offence than your putting the photographs on the internet in the first place.


----------



## Santa_Claus (7 July 2010)

you could screenprint but the image you are screen printing is small and could be made smaller again and could have a copyright plastered across it!

Hmmm if only I knew more than HTML coding I could make a fortune with a revoluntionary new gallery display software


----------



## teapot (7 July 2010)

It is small but for something like facebook, it's ideal. 

Sign of the times unfortunately


----------



## George Michie (7 July 2010)

bogpony said:



			Only a general observation, but sadly i think it is time for many photographers to fully understand how much the industry has changed, and quite simply, digital imaging and photography no longer requires the skilled ability to photograph that they used to.

Anyone who has the equipment can stand in front of a fence and take good photographs and what is more, there are plenty of photographers around, and therefore the value of the product is lessened.
I'm sure there are many very skilled photographers out there, i know several, but the whole market is not as wide ranging as it used to be...it is saturated
		
Click to expand...


So what you're saying is that anyone with a good horse can win a CCI 4*??? Or Gordon Ramsay's only a good chef because he has the best pans?? Time I changed jobs 

I actually agree with the fact that the old guard photographers DO need to change their thinking and attitude but the equipment has little to do with it.  

The other thing is you don't get the amateurs covering this 

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=197865


----------



## bogpony (7 July 2010)

George Michie said:



			So what you're saying is that anyone with a good horse can win a CCI 4*??? Or Gordon Ramsay's only a good chef because he has the best pans?? Time I changed jobs 

I actually agree with the fact that the old guard photographers DO need to change their thinking and attitude but the equipment has little to do with it.  

Click to expand...

No of course not George, but sadly the advance in technology can over compensate dramatically for a lack of skill...I know a company who send trainees with little photography knowledge out onto XC courses, sit them at a jump on a rapid sequence setting (forgive me for not knowing the technical term) and the likelihood is that one of those 10 photographs that are shot within a three second time span will be saleable.

Where is the skill in that??

They are your competition, and they are ten a penny....and whilst you can probably find fault with their photographs to the vast majority of your market, they look just fine to many of the people that put their hand in their pockets and buy them.

On the flip side, there are photographers moaning that noone is buying their photos....but their photos are just not very good...


----------



## George Michie (7 July 2010)

The one's you're speaking about there are competition but they're proper firms. They're taking the chance (which is increased through technology) on the tog getting the shots but if the model works for them more strength to the shutter finger   It still doesn't make it right that if they have the images online, watermarked, that they get lifted without paying. 

The guy/girl coming out to an event and sending on a few images to riders because they know them or get asked for them really isn't an issue, for me anyway. Personally, I've helped a few people asking for hints or tips on how to get the best out of their equipment and been pleased to do so  You never know, that person might be the next big photographer anyway and everyone has to make a start somewhere. Might as well help them as they might have a job going in the future 

It's more than just photographer performance here, and technology changes, it's also customer expectation and attitude. If riders went into the tack shop and lifted a bridle without paying for it (which they'd never dream of doing  ) they'd be prosecuted. For some reason because it's a digital file it's alright to take it without paying.

By the way, I've just entered Burghley


----------



## Roasted Chestnuts (7 July 2010)

spidge said:



			No that doesn't offend me as ultimately all that does is link to the photographers gallery. It's the shoplifters who nick all the images then you get all their mates saying lovely pictures etc etc.  Meantime I have stood in a field for 12 hours to provide them with fresh chatter fodder with nought to show for it except some Facebook advertising.  That offends me and is now against my rules.

Digital is immediate, I prefer to look at images online but I prefer to read a physical book rather than an online or electronic version.  It's all about preference.  See Nikki if you order your pix from me had I been the tog you could have had the jpeg immediately plus the print shortly thereafter when ordered online.
		
Click to expand...

Ahhhh sounds good!!! Wonder if the others do that as there are limited people who do that up here I think so you see the same companies time and time again.

I also, when I did posted the pix, credited the photgraphers and the watermark was still on.

nikki xxx


----------



## lizzie_liz (7 July 2010)

From a competitors point of view, yes it is nice to have the odd professional photo but at the same time if there isnt a photographer at the event then that doesnt bother me too much. I think photographers have to remember many competitors don't ask for you to be at the event and many wouldnt even notice if you were there or not. Therefore it could be argued you are taking pictures of them and putting them on the internet without their permission. As people are out every weekend competing they often do not want to buy one every week for it would get very expensive, especially with photos starting from £7. 
Photographers need to move with the times and offer jpeg images at a low cost (under £5) which the inidivdual can then do whatever they would like, so allowing it to be used on facebook. Facebook is great for sharing photos so photographers need to find an affordable way to allow indivduals to do this. 
I also do not think they should charge someone to view photo on their website, they do need to be low quality with a large watermark.


----------



## George Michie (7 July 2010)

lizzie_liz said:



			Therefore it could be argued you are taking pictures of them and putting them on the internet without their permission.
		
Click to expand...

Honestly, I'm not being bolshy here, but if there's nothing in the conditions of entry to the event there's absolutely nothing to stop the photographer from posting the images wherever they want. 

If the photographer is "official" you'd probably expect him/her to publish your images so you can choose whether or not to buy them?

Regarding the affordable bit, I've seen a facebook page where the individual had about 20 images from one event complete with watermarks. Given that facebook size files were available for a couple of quid each just exactly what does affordable mean??


----------



## Weezy (7 July 2010)

NiknKia said:



			I also, when I did posted the pix, credited the photgraphers and the watermark was still on.
		
Click to expand...

That is still *illegal*, you are copying an image you do not hold the rights to.  Unless you got EXPRESS permission from the photographer to copy the photo, then you should not do it.


----------



## figbat (7 July 2010)

Mike007 said:



			There is another side to all this too,since photographers are effectively placing images taken of people,without their prior consent on the internet  for the entire world to see,and for third parties also to copy. Once you put somthing on the internet you have no control over it. My advice to all you professional photographers ,is that the problem of unauthorised use of images,while annoying ,may be viewed by some as a far lesser offence than your putting the photographs on the internet in the first place.
		
Click to expand...

No offence is being committed by posting pictures of people.  Believe it or not, I don't need your permission to take your picture in a public place and to publish it at will.  Do you think the paparazzi and tabloids ask permission of their victims?  Whilst equestrian events are generally held on private land, the fact that they are open to public access defines them as a public place with respect to privacy laws.

Copyright theft, on the other hand, IS illegal.  It's no different from pirated software or unauthorised DVD copying.


----------



## teapot (7 July 2010)

lizzie_liz said:



			Therefore it could be argued you are taking pictures of them and putting them on the internet without their permission.
		
Click to expand...

Having just had this discussion on another forum - a photographer has every right to take someone's photo in a public space (ie: somewhere open to the general public if they saw fit to go there) Smiths Lawn would be a fantastic example (in terms of a competition venue). 

And the person in said photo has no right whether legally or morally to the photo either.


----------



## bogpony (7 July 2010)

figbat said:



			No offence is being committed by posting pictures of people.  Believe it or not, I don't need your permission to take your picture in a public place and to publish it at will.  Do you think the paparazzi and tabloids ask permission of their victims?  Whilst equestrian events are generally held on private land, the fact that they are open to public access defines them as a public place with respect to privacy laws.

Copyright theft, on the other hand, IS illegal.  It's no different from pirated software or unauthorised DVD copying.
		
Click to expand...

Actually i beg to differ.....you cannot publish photographs of children under the age of 16 in any newspaper or magazine without the written consent of their parent or guardian...
The internet is simply another publishing tool, so photographers should in fact tread very carefully here....


----------



## alwaysbroke (7 July 2010)

Mike007 said:



			There is another side to all this too,since photographers are effectively placing images taken of people,without their prior consent on the internet  for the entire world to see,and for third parties also to copy..
		
Click to expand...

This is a genuine question that has puzzled and confused me over the years, if my children's school wants to put images of my kids on their Internet website they have to ask for parental permission, how come I can find pics of all my kids on equine photographers websites without my permission being asked?


----------



## George Michie (7 July 2010)

bogpony said:



			Actually i beg to differ.....you cannot publish photographs of children under the age of 16 in any newspaper or magazine without the written consent of their parent or guardian...
The internet is simply another publishing tool, so photographers should in fact tread very carefully here....
		
Click to expand...

That's actually a view that's held incorrectly. It may be advisable but it's not legally required.

I do however agree that in today's climate it is a sensitive issue and if anyone wanted me to remove images of them from the site I would do it without question. I'd also make a point of not taking more images of them in the future  

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ukphotographersrights-v2.pdf


----------



## Mike007 (7 July 2010)

This is an area where the law,including copyright law ,is behind the times.I suspect it will have to be addressed some time within the next ten years.My advice to you photographers is not to rock the boat because sometimes what seems to be the most trivial of legal actions ,turns the law on its head.


----------



## George Michie (8 July 2010)

Mike007 said:



			This is an area where the law,including copyright law ,is behind the times.I suspect it will have to be addressed some time within the next ten years.My advice to you photographers is not to rock the boat because sometimes what seems to be the most trivial of legal actions ,turns the law on its head.
		
Click to expand...

Which Areas of the law are behind the times and why?


----------



## measles (8 July 2010)

It strikes me that the reason there is this divide between the expectations of "customers" and photographers is that the price of photos is not commercially viable.   I am in complete agreement that spending an entire day taking photos and only selling a few is not worthwhile but from a competitors point of view I would not pay £15 per photo or the like when I can take my video camera along.   I would pay £3/£4 a photo and there is a photographer around us who charges this and I always but from him as I appreciate he is keeping his costs down at a manageable price for customers.

Perhaps different pricing structures are needed - more at "special" shows where competitors will pay regardless ie HOYS, RIHS, major champs in all disciplines, and then a lower price at "normal" events?   Otherwise I think the job is just not financially viable.    

The issue of people taking photos is of course not right but I genuinely think that many people do not see the whole picture and feel that the prices many photographers charge put the photographers somehow in the wrong.   Before you shoot me down I don't personally agree with this but I think many others do.


----------



## amandaco2 (8 July 2010)

put a really massive watermark on it?
how awful, people do take the P.


----------



## natalia (8 July 2010)

The other thing I would mention is that the price of printing a photo on the day has gone down now every things digital! I remember when at shows the van used to have a whole developing lab in it! All photos were printed and put outside and you just picked what you liked out and paid. Now the machines are just almost like home printers, which is fine, but some companies use very cheap paper and inks and the quality is terrible and the pics fade out within a few months. They then still charge £10 on average per photo. The worst for this round here are MHphotos (terrible quality). Captures photography also have awful prints and can never seem to get the colours right.


----------



## figbat (8 July 2010)

bogpony said:



			Actually i beg to differ.....you cannot publish photographs of children under the age of 16 in any newspaper or magazine without the written consent of their parent or guardian...
The internet is simply another publishing tool, so photographers should in fact tread very carefully here....
		
Click to expand...

Once again, I bring up the newspaper analogy.  Have you ever seen photographs of the Beckhams, Bradjolina or Madonna with their kids in the press?  If not you have been avoiding the press.  You can bet that permission was neither requested nor given.

It is right to say that in today's climate there is a heightened sensitivity to photographing minors, and photographers would do well to stay on the right side of the moral debate, but I fail to see how this whole argument is somehow a reason for photographers to not to publish and sell their wares though the quickest and most convenient medium there is.  Mike stated (in paraphrase) that personal image publication is a crime and copyright theft is an annoyance, when in truth the opposite is true.


----------



## Frances144 (8 July 2010)

amandaco2 said:



			put a really massive watermark on it?
how awful, people do take the P.
		
Click to expand...

I did!  And the little thief proudly announced under the photo on FB how she had taken it off!  See page 7 of this thread.


----------



## Rambo (8 July 2010)

Okay Mr Spidge.....i have a possible solution that should prevent 99% of the people who are currently ripping you off. Obviously the really determined (and technically aware) can probably find a way around it but i think the sort of people you are currently having the biggest problems with are young kids ?

Anyway, this code will work for Internet Explorer....but can be adapted to work for all other browsers too.

At the top of each page, simply disable the clipboard by adding the following line to your html :-

< B O D Y  o n l o a d = s e t I n t e r v a l ( " w i n d o w . c l i p b o a r d D a t a . c l e a r D a t a ( ) " , 3 0 ) >

You will need to remove the extra spaces that i have inserted to allow it to be displayed on this forum.

You will obviously need to retain your existing right-click disablement and other protections that you have in place.

Hope this helps....and remind me, who should i send the invoice too 

P.S. If anyone else can see any obvious ways around this protection or likewise then please do let me know as i have other 'options' up my sleeve too...but from my tinkerings thus far i have found no simpler yet more effective method.


----------



## Nic (8 July 2010)

I know for PC if you sign the entry form you are agreeing to be photographed, no signature no entry. 

Never seen that for BE though so assume it's a free for all.


----------



## spidge (8 July 2010)

Natalia I am surprised that you don't like MHphotos pictures and think that.  Mark takes very good pictures and occasionally works for me if he is available.  Drop him an email or PM me and I'll pass on your thoughts.  As far as I am aware he uses the identical model of printer to me.  I know you like our pictures because you told me xxx so I am intrigued why your perceptions i are so different in comparison. I also know what kit he uses.  

Can you give me more details please- preferably not on an open forum.  I have no knowledge of the other company you refer to and it would not be my place to comment.

Regarding investment in equipment- there are a lot of hidden costs that you are probably not aware of.  Let's start with the camera and lens at £4k...


----------



## spidge (8 July 2010)

Rambo said:



			Okay Mr Spidge.....i have a possible solution that should prevent 99% of the people who are currently ripping you off. Obviously the really determined (and technically aware) can probably find a way around it but i think the sort of people you are currently having the biggest problems with are young kids ?

Anyway, this code will work for Internet Explorer....but can be adapted to work for all other browsers too.

At the top of each page, simply disable the clipboard by adding the following line to your html :-

< B O D Y  o n l o a d = s e t I n t e r v a l ( " w i n d o w . c l i p b o a r d D a t a . c l e a r D a t a ( ) " , 3 0 ) >

You will need to remove the extra spaces that i have inserted to allow it to be displayed on this forum.

You will obviously need to retain your existing right-click disablement and other protections that you have in place.

Hope this helps....and remind me, who should i send the invoice too 

P.S. If anyone else can see any obvious ways around this protection or likewise then please do let me know as i have other 'options' up my sleeve too...but from my tinkerings thus far i have found no simpler yet more effective method.
		
Click to expand...

Interesting and thanks for the response.  Payment in photos OK? 

I'll PM you as I have other questions and am just about to change my gallery creation software.


----------



## spidge (8 July 2010)

Regarding taking photos of kids, in 4 years of active event photography covering athletics, proms, netball, theatre productions, studio and portrait work at an event, equestrian, martial arts, football and rugby I have never had a single parent ask me not to take pictures of their child.

I have a very simple ethic and guiding principle- that the composition of the photo should always be appropriate to the sport.  We will always delete or remove photos on request, if only to prevent embarrassment to the rider/ competitor.  After all why upset potential customers.  At an equestrian event such as dressage or showjumping if a rider does not want or require photos for whatever reason, they simply have to let me know and I'll oblige.


----------



## Mike007 (8 July 2010)

[.  Mike stated (in paraphrase) that personal image publication is a crime and copyright theft is an annoyance, when in truth the opposite is true.[/QUOTE]

No thats not quite what I said.No its not a statute offence at the moment, to take pictures without someones permision and post them on the internet.It is however In my opinion an invasion of privacy.This is the area I refered to,where I believe the law is behind the times and will ultimately change.It is the element of ,lack of control of the image once it is displayed which concerns me most. It is clear to me from some of the posts,that various photographers have not taken sufficient care to protect and retain control of these images.Yet they seek to use copyright law to protect their profits.The whole concept of "duty of care" arises and I do wonder exactly how legal these photo,s are in common law.


----------



## Minxie (8 July 2010)

George Michie said:



			The one's you're speaking about there are competition but they're proper firms. They're taking the chance (which is increased through technology) on the tog getting the shots but if the model works for them more strength to the shutter finger   It still doesn't make it right that if they have the images online, watermarked, that they get lifted without paying. 

The guy/girl coming out to an event and sending on a few images to riders because they know them or get asked for them really isn't an issue, for me anyway. Personally, I've helped a few people asking for hints or tips on how to get the best out of their equipment and been pleased to do so  You never know, that person might be the next big photographer anyway and everyone has to make a start somewhere. Might as well help them as they might have a job going in the future 

It's more than just photographer performance here, and technology changes, it's also customer expectation and attitude. If riders went into the tack shop and lifted a bridle without paying for it (which they'd never dream of doing  ) they'd be prosecuted. For some reason because it's a digital file it's alright to take it without paying.

By the way, I've just entered Burghley 

Click to expand...

I haven't read all through the replies so apologies if this has been asked and answered.  I'd also like to say that the only thing I've ever envied in another person is their ability to take a great photo .

May I ask a question ?

If you take a photo of a horse and rider and somebody NOT affiliated to the horse or rider buys it (cause they like the picture) - do you have to pay the rider and / or horses owner commission for using their image?

I was asked that years ago and I've never got my head around the answer


----------



## Twizzel (8 July 2010)

The main problem as people said is that pro togs are up against joe bloggs who takes his new slr camera to a show. Yes he may get a shot of you going over the fence, but invariably the photographer if they are established enough, will get the better shot. What we now have to do is try to get places where spectators cannot- so that means going into the depths of the xc course on a tricky to get to fence and setting up camp all day  Or in the sj ring where inevitably spectators will get other fences in the way. 

There are of course some pro photographers who are downright useless!!! I have been to shows where the pro photos are out of focus, over saturated, wrong timing etc. I was at one show a few months back where the photographer was sat on the side of the ring, took a photo every now and then but missed all the fantastic shots. 

The reason why prices are still fairly high, £10 for a 9x6 is about average down here, is because the photographer normally either pays to be at the show or donates to the show for being allowed to shoot there, then there's staffing costs, equipment costs (my kit is about £2500 worth and far from the best model you can get... and every tog has to fund that themselves). Plus petrol to get there, web hosting doesn't come cheap, it all mounts up. I have had competitors look down upon me, be rude, try to run me over, demand that there will be no photos taken of them, generally think they have more right to be there than I do... I have also been told off by organisers for helping someone when they had a nasty fall and I was the only person in the ring at the time. Then for someone to nick photos, well that's the final straw


----------



## Rambo (8 July 2010)

Okay....further to my post above...can all you techno savvy people see if you can find a way to get a copy of the photo of Billy Congo (taken on my £99 digital camera by me i might add!) on the webpage below :-

http://www.krk.me.uk/test.html

If you can get a copy of it, then to prove it, modify it some obvious way and re-post the link to your 'stolen' version.

No prizes i'm afraid....but might keep you entertained for a while...


----------



## SpottedCat (8 July 2010)

Rambo said:



			Okay....further to my post above...can all you techno savvy people see if you can find a way to get a copy of the photo of Billy Congo (taken on my £99 digital camera by me i might add!) on the webpage below :-

http://www.krk.me.uk/test.html

If you can get a copy of it, then to prove it, modify it some obvious way and re-post the link to your 'stolen' version.

No prizes i'm afraid....but might keep you entertained for a while...
		
Click to expand...


----------



## SpottedCat (8 July 2010)

Rambo, further to my post above, wanna know how I did it?! 

A Mac has a program on it called 'Preview' which lets you grab part of a screen and save it as a tiff file. I then opened it in editing software which I have for work, added the text, exported it as a jpg and uploaded to FB. Took less time than it took for my egg to boil for lunch.

ETA: But if there really was a photo of a horse on that link you posted, then I couldn't see it, and for me that totally defeats the object of pro photography - I almost never buy pics on the day, in fact I don't think I ever have. But I have bought lots from the internet after the event. If pics weren't online then I probably wouldn't ever buy any - half the time they aren't up when I go to the photographers stand anyway...


----------



## figbat (8 July 2010)




----------



## figbat (8 July 2010)

When I opend the page you linked IE7 asked me if I wanted to allow the page to access my clipboard.  I answered "no".  The page then loaded.

Print Screen >> MS Paint >> Ctrl V etc etc


----------



## outandabout (8 July 2010)

http://s1003.photobucket.com/albums/af157/fadedv/?action=view&current=stolenpic.jpg

It took me longer to draw the moustache on and open a photobucket account.  'Print Screen' and pasted it into Paint.  Easy peasy!  And I always buy show photos if I want them and never steal them


----------



## flyingfeet (8 July 2010)

Firefox, I can just get to jpg location - now beaming from the test site here:


----------



## SpruceRI (8 July 2010)

Where people have suggested fuzzing the online piccie out to make it worthless for copying, splashing copyright all over it, or making it so tiny that it's not worth a copy..... well then I'm afraid I would not buy it!

I mostly buy the pics at competitions because I can ask for the pic to be cropped/focussed in on there and then or look at it in detail and compare against others.

I rarely buy at a later date because the quality looks poor and the copyright obliterates most of the photo.

I know all togs say that the photo will be improved on printing, but I have found that many are not....so if I can't see it clearly on the web I just don't buy - sorry


----------



## spidge (8 July 2010)

http://spidge.co.uk/Rambo/BillyNoNospidge.jpg


----------



## Twizzel (8 July 2010)

I can get this pic but can't make it any bigger... have changed it from colour to b&w


----------



## Santa_Claus (8 July 2010)

took a while but did it Rambo. Tried several things

Eventually just saved web page and took root image code from source page coding.


----------



## Rambo (8 July 2010)

Very good guys..............................

BUT..........not one of you has yet managed to do what i asked....

I want you to post a modified copy of the picture of BILLY CONGO jumping at Hickstead that is available on that page.

A little clue: Using a browser other than IE won't help you....


----------



## Santa_Claus (8 July 2010)

Rambo said:



			Very good guys..............................

BUT..........not one of you has yet managed to do what i asked....

I want you to post a modified copy of the picture of BILLY CONGO jumping at Hickstead that is available on that page.

A little clue: Using a browser other than IE won't help you....



Click to expand...

I've done it see my previous post 

Oh and did it in IE but could have done it in firefox just as easily once worked out how to do it!


----------



## SpottedCat (8 July 2010)

Could you guys see that picture online though? Because if you couldn't, then what's the point? I couldn't see anything other than what I posted, and in all honesty, if I went on a pro photographer's website and it was that hard to see the pic I just would not bother. Ok so I wouldn't steal.....but I wouldn't buy either, and as I never buy at shows, the photographer would lose out surely?

I have to say, I think the whole industry is a bit back to front - where else would you get someone providing a service which people want but who have to pay to be at an event (rather than get paid!) and who then can't make any money?

It would make more sense to me if entry fees went up by £1 (lets say) per horse to pay the pro photographer, who got that money, and then the photographer paid the venue a percentage of sales. I would pay that, happily. Doesn't mean I'd buy any more pics, but it does mean pro photographers wouldn't feel so hard done by I would guess!


----------



## outandabout (8 July 2010)

I don't run IE, so all I get is the face picture.  I am sure there is another photo there and 
that's great if it stops people stealing photos, but the problem with this seems to be that if you can't see your photo then you certainly wouldn't buy it..!


----------



## applecart14 (8 July 2010)

If photographers at events weren't so greedy then maybe more of us would pay to have photos.  If people can download photos or copy paste, get rid of copyright watermarks , enlarge them and print them out and put in a nice frame free of charge then they will continue to do so.  I just don't understand how photographers can justify a cost of £8, £9 or even £10 for a single photo, not when there are 200 people at a fun ride or 220 entries at a one day event for example.  There are some brilliant photographers around, and some are more reasonable than others.  You cannot surely express surprise that people infringe copywright when a) they are given the tools to do so, and b) are continually ripped off by photographers trying to make a fast buck.


----------



## Santa_Claus (8 July 2010)

in IE you get the billy photo, you only see the face if you click on another program but can still see the image in the background.


----------



## Twizzel (8 July 2010)

applecart14 said:



			I just don't understand how photographers can justify a cost of £8, £9 or even £10 for a single photo, not when there are 200 people at a fun ride or 220 entries at a one day event for example.
		
Click to expand...

That's a very naive comment. Please see my post on p11 about expenses!! 

And also we generally go on a 10% purchase rate, so 200 people entering = roughly 20 people buying pics.


----------



## Rambo (8 July 2010)

santa145 said:



			took a while but did it Rambo. Tried several things

Eventually just saved web page and took root image code from source page coding.






Click to expand...


Well done ! This is what i was after (rather than the sad looking faces above)...

Obviously there is never going to be a 100% surefire way of preventing copy of such an image. At the end of the day the viewable image is just a bunch of 0's and 1's which i am entrusting to you (via your PC)....if you can see it you can copy (even by taking a photo of the screen if you like)...but the point is we can make it so difficult / fiddly to do that it baffles most and becomes so long winded and fiddly to the rest as to remove the vast majority of people who are stealing the images from the equation. I could actually take things further and remove all access to the source to prevent your means of access...but that is phase 2 of my little project 

Anyway, well done on being the first to hack version 1 lol!


----------



## SpottedCat (8 July 2010)

santa145 said:



			in IE you get the billy photo, you only see the face if you click on another program but can still see the image in the background.
		
Click to expand...

I don't run IE and I can't see the Billy image at all in Firefox on a Mac, not even in the background. So again, how does it help? It doesn't because if I couldn't immediately see the pics I wouldn't look let alone buy. If I'm honest, the pro photographers (thankfully getting fewer in number) who lump all the pics in one 'Sat XC' folder (or whatever), are pretty unlikely to get my business as it is a complete pain trawling through 37 pages of thumbnails to find my pics. 

All those who stick them in individual folders with either horse name or rider number get my vote too, and I'm way more likely to buy from them. There are a few local photographers who I rarely even look at after an event as I just can't be bothered to trawl through pages and pages of pics trying to spot a brown horse with no white on it, so no identifying features!


----------



## spidge (8 July 2010)

applecart14 said:



			If photographers at events weren't so greedy then maybe more of us would pay to have photos.  If people can download photos or copy paste, get rid of copyright watermarks , enlarge them and print them out and put in a nice frame free of charge then they will continue to do so.  I just don't understand how photographers can justify a cost of £8, £9 or even £10 for a single photo, not when there are 200 people at a fun ride or 220 entries at a one day event for example.  There are some brilliant photographers around, and some are more reasonable than others.  You cannot surely express surprise that people infringe copywright when a) they are given the tools to do so, and b) are continually ripped off by photographers trying to make a fast buck.
		
Click to expand...


Shakes head in disbelief and trudges off to find out if I am still capable of holding down a proper job.  Do you refuse to buy the tea or bacon butty at an event based on the same bizarre reasoning?


----------



## outandabout (8 July 2010)

Rambo said:



			Well done ! This is what i was after (rather than the sad looking faces above)...

Obviously there is never going to be a 100% surefire way of preventing copy of such an image. At the end of the day the viewable image is just a bunch of 0's and 1's which i am entrusting to you (via your PC)....if you can see it you can copy (even by taking a photo of the screen if you like)...but the point is we can make it so difficult / fiddly to do that it baffles most and becomes so long winded and fiddly to the rest as to remove the vast majority of people who are stealing the images from the equation. I could actually take things further and remove all access to the source to prevent your means of access...but that is phase 2 of my little project 

Anyway, well done on being the first to hack version 1 lol!
		
Click to expand...

You can also make it so long-winded and fiddly for honest people to view their photos that they are 'baffled' and they give up before they buy any!  As I said before, I am an honest person and if I want a photo I buy it - I really could not be bothered to faff about downloading a new web browser (which sounds like it still wouldn't work if I was running my Mac at home).


----------



## bogpony (8 July 2010)

Isn't the whole point though that the majority of people lifting photos are kids, and therefore wouldn't buy your images anyway.....??

I've only ever lifted photos that i have either also purchased, or that aren't good enough to buy....


----------



## Santa_Claus (8 July 2010)

SC it will be because some of the css coding that Rambo has used is not compatible with FF, some tweaking should be able to remedy that though so the images could be seen in all browsers.

Rambo, I will be more than happy to test run your version 2


----------



## Rambo (8 July 2010)

SpottedCat said:



			I don't run IE and I can't see the Billy image at all in Firefox on a Mac, not even in the background. So again, how does it help? It doesn't because if I couldn't immediately see the pics I wouldn't look let alone buy. If I'm honest, the pro photographers (thankfully getting fewer in number) who lump all the pics in one 'Sat XC' folder (or whatever), are pretty unlikely to get my business as it is a complete pain trawling through 37 pages of thumbnails to find my pics. 

All those who stick them in individual folders with either horse name or rider number get my vote too, and I'm way more likely to buy from them. There are a few local photographers who I rarely even look at after an event as I just can't be bothered to trawl through pages and pages of pics trying to spot a brown horse with no white on it, so no identifying features!
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, IE is the only browser that allows the developer enough control over the cut'n'paste type controls to make my sort of system workable. It is easy enough to throw up an alert to any non-IE users saying that they will need to use IE to view the preview pictures. As i mentioned above, there is no reason why the thumbnails can't remain visible to all....so long as they are of a low enough quality to make it pointless trying to pinch them.

I'm afraid, as a MAC user you are massively in the minority (despite it being an eminently better tool for this sort of thing than a PC)....so as with all marketing, you tend to target the majority.


----------



## Daisychain (8 July 2010)

I am personally always put off by cost of purchasing photos, and it has to be a really good one before i do!

But i often think if the price was lower, i would purchase as would many other people, then surely the volume of photos would increase giving you a better profit?  If photos were around a £5 each i would certainly buy more.


----------



## spidge (8 July 2010)

http://spidge.co.uk/Rambo/rambo.jpg


----------



## spidge (8 July 2010)

bogpony said:



			Isn't the whole point though that the majority of people lifting photos are kids, and therefore wouldn't buy your images anyway.....??

I've only ever lifted photos that i have either also purchased, or that aren't good enough to buy....
		
Click to expand...


Sorry falwed logic there, if you have the photo through purchase why waste your time with the watermarked one.  If it wasn't good enough to buy, why would you want it anyway?


----------



## spidge (8 July 2010)

My new watermark courtesy of some kind suggestions on here:

http://spidge.co.uk/Rambo/PMT_5790.JPG


The rider is not Rambo by the way and to the rider in the picture this really is nothing personal, honest!


----------



## Daisychain (8 July 2010)

I think thats the thing though, many arnt really good enough to warrent buying, but they are nice as a keep sake!

Showjumping pics in my opinion are the worst to buy, at one particular venue i go too, same old photographer every time and you can guarantee he always takes the pic just as horse is taking off, i like good mid air shots tbh.


----------



## bogpony (8 July 2010)

spidge said:



			Sorry falwed logic there, if you have the photo through purchase why waste your time with the watermarked one.  If it wasn't good enough to buy, why would you want it anyway?
		
Click to expand...

because the ones i've purchased arrive as prints, which can take several weeks to arrive, and the whole impetus which often prompts a photo purchase is the euphoria immediately after an event, that you've managed to complete it....therefore, i might lift the watermarked one as an interim pic to show people.

the other ones are merely good to put on facebook to mark the fact that you were at an event, not that the photo was good enough to spend money on.

you have to realise as a photographer you are going to take photographs that aren't as good as other of your own photos, or indeed other photographers...and whilst it is a nice wee reminder of a competition to put a poop-picture on my facebook, these photos are simply not worth shelling out money on.
basically, these photos have no worth....if i couldn't put them on my facebook, i'd forget they even existed in the first place


----------



## spidge (8 July 2010)

bogpony said:



			Isn't the whole point though that the majority of people lifting photos are kids, and therefore wouldn't buy your images anyway.....??
		
Click to expand...

Bogpony, yes perhaps the majority are, depends how you define kids.  Are we talking under 18?  But to be honest I see it happening through a wide variety of ages from teens through to forty somethings.  Age has nothing to do with it, mentality does.


----------



## bogpony (8 July 2010)

spidge said:



			Bogpony, yes perhaps the majority are, depends how you define kids.  Are we talking under 18?  But to be honest I see it happening through a wide variety of ages from teens through to forty somethings.  Age has nothing to do with it, mentality does.
		
Click to expand...

If you think the mentality of your customers is questionable....perhaps you should give up on equestrianism altogether...??!!  

.......ever considered being a wedding photographer?? Now they really rake it in.....


----------



## Kat (8 July 2010)

Bog-pony, if these photos are so worthless why not take your own rather than stealing them if you want a reminder of the day for facebook. If you can't/don't then I'm sure you can run to the £3 spidge charges for a facebook image. 

If other photographers are slow to deliver then that is their issue, but to avoid stealing you could ask them when you order for permission to use a digital copy on FB. If you are buying the photo they will probably be happy to oblige.


----------



## TGM (8 July 2010)

bogpony said:



			basically, these photos have no worth....if i couldn't put them on my facebook, i'd forget they even existed in the first place
		
Click to expand...

If you went into a shop and didn't like any of the goods and thought they were worthless to you and probably to other people too, would you then feel it is OK to steal them?!


----------



## fltogger (8 July 2010)

been linked into this thread from a photography site and thought id chuck in my 2p as an equestrian event photograher..

excuse the massive quote-fest!



applecart14 said:



			If photographers at events weren't so greedy then maybe more of us would pay to have photos.  If people can download photos or copy paste, get rid of copyright watermarks , enlarge them and print them out and put in a nice frame free of charge then they will continue to do so.  I just don't understand how photographers can justify a cost of £8, £9 or even £10 for a single photo, not when there are 200 people at a fun ride or 220 entries at a one day event for example.  There are some brilliant photographers around, and some are more reasonable than others.  You cannot surely express surprise that people infringe copywright when a) they are given the tools to do so, and b) are continually ripped off by photographers trying to make a fast buck.
		
Click to expand...

as a lowly event photographer i cant afford a very nice car, does that mean i can go out and steal one?

what you seem to be ignoring is the following:
* cost of equipment (it does wear out, camera shutters have a lifespan for example) and possible upgrades to cover specific events.
* cost of travel to event and transport maintenance.
* refreshments at event (have you seen the cost of food at an event??! maybe i should steal a burger as theyre too expensive..).
* our time. now i wont put a price on this but until youve spent an entire day in the winter stood around in what was -7c this year taking photos id say you dont really know what youre missing. not forgetting the time it takes in our case to weed through 1000 or so images and upload them all to a website most events will see me up past 1am doing this.
* the cost of webspace and traffic to the site, not forgetting the cost of e-commerce platforms/transaction fees.
* the cost of insurance (equipment and public liability).

im sure theres things i've missed off but hopefully some of you might see that we're not ripping anyone off or "making a fast buck".



spidge said:



			Last night I was pointed in the direction of the Facebook account of a your rider who we photograph fairly regularly. Mum only very occasionally buys a picture, maybe twice a year?

But the rider has over 100 shoplifted images in her "Ponies" photo album on FB?

Advertising for me or blatant theft?

Do I:

A:  Report it for Facebook and get them removed 

B: Invoice the parents for the full amount of £312 for the 104 images at £3 each

c: Be nice and offer a volume discount for prompt settlement as they are such discerning customers

Your answers please audience.
		
Click to expand...

ask politely for the images to be removed or purchased then A.

realistically where do you draw the line? it only takes people to see those nicked images and think "oh thats a good idea, i can get them for free" so act quick.



bogpony said:



			Anyone who has the equipment can stand in front of a fence and take good photographs
		
Click to expand...

so if i go out and buy top of the range pots and pans i can make gormet meals?

id like to see your average "joe bloggs" handle a canon 1dmk3 with 300mm+ lens attached for example (approx 4kg all in) all day and nail good photos for EVERY rider.



Mike007 said:



			There is another side to all this too,since photographers are effectively placing images taken of people,without their prior consent on the internet  for the entire world to see,and for third parties also to copy.
		
Click to expand...

going off topic a little so what about the thousands of CCTV cameras in the country?

as its been said taking photos of people is perfectly legal. including minors. the only exceptions are minors in indecent situations. legally i can even take a photo of you on private land if i am standing on public land.

however that said, if a competitor asks for me not to take their photo i respect that. not because of any legal reasons but for sheer politeness plus they wouldnt be buying any photos anyway..



lizzie_liz said:



			I also do not think they should charge someone to view photo on their website, they do need to be low quality with a large watermark.
		
Click to expand...

unfortunately that doesnt stop some people. ive found a couple of my images on facebook (baring in mind we sell facebook images for ONE pound) complete with fuzzy edges and massive watermarking. some people seem intent with stealing the images no matter how many obsticles you put in place.



Mike007 said:



			No thats not quite what I said.No its not a statute offence at the moment, to take pictures without someones permision and post them on the internet.It is however In my opinion an invasion of privacy.This is the area I refered to,where I believe the law is behind the times and will ultimately change.
		
Click to expand...

unfortunately its that kind of attitude that has/will stop people being able to take photos for personal use. hell its already started in schools for kids plays etc.




			It is the element of ,lack of control of the image once it is displayed which concerns me most. It is clear to me from some of the posts,that various photographers have not taken sufficient care to protect and retain control of these images.Yet they seek to use copyright law to protect their profits.The whole concept of "duty of care" arises and I do wonder exactly how legal these photo,s are in common law.
		
Click to expand...

lack of control? these people are STEALING images. theyre knowingly bypassing the limited methods we can use to stop it from happening. why should the photographer be persecuted for this?? give the photographer more support in chasing these theives.

as for the legality of photos, as said its perfectly legal and the day it becomes illegal would be a very grim day for everyone.


----------



## bogpony (8 July 2010)

Katt said:



			Bog-pony, if these photos are so worthless why not take your own rather than stealing them if you want a reminder of the day for facebook. If you can't/don't then I'm sure you can run to the £3 spidge charges for a facebook image.
		
Click to expand...

Spidge has never taken a photograph of my horse, i was attempting to give her an example...


----------



## spidge (8 July 2010)

Bogpony, we could go round and round with this.  Here's a scenario.

You open up a sweetie shop. The best in your village, for miles around even.  It's always clean and tidy with the very best sweets available in gorgeous racks of colour, smell and taste.  You keep your prices reasonable to encourage lots of customers, after you still have to pay business rates, rent, wages, utilities, accountancy fees, insurance, Income tax, NI, the list goes on.  So you need to keep an eye on your profits. You soon have lots of lovely customers buying things so business seems really good.  But some of the jars always seem empty sooner than you expect.  It couldn't be could it?  Customers wouldn't really shoplift, would they?  So you install CCTV (more expense)  and then you watch it happening.  Your shocked, disbelieving even still.  Some kids yes which you'd expect. Ok and the mum from the local estate whose boyfriend left her with 3 kids. OK, well things are a bit tough for her.  Ooh look and there's the immaculately dressed woman who bought the manor house last year, the one with those 3 lovely girls at the private school.

Shall I go on?


----------



## Kat (8 July 2010)

bogpony said:



			Spidge has never taken a photograph of my horse, i was attempting to give her an example...
		
Click to expand...

So? Doesn't change my point. 

Spidge is one of a great many that have cheap facebook images available for £5 or less. The chap above only charges £1. 

If they are so worthless that you won't pay for them at all then why bother taking them, the fact that you go to the trouble of stealing it suggests you attribute some worth to the image. 

And if it is all so easy to take event photos why not get your own rather than stealing someone elses? Surely your groom/helper/mum/friend could just snap something suitable with their mobile phone????? Or would that poop-photo not be as good as the poop photos taken by the pros who have invested time and money into their business??


----------



## MotherOfChickens (8 July 2010)

Katt said:



			And if it is all so easy to take event photos why not get your own rather than stealing someone elses? Surely your groom/helper/mum/friend could just snap something suitable with their mobile phone????? Or would that poop-photo not be as good as the poop photos taken by the pros who have invested time and money into their business??
		
Click to expand...

^^^ this, I thank you


----------



## George Michie (8 July 2010)

alwaysbroke said:



			This is a genuine question that has puzzled and confused me over the years, if my children's school wants to put images of my kids on their Internet website they have to ask for parental permission, how come I can find pics of all my kids on equine photographers websites without my permission being asked?
		
Click to expand...

Schools working to Council guidelines I'd suspect. They don't have to.



Mike007 said:



			No thats not quite what I said.No its not a statute offence at the moment, to take pictures without someones permision and post them on the internet.It is however In my opinion an invasion of privacy.This is the area I refered to,where I believe the law is behind the times and will ultimately change.It is the element of ,lack of control of the image once it is displayed which concerns me most. It is clear to me from some of the posts,that various photographers have not taken sufficient care to protect and retain control of these images.Yet they seek to use copyright law to protect their profits.The whole concept of "duty of care" arises and I do wonder exactly how legal these photo,s are in common law.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not totally sure what you're getting at here.

1. Why is a lack of control of the online image an issue to anyone but the photographer?
2. Given that images are watermarked and right click disabled on a site what other steps would you recommend to protect and retain control of those images?
3. I'm well aware of "duty of care" concept. Why do you feel it is an issue in the situation we're discussing? i.e. people taking images without paying.




Minxie said:



			I haven't read all through the replies so apologies if this has been asked and answered.  I'd also like to say that the only thing I've ever envied in another person is their ability to take a great photo .

May I ask a question ?

If you take a photo of a horse and rider and somebody NOT affiliated to the horse or rider buys it (cause they like the picture) - do you have to pay the rider and / or horses owner commission for using their image?

I was asked that years ago and I've never got my head around the answer 

Click to expand...

Short answer, no  There's a long answer I'll maybe get to later on


----------



## fltogger (8 July 2010)

unfortunately the more develope an attitude like bogpony the less photographers youll see at events. ruins it for those that do pay for photos..

simplez.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (8 July 2010)

fltogger said:



			unfortunately the more develope an attitude like bogpony the less photographers youll see at events. ruins it for those that do pay for photos..

simplez.
		
Click to expand...

after 2 event organisers trying to rip me off, let alone competitors, I am very fussy about who I take pics for-but then I only do it part time so I can afford to be. If you like PM me the link to the photographer's forum, would like to see what they are all saying


----------



## help1 (8 July 2010)

I have been watching this thread and please please please can one of the photograhers come to a venue near me - our local venue affiliated dressage and SJ etc hardly ever has a photographer and I would love some pics. MY OH who is a good photograher won't come so we are pictureless!!! Happy to pay for pics just never get the opportunity to buy them!!!!


----------



## George Michie (8 July 2010)

help1 said:



			I have been watching this thread and please please please can one of the photograhers come to a venue near me - our local venue affiliated dressage and SJ etc hardly ever has a photographer and I would love some pics. MY OH who is a good photograher won't come so we are pictureless!!! Happy to pay!!!

Click to expand...

You'll have about 40 next week


----------



## spidge (8 July 2010)

help1 said:



			I have been watching this thread and please please please can one of the photograhers come to a venue near me - our local venue affiliated dressage and SJ etc hardly ever has a photographer and I would love some pics. MY OH who is a good photograher won't come so we are pictureless!!! Happy to pay!!!

Click to expand...

Help1, my satnav won't accept "Knit your own Knickers land " as a valid postcode.   Maybe I'll try Google.


----------



## bogpony (8 July 2010)

fltogger said:



			unfortunately the more develope an attitude like bogpony the less photographers youll see at events. ruins it for those that do pay for photos..

simplez.
		
Click to expand...

Excuse me....do not shoot me down when all i am doing is taking an interest in a thread and providing reasons for both sides of the arguement.... 

I have competed at 6 events this year and bought 5 photographs.......3 prints, and 2 full quality digital images, thats more than £70 spent from 6 events.


----------



## spidge (8 July 2010)

George Michie said:



			You'll have about 40 next week 

Click to expand...

1 pro official photographer, and 39 far better, amateur unofficial photographers ( most of them asking the pro for advice- "What camera do you use, how come my pictures are so blurry and fuzzy indoors, what setting do you use.....)


----------



## applecart14 (8 July 2010)

spidge said:



			Shakes head in disbelief and trudges off to find out if I am still capable of holding down a proper job.  Do you refuse to buy the tea or bacon butty at an event based on the same bizarre reasoning?
		
Click to expand...

In case you hadn't noticed we are in a recession.  Those of us that still have a job are very priveledged to be able to compete but I think you will find that in order to do that we have to do everything else on a shoe string.  Ihave not been on holiday for over 4 years, nor can I afford to eat out, visit the cinema, buy clothes or do any of the other things most people do.  On the bottom of my list is photos.

I am losing my job in 22 days time due to Council cut backs.  For your info no I do not buy food or drink at shows as I consider paying £3.00 for a couple of rashers of streaky bacon slapped between two pieces of bun a rip off as I do about paying £1.00 for what is essentially a tea bag.  I do not mind paying sensible prices for anything but what I resent is people charging silly prices for things.  And the photographer that calculated that you would only get 20 customers from a likely 200 competitors is talking ridiculous.  I have seen queues of people at our event photographers van before now, and can say most definetely that if YOU are over charging people then they will stop buying your product.


----------



## help1 (8 July 2010)

Thanks guys - do hope we get one soon it does seem really random when or if a photographer is on site at some places think - perhaps it isn't worth thier while which is a shame - as was loving the idea of being able to buy the ?jpeg image. Ho hum I suspect pics would be fairly horrific anyway!!


----------



## spidge (8 July 2010)

Applecart14, I wish you well and hope that life improves.  My own life has had it's ups and downs and will not doubt continue to do so, as will yours.

Shall we agree to disagree and leave it there?


----------



## fltogger (8 July 2010)

bogpony said:



			Excuse me....do not shoot me down when all i am doing is taking an interest in a thread and providing reasons for both sides of the arguement....
		
Click to expand...

whether or not you have purchased photos im talking about the part about taking images that are felt are not "good enough" to buy. its still stealing from the photographer..


----------



## lizzie_liz (8 July 2010)

I agree with what applecart has said, photographers need to realise that many competitors can just about afford to compete, let alone buy extras when at an event. Some competitors are competing less often because of the lack of money. If you are not selling enough pictures photographers have to think WHY. Is it because they are too expensive or not what the customer wants or are there other reasons. 

I know when I take pictures on my cheap digital camera I can go to Boots and have a picture printed for about 30p, now compare that to being charged £7 upwards for a picture. I think photographers definatley need to go down the jpeg image route for a small cost and then more people will buy.


----------



## fltogger (8 July 2010)

lizzie_liz said:



			I agree with what applecart has said, photographers need to realise that many competitors can just about afford to compete, let alone buy extras when at an event. Some competitors are competing less often because of the lack of money. If you are not selling enough pictures photographers have to think WHY. Is it because they are too expensive or not what the customer wants or are there other reasons.
		
Click to expand...

liz that is true a lot of people cant afford photos but then that doesnt excuse stealing them.




			I know when I take pictures on my cheap digital camera I can go to Boots and have a picture printed for about 30p, now compare that to being charged £7 upwards for a picture. I think photographers definatley need to go down the jpeg image route for a small cost and then more people will buy.
		
Click to expand...

can i refer you back to the list of costs i posted a page or two back, like competing a horse it all adds up. id confidently put my own money on an image taken on a cheap compact printed at boots will be blown out of the water buy a professional version.

personally i hope that the cheap jpg option never happens, all that achieves is to damage the industy as a whole. plus a lot of photographers prefer to deal in prints as its easier to control copyright. if youre supplying a high resolution jpg for a couple of quid youre effectively giving licence to that person to have umpteen prints, massive canvases made up etc etc. it doesnt make good business sense.

hope that makes sense


----------



## Rambo (8 July 2010)

Okay....if anyone is bored and fancies helping with my ongoing experiment....do you want to try and lift the image of Ben Maher from this URL :-

http://www.krk.me.uk/Test2.html

Note: You will only be able to see Ben if you use Internet Explorer and you will need to allow pop-up's from within your browser (apologies to everyone else)...


----------



## flyingfeet (8 July 2010)

http://www.krk.me.uk/Test2.html

Chrome = failed
Opera = unhappy face only
firefox = unhappy face only


----------



## fltogger (8 July 2010)

Rambo said:



			Okay....if anyone is bored and fancies helping with my ongoing experiment....do you want to try and lift the image of Ben Maher from this URL :-

http://www.krk.me.uk/Test2.html

Note: You will only be able to see Ben if you use Internet Explorer and you will need to allow pop-up's from within your browser (apologies to everyone else)...
		
Click to expand...

it tends to hang the whole desktop if you click out of the window with the image.

screen capture still works though..







plus exposing the html in the parent page gives you the URL for the pop-up, then exposing the html in the pop up gives you the URL to the image


----------



## lizzie_liz (8 July 2010)

fltogger said:



			liz that is true a lot of people cant afford photos but then that doesnt excuse stealing them.



can i refer you back to the list of costs i posted a page or two back, like competing a horse it all adds up. id confidently put my own money on an image taken on a cheap compact printed at boots will be blown out of the water buy a professional version.

personally i hope that the cheap jpg option never happens, all that achieves is to damage the industy as a whole. plus a lot of photographers prefer to deal in prints as its easier to control copyright. if youre supplying a high resolution jpg for a couple of quid youre effectively giving licence to that person to have umpteen prints, massive canvases made up etc etc. it doesnt make good business sense.

hope that makes sense 

Click to expand...

I do understand your point of view but at the moment due to changing technology etc their is a flaw somewhere in some photographers business model especially if only 10% of the competitors buy a picture from that day of competition.


----------



## Kat (8 July 2010)

lizzie_liz said:



			I agree with what applecart has said, photographers need to realise that many competitors can just about afford to compete, let alone buy extras when at an event. Some competitors are competing less often because of the lack of money. If you are not selling enough pictures photographers have to think WHY. Is it because they are too expensive or not what the customer wants or are there other reasons. 

I know when I take pictures on my cheap digital camera I can go to Boots and have a picture printed for about 30p, now compare that to being charged £7 upwards for a picture. I think photographers definatley need to go down the jpeg image route for a small cost and then more people will buy.
		
Click to expand...

I think everyone understands that when money is tight you economise and that might include not buying pictures or buying less. But it doesn't excuse stealing them. If you are skint you might decide to stop buying wine but that doesn't mean you start stealing it from Tesco because it is too expensive, you just stop drinking it. 

I don't doubt that you can get a photo printed very cheaply on the highstreet but that isn't the only cost, and the quality will not be comparable. You have the cost of buying the camera, petrol to the shop, parking at the shops, and your time to include too so the price is probably more like £3 depending upon hw many you have printed at a time and how much you use your camera over its whole life.

The consider that a photo taken with a digital cheap digital camera will NEVER be as good as a pro photo. 

My husband has a very expensive digital camera designed for a keen amateur, he trained as a photographer and uses his camera for work. He took the decision that he couldn't afford to buy a really good DSLR and wouldn't need that quality much of the time so he settled with a bridge camera. But despite professional training and a GOOD EXPENSIVE digital camera, he cannot do the job of a pro photographer. He might get a lucky shot that will look ok at say A4 size, but he won't get consistently good shots in all light conditions everytime, and they would not be good enough to blow up any bigger. Sometimes the colours won't be right or there will be noise or blurring or whatever. Often he will miss the shot altogther due to shutter delay. Hence he is prepared to PAY photographers for the use of their images in his work (even though he could get away without doing it is a professional courtesy). With your average digital camera you would be lucky to be able to blow the image up to A5 without loosing quality, and many of the cheap ones are pretty questionable at standard size! 

FWIW my husband has done a few days as an event photographer and knows exactly how hard it is to manage those huge cameras and get the shots consistently.


----------



## Noodlejaffa (8 July 2010)

Rambo said:



			Okay....if anyone is bored and fancies helping with my ongoing experiment....do you want to try and lift the image of Ben Maher from this URL :-

http://www.krk.me.uk/Test2.html

Note: You will only be able to see Ben if you use Internet Explorer and you will need to allow pop-up's from within your browser (apologies to everyone else)...
		
Click to expand...

All very well disabling right click, but you can still do a screen grab whether using Mac or PC.

People will steal images whatever, I'm afraid. I'm not condoning it (far from it - I run an image library with over 2 million in our collection). I don't have a real answer to the problem but do fully appreciate it (I get fed up seeing our images appearing on people's websites too!). What I've started doing with our site is offering a free image of the specific subject (I deal with architectural and archaeological material) which people are free to use as they wish. If people then wish to have additional images (the nicer ones!!) then they have to pay for them. Has worked a treat so far.

Sorry if any of this has been said before. I didn't have time to plough through 17 pages!!


----------



## Rambo (8 July 2010)

CotswoldSJ said:



http://www.krk.me.uk/Test2.html

Chrome = failed
Opera = unhappy face only
firefox = unhappy face only
		
Click to expand...

Thanks 

I don't expect it to work for any of the browsers you have listed. If it were 'productionized' all these browsers would be identified and a warning thrown saying that the image would not be shown as they can't be controlled for copy'n'paste in the way that IE can. I haven't wasted too much time on the code to throw you out if you are using anything other than IE tbh as it is definitely possible to do.

I would be more interested to hear if you can crack the image using IE


----------



## oofadoofa (8 July 2010)

Sorry Rambo, too easy!


----------



## lizzie_liz (8 July 2010)

I agree that if you were to enlarge an image from a cheap camera and a top end camera used by a professional then the latter would come out on top. BUT how many people have space for these larger pictures? Our house has quite a few professional pictures taken from various horse events, infact we have no room for them, therefore if we do buy pictures we go smaller ones i.e 6x4


----------



## fltogger (8 July 2010)

lizzie_liz said:



			I agree that if you were to enlarge an image from a cheap camera and a top end camera used by a professional then the latter would come out on top. BUT how many people have space for these larger pictures? Our house has quite a few professional pictures taken from various horse events, infact we have no room for them, therefore if we do buy pictures we go smaller ones i.e 6x4
		
Click to expand...

id still be confident that an image at that size would be better from a professional.


----------



## Santa_Claus (8 July 2010)

had to go even further round houses but using similar route and about 3 mins from start to upload


----------



## flyingfeet (8 July 2010)

I don't like IE - but I Jing'ed it


----------



## Kat (8 July 2010)

lizzie_liz said:



			I agree that if you were to enlarge an image from a cheap camera and a top end camera used by a professional then the latter would come out on top. BUT how many people have space for these larger pictures? Our house has quite a few professional pictures taken from various horse events, infact we have no room for them, therefore if we do buy pictures we go smaller ones i.e 6x4
		
Click to expand...

You'd still be able to tell the difference at that size. 

Seriously, I can put two photos side by side one taken on my fairly decent two year old compact camera and one taken with my husband's bridge camera of the same subject in the same conditions and tell the difference, especially if it is taken in awkward conditions. Even at 6x4. If you added a pro DSLR I'm sure you could tell the difference in all circumstances. 

It isn't just about blurring or pixilation it is about crispness and colour etc 

It can also be about actually getting the subject at all. A Pro DSLR will have a separate wideangle and telephoto lense so that subjects very close or very far can be photographed. It will also have a fast speed so that several images can be taken over one fence without compromising quality, whereas a cheap one will not be able to refresh in time to get two at the same fence. 

BUT at the end of the day if you aren't bothered about the quality and are happy with the pictures you can take yourself fair enough, but don't steal the pro ones.


----------



## lizzie_liz (8 July 2010)

Katt said:



			You'd still be able to tell the difference at that size. 

Seriously, I can put two photos side by side one taken on my fairly decent two year old compact camera and one taken with my husband's bridge camera of the same subject in the same conditions and tell the difference, especially if it is taken in awkward conditions. Even at 6x4. If you added a pro DSLR I'm sure you could tell the difference in all circumstances. 

It isn't just about blurring or pixilation it is about crispness and colour etc 

It can also be about actually getting the subject at all. A Pro DSLR will have a separate wideangle and telephoto lense so that subjects very close or very far can be photographed. It will also have a fast speed so that several images can be taken over one fence without compromising quality, whereas a cheap one will not be able to refresh in time to get two at the same fence. 

BUT at the end of the day if you aren't bothered about the quality and are happy with the pictures you can take yourself fair enough, but don't steal the pro ones.
		
Click to expand...

I think we are never going to agree on this topic. 

I also want to state I too do not agree with stealing photos from pros websites and  I never have done. 

There will be a difference in quality but I am not prepared to buy a photo every week or every time there is a photographer there. I will buy a picture if it is particularly good or at a special event which is not very often. Mum will often take photos, yes they may not be as good as professional ones but for the purpose they serve they are good enough for me. 

Maybe an alternative is charge an extra £1 for entries and that £1 goes to the photographer, they are then guarenteed some form of income from the event.


----------



## George Michie (8 July 2010)

applecart14 said:



			In case you hadn't noticed we are in a recession.  Those of us that still have a job are very priveledged to be able to compete but I think you will find that in order to do that we have to do everything else on a shoe string.  Ihave not been on holiday for over 4 years, nor can I afford to eat out, visit the cinema, buy clothes or do any of the other things most people do.  On the bottom of my list is photos.

I am losing my job in 22 days time due to Council cut backs.  For your info no I do not buy food or drink at shows as I consider paying £3.00 for a couple of rashers of streaky bacon slapped between two pieces of bun a rip off as I do about paying £1.00 for what is essentially a tea bag.  I do not mind paying sensible prices for anything but what I resent is people charging silly prices for things.  And the photographer that calculated that you would only get 20 customers from a likely 200 competitors is talking ridiculous.  I have seen queues of people at our event photographers van before now, and can say most definetely that if YOU are over charging people then they will stop buying your product.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear about your situation. 

I can relate to your post though as my wife competes at a high level in endurance and she buys photos from the official photographers. However it has to be something special and even then she buys fewer than she used to. The message clearly coming through here is for photographers is to try to be innovative and provide a high quality product at a price which is affordable but still making it viable for the photographer.

If those don't, or can't be made, to match there is obviously going to be a problem. 

At the same time though riders need to play fair and not say that the photos are worthless but happily paste them onto their facebook pages.


----------



## Kat (8 July 2010)

lizzie_liz said:



			There will be a difference in quality but I am not prepared to buy a photo every week or every time there is a photographer there. I will buy a picture if it is particularly good or at a special event which is not very often. Mum will often take photos, yes they may not be as good as professional ones but for the purpose they serve they are good enough for me.
		
Click to expand...


Now that we will agree on. 

Not that I am competing this year, but there is normally a photographer at our RC shows. The first couple I went to I bought photos, but I don't buy them everytime. I might if I did something new or unusual or saw a particularly nice one though. 

If my dad or husband are there they can get photos that are good enough for a reminder of the day, even if they are just of the line up rather than actually over fences. I just don't need a picture of every single show I've ever been to, especially not at the same venue, and I don't tend to print them or put them on the wall anyway. But I wouldn't steal a photo from a photographers website. 

I suspect that there are a lot of people like us out there, hence the 10% purchase rate cited above. I bet that is fairly accurate despite big queues as people will go for a look just in case there is a really lovely one. I expect that there will be a better conversion rate at championships or things like burghley young event horse or hoys.


----------



## applecart14 (8 July 2010)

spidge said:



			Applecart14, I wish you well and hope that life improves.  My own life has had it's ups and downs and will not doubt continue to do so, as will yours.

Shall we agree to disagree and leave it there?
		
Click to expand...


Yes maybe that would be best.  And then I will promise that when I get another job (if this is possible these days) from then on the only photos I have are the ones I have paid for


----------



## help1 (8 July 2010)

Hmm me again - I know this was suggested a few pages back but I really like the idea of all competitors paying something like a £4 photographer fee - perhaps for that they could choose 1 (not very technical so apologies here if this is wrong) jpeg image (low resolution?) or could choose to have it deducted from a print or high resolution image they buy. We all pay for first aid and at some venues a membership fee?
But this could be the desperate post of someone who rarely gets the opportunity to buy pics!!


----------



## Santa_Claus (8 July 2010)

I personally would object to paying a photographers fee. Why should I pay for something if I have no intention of buying? first aid will pay as don't know when might need them but tog charge no, especially if a tog you know takes bad quality pics!

Realised this year I haven't actually bought a single event photo and have relied purely on my OH and him using my DSLR! The reason why? only seen one photo I actuallly wanted to buy, it cost £15 for an 8x6 OR £10 for a low res web image or £25 for a high res image. Add in that one of the togs cost me a placing (was hiding in crops directly infront of fence so you could only see lens and bits of random body! horse objected spooking for good 10secs + until tog dropped lens, horse then moved forward, not given stop but did gain 12 secs worth of time penalties which can directly relate soley to the tog) and there is no way I am parting company with that amount of money as clearly told could not scan print to put online and I was not going to pay a further £10 for low res version or £25 for the high res on its own.

Every other photo I could find fault with, whether it was my position, the horses shape, too early, too late, over exposed etc and as I'm rather critical about photographic composition as an amatuer tog myself I was never going to buy them!


----------



## Kat (8 July 2010)

santa145 said:



			Add in that one of the togs cost me a placing (was hiding in crops directly infront of fence so you could only see lens and bits of random body! horse objected spooking for good 10secs + until tog dropped lens, horse then moved forward, not given stop but did gain 12 secs worth of time penalties which can directly relate soley to the tog)
		
Click to expand...

I nearly ran a photographer over, he decided to stand right in front of the next fence in a SJ course..... 

After what felt like a long time with the horse and the photographer doing the "no after you" dance the horse jumped the fence despite the distraction but I was seriously unimpressed.


----------



## help1 (8 July 2010)

Can't really comment re photographers being in the way but I suppose I saw it a bit like the first aid bit - there (meaning photos) if you need or want it - but not if you don't. £4 wouldn't be that much but could make coming to an event viable for a photographer (£4 x say 50 competitors = £200) and as i said in my area they don't come so no option for those who don't have obliging OHs! And photos hopefully better quality than the average amateur?


----------



## oofadoofa (8 July 2010)

I had a photographer crouched down in the middle of a double at a BSJA show a few years ago.  Needless to say it cost me a stop in an otherwise clear round!

Haven't read the entire thread so don't know if it's been suggested before, but how about having photos only available on the day not on a website if you have the facilities to print on site.  I know this is taking a bit of a step back in terms of technology, but it certainly stops people nicking your photos and I think sometimes people are more inclined to buy on the spur of the moment as it were rather than going away and thinking about it.


----------



## Frances144 (8 July 2010)

Wow!  This is some thread.

I competed once in my 20's and someone happened to take a professional photo of me actually jumping.

I remember the feeling of going to the tent, seeing myself and I bought that photo!

30 years on, I still have that photo of me in my slimmer days jumping a RS cob!  

It is a very treasured possession and always on display.  There are no other photos of me riding anywhere else!

Anywho, I have sent the person the invoice both via email and a hard copy so we will see.

I don't set out to make money from my photography.  I am realistic and enjoy it firstly as a hobby but I am a professional, I like my subjects do my very best to share what I think I am good at.

http://www.onlinepictureproof.com/francestaylor

The bottom line for me is that it is theft pure and simple whether it is for a photo worth £3 for Facebook or £10 for granny's birthday present.


----------



## Twizzel (8 July 2010)

Katt said:



			I suspect that there are a lot of people like us out there, hence the 10% purchase rate cited above. I bet that is fairly accurate despite big queues as people will go for a look just in case there is a really lovely one. I expect that there will be a better conversion rate at championships or things like burghley young event horse or hoys.
		
Click to expand...


Thankyou!!! I never said 10% of the competitors come and view the photos, but how many actually purchase them. It's a rough figure but works out to be fairly accurate for most shows. We may get a huge queue at the van but so many people come along and look at the photos then 'come back later' or 'will buy online' etc etc etc.

Why should someone who has spent a lot of time and effort sell their product at a minuscule price? Considering how much horses cost to keep and compete, I would have thought you'd understand... it comes down to quality. Think of it like haylage- you could get poor quality hay for next to nothing but quite often people will pay more for hay that's better in quality. I could go and quite easily take photos at a show with a compact camera but I guarantee you they will NEVER come out half as good as photos taken by a pro SLR and lens with an experienced photographer behind it. 

In fact... this was taken with a £130 bridge camera, yeah it's kinda sharp, timing is ok, but it's nothing special, colours are flat etc,






This was taken with a pro SLR and lens, surely you can see the difference?






To sell the 2nd print at anything less than £8 wouldn't make it worth selling (not that I sold that photo, I took it for my own pleasure at a county show this year)- it would be a kick in the teeth if someone asked me to sell it for less. People often forget the expenses that photographers have to pay out before they can even start making money out of it... also try photographing a show in either blazing hot sun or driving rain, it's not fun. Add to that the fact that most days from start to finish can be up to about 18 hours if it's a big show, 10-12 if it's not, you get a break in between classes if you're lucky, it isn't a walk in the park and it really riles me when people start moaning about the cost of photos- if you don't like it, then go and bloody lump it but a. don't complain about it and b. don't steal our photos because there are many people out there who do buy professional photographs  for the simple reason that they are better quality than anything they could get at home.


----------



## spidge (8 July 2010)

Frances, you need to look more closely at why you are losing images:

http://spidge.co.uk/Rambo/frances.jpg

I was able to copy this, clone out your watermark in seconds and or even just crop the image to remove the watermark and save myself time.  Your watermark needs to be more prominent to make theft more unlikely. I appreciate you are only just starting out but if you are looking to sell images then you have to be realistic. I just saved myself £3 if I was going to buy your image but hopefully you will see where I am coming from.

Kind regards


Spidge


----------



## lizzie_liz (8 July 2010)

Twizzel said:



			To sell the 2nd print at anything less than £8 wouldn't make it worth selling (not that I sold that photo, I took it for my own pleasure at a county show this year)- it would be a kick in the teeth if someone asked me to sell it for less. People often forget the expenses that photographers have to pay out before they can even start making money out of it... also try photographing a show in either blazing hot sun or driving rain, it's not fun. Add to that the fact that most days from start to finish can be up to about 18 hours if it's a big show, 10-12 if it's not, you get a break in between classes if you're lucky, it isn't a walk in the park and it really riles me when people start moaning about the cost of photos- if you don't like it, then go and bloody lump it but a. don't complain about it and b. don't steal our photos because there are many people out there who do buy professional photographs  for the simple reason that they are better quality than anything they could get at home.
		
Click to expand...

At the same time do you think you would sell to more people if you dropped the price by a £1, then you would make more money in the long run? 
The quality is definately better.

Due to the expense this is why I am suggesting maybe add an extra £1 on to entry fees if a photographer is present, this would then guarentee money at the end of the day. If this was to occur I would be quite happy to pay for it. If it went to £4 as someone suggested then it wouldnt work and people wouldnt go to the show. 

There are some prof togs who are charging over £15 for a 7x5 photo, now I am sorry but I cannot afford to pay and think that is OTT.


----------



## Twizzel (8 July 2010)

lizzie_liz said:



			At the same time do you think you would sell to more people if you dropped the price by a £1, then you would make more money in the long run? 
The quality is definately better.

Due to the expense this is why I am suggesting maybe add an extra £1 on to entry fees if a photographer is present, this would then guarentee money at the end of the day. If this was to occur I would be quite happy to pay for it. If it went to £4 as someone suggested then it wouldnt work and people wouldnt go to the show. 

There are some prof togs who are charging over £15 for a 7x5 photo, now I am sorry but I cannot afford to pay and think that is OTT.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I agree £15 is extortionate, for a 7x5 I'd say £7 is more acceptable. The smallest the tog I work for sells is 9x6 which is £10, I think a reasonable price. 12x8 is £15. 

I like the entry fee idea but as a competitor myself I would want the photographer to be experienced and proven at covering an event effectively- there are a couple of togs down here that I don't rate and provide what are IMO poor quality pics- I wouldn't agree to pay a £1 fee if that photographer was covering the event, but if the tog I work for was covering it I would agree as they produce fantastic shots that are creative and spot on with sharpness and colours.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (8 July 2010)

lizzie_liz said:



			There are some prof togs who are charging over £15 for a 7x5 photo, now I am sorry but I cannot afford to pay and think that is OTT.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with you there, as a horse owner and a photographer I couldnt justify charging it or paying that for a 7x5.


----------



## GrumpyHero (8 July 2010)

not read most of the pages - just adding to the comments about adding a no right click thing onto the website to stop people saving the images. there is a simple way for thieves to get round this! they will just printscreen the page and crop out the background.

Frances144 - your photographs are lovely - but i do reccommend you put watermarks on ALL of the images on your site - even the ones in the gallery. it's incredibly easy for me to (as above) screen shot the page and crop out the background, leaving me with a pretty high quality image for me to save onto my computer. (dont worry i haven't actually saved any of these!)

i can't think of any way which will stop these thieves - even making the watermark heavy won't detter some people. i have people on facebook who have professional photos as their profile pictures with a massive thick watermark accross it and they don't seem to care that it's there, and they obviously haven't paid for the photo.


----------



## Frances144 (8 July 2010)

Thanks Jess.  Will do.

I am very naive I think - I just didn't expect to be thieved from by folk I actually know I suppose.  This island is very small.


----------



## Rosiefan (8 July 2010)

The good news is that this thread is now so huge that it should make H&H magazine next week and get even more publicity about photo thieving toe-rags


----------



## MegaBeast (8 July 2010)

Looking at the two photos given above as examples of an "average" print and a "professional" print, to be brutally honest I would rather be able to buy more of the average prints at say £5 a pop which have been taken with cheap equipment than to have to spend £10+ onthe pro version.  Reason being if I bought a photo from most shows I can't possibly have them all on display at once and they tend to end up in her photo album so there's no benefit in my paying more to get the better pic because the lesser one is adequate for my needs.

I would also be quite happy to buy smaller prints at smaller prices but as yet I haven't been to a show where this is offered


----------



## MegaBeast (8 July 2010)

Twizzel said:



			there are many people out there who do buy professional photographs  for the simple reason that they are better quality than anything they could get at home.
		
Click to expand...

I diagree, I buy pro pics because I like a momento of the day, but my Mum who comes with me brings her camcorder as that is more valuable to me to be  able to watch back and pinpoint where we went wrong.  I would rather lower quality images and be able to afford to buy more of them.  I'm not looking for the one off super pic of a life time, I just want some nice momentos to look back on in years to come.


----------



## fltogger (8 July 2010)

seriously that "average" shot would not make a decent print at any size, its quality is aweful.. (no offence to the person that took it)

if i took that it would get deleted as it does not reflect the quality of my work..


----------



## MegaBeast (8 July 2010)

But I don't want a large print...

What is the ratio of say 7x5 to A3 size prints that you sell following equestrian events?  I've only ever seen people buying the smaller stuff so the fact that you could blow it up to A3 or similar really doesn't interest me and I resent paying the extra for it as it's not needed for my purposes


----------



## Twizzel (8 July 2010)

fltogger said:



			seriously that "average" shot would not make a decent print at any size, its quality is aweful.. (no offence to the person that took it)

if i took that it would get deleted as it does not reflect the quality of my work..
		
Click to expand...

I took it about 6 years ago on a bridge camera before I even bought an slr and started working, agreed it's awful and the quality is useless but that judging by the response above appears to be what people want! I took the 2nd image at Royal Cornwall this year so that is the standard I work at now.


----------



## fltogger (8 July 2010)

im saying it would make a roapy 7x5.. possibly an okay 6x4.

any photographer worth attending an event would not sell an image that is as "soft" as that one (again no offence lol)


----------



## MegaBeast (8 July 2010)

I'm not saying that I don't appreciate the high quality because I do, but what it seems to boil down to is photographers saying they can't sell prints for less because equipment is so expensive.. which is a very valid point.. however if lesser but adequate equipment was used (at maybe 10% of the price from what's been quoted on here) and you sold prints at 50% of current prices to probably a greater market then you would be quids in.


----------



## fltogger (8 July 2010)

MegaBeast said:



			I'm not saying that I don't appreciate the high quality because I do, but what it seems to boil down to is photographers saying they can't sell prints for less because equipment is so expensive.. which is a very valid point.. however if lesser but adequate equipment was used (at maybe 10% of the price from what's been quoted on here) and you sold prints at 50% of current prices to probably a greater market then you would be quids in.
		
Click to expand...

if you want to go out and take 1000s of photos every weekend all year round you *need* the expensive equipment, theres no two ways about it. youre buying durability and quality. you try taking a consumer level camera and go and try taking gloomy indoor arena shots without using the flash for example.


----------



## Twizzel (8 July 2010)

MegaBeast said:



			I'm not saying that I don't appreciate the high quality because I do, but what it seems to boil down to is photographers saying they can't sell prints for less because equipment is so expensive.. which is a very valid point.. however if lesser but adequate equipment was used (at maybe 10% of the price from what's been quoted on here) and you sold prints at 50% of current prices to probably a greater market then you would be quids in.
		
Click to expand...

The equipment used for the first photo is not adequate, it didn't produce a good photograph, as fltogger said no established experienced photographer would ever put that photograph up for sale. 

The kit I use is adequate- the camera cost £850 and the lens £650 plus all the extras (battery grip £150, countless memory cards and batteries). It is not top of the range, it is the lowest level of equipment I can get away with (to give you an idea, up until last year I was using a Canon 350D which went to camera heaven due to being used professionally which it was not designed for such high, constant use), so I upgraded the body to something that could cope with being used on a professional level where I can take thousands of photos at every show.


----------



## MegaBeast (8 July 2010)

Fair points, was thinking a bit simplistically.  But I stand by my point that I, and probably the majority of your target market, don't want a print that can be blown up to a large canvas without losing its quality.  We simply want decent 7x5 prints which surely is cheaper to produce?


----------



## Santa_Claus (8 July 2010)

ok my attempt to hide the decent image. 
http://katiebisson.co.uk/test/Test.html

please try to post non copyrighted version of my photo of a cute exmoor foalie!


----------



## FallenLightPhoto (8 July 2010)

Would you expect an artist to do a quick rough sketch of a picture or for them to put their talent to use?  You want blurry/soft/fuzzy photos then get a pal to stand around for the day and take photos of you!  If you want clear, sharp, hopefully well timed and angled photos that print well then you use someone that is classed good at their job with the right equipment!  I'm sure most of you don't cut corners with say finding good trainers/instructors or equipment ... neither do photographers!

BTW I am an event tog, I also ride and compete and never really understood the photographers point of view until I spent 9 hours in the freezing cold taking photos of other peoples horses to have them ripped off the website :-(  I enjoy what I do as have produced and sold some lovely prints that I'm proud to say are hanging on peoples walls!!!

The difference is really between Tesco Value and Tesco Finest!?  We are there to produce good quailty images to be proud of.


----------



## Roasted Chestnuts (8 July 2010)

Weezy said:



			That is still *illegal*, you are copying an image you do not hold the rights to.  Unless you got EXPRESS permission from the photographer to copy the photo, then you should not do it.
		
Click to expand...

I had bought the image already 

nikki xxxx


----------



## fltogger (8 July 2010)

MegaBeast said:



			Fair points, was thinking a bit simplistically.  But I stand by my point that I, and probably the majority of your target market, don't want a print that can be blown up to a large canvas without losing its quality.  We simply want decent 7x5 prints which surely is cheaper to produce?
		
Click to expand...

so what about the people that DO want large prints? we offer 16"x12" (and upwards if required) which we get quite a few of, even a 18x12 standard print recently.

what if we didnt have the equipment? sale lost..

better to have the equipment and therefore the quality than not in my (and probably every other pro toggers) opinion


----------



## fltogger (8 July 2010)

NiknKia said:



			I had bought the image already 

Click to expand...

sorry but that doesnt mean a thing, purchase of a print does not transfer any copyright and you still require permission to save the image off of their site.


----------



## spidge (8 July 2010)

Rosiefan said:



			The good news is that this thread is now so huge that it should make H&H magazine next week and get even more publicity about photo thieving toe-rags 

Click to expand...

Now that I would like to see!


----------



## Santa_Claus (8 July 2010)

NiknKia said:



			I had bought the image already 

nikki xxxx
		
Click to expand...

doesn't matter. If you buy a print of a photo you are literally only buying that print, you do not buy the rights to copy/reproduce/post it etc etc etc. Therefore you do not buy the rights to put it on facebook unless those rights are expressly passed on by the photographer.


----------



## Roasted Chestnuts (8 July 2010)

fltogger said:



			sorry but that doesnt mean a thing, purchase of a print does not transfer any copyright and you still require permission to save the image off of their site.
		
Click to expand...

As far as I am concerned I would rather have my copy WITHOUT the watermark but If I had just paid 7 quid for a pic and was waiting for it to arrive then i think i have justified me posting it.

Whats the difference to me buying then scanning it in on my computer then posting it then??? They are the same thing just without the water mark 

Oh and one photographer above just said he would have sent me a JPEG image that I could post after I have bought it. essentially the copyroght belongs to the phtographer but the IMAGE belongs to me it is me in the pic and as stated above I could buy that pic then tell the photographer to delete the images of me as the rights of the sunject. So if I have paid for an image it belongs to me. 

Nikki xxx


----------



## fltogger (8 July 2010)

NiknKia said:



			As far as I am concerned I would rather have my copy WITHOUT the watermark but If I had just paid 7 quid for a pic and was waiting for it to arrive then i think i have justified me posting it.

Whats the difference to me buying then scanning it in on my computer then posting it then??? They are the same thing just without the water mark 

Nikki xxx
		
Click to expand...

there is no difference, both scanning the photo and saving the image off the website are breaking copyright law (unless you have permission from the photographer).


----------



## MegaBeast (8 July 2010)

fltogger said:



			so what about the people that DO want large prints? we offer 16"x12" (and upwards if required) which we get quite a few of, even a 18x12 standard print recently.

what if we didnt have the equipment? sale lost..

better to have the equipment and therefore the quality than not in my (and probably every other pro toggers) opinion
		
Click to expand...

True, but would you possibly otherwise have sold an extra maybe 30 7x5 to the single 18x12?

I know pros want to take the best they can and indeed take a real pride in their work, and yes it is better than what an average amateur will produce but I guess it's down to what the market wants.  I would rather buy a couple of small prints from every show than the occasional large one.  Often I find the prints available are mediocre at best and don't want to shell out large sums of money on them, but would be happy to spend less and buy more overall.


----------



## Roasted Chestnuts (8 July 2010)

fltogger said:



			there is no difference, both scanning the photo and saving the image off the website are breaking copyright law.
		
Click to expand...

NOT if I have paid for the image!!!!!! I have BOUGHT the right to the image!!!

Nikki xxx


----------



## fltogger (8 July 2010)

NiknKia said:



			NOT if I have paid for the image!!!!!! I have BOUGHT the right to the image!!!

Nikki xxx
		
Click to expand...

oh no you havent, at ALL times rights to the image are retained by the photographer and NEVER transferred (unless specified by the photographer).


----------



## Twizzel (8 July 2010)

NiknKia said:



			NOT if I have paid for the image!!!!!! I have BOUGHT the right to the image!!!

Nikki xxx
		
Click to expand...

Nope you buy a copy of the image, you do not buy the copyright... sorry you're wrong!


----------



## Santa_Claus (8 July 2010)

no the image doesn't belong to you the physical print does. scanning it in and posting it without permission is just as illegal as posting watermarked copy

BUT most togs if you ask will be happy for you to scan and post if you credit them, and will also possibly send you a low res version free of charge as they are being nice as you have made a more expensive purchase by buying a print. They do not have to though.

If a famous artist painted your portrait it wouldn't belong to you ever, you are the subject yes but that gives you no right to the painting. Photos are the same. You can request photos of you are removed but if taken on public land again unless your under 18 the photographer doesn't have to. If they did there would never be any celeb 'exclusive photos' would there as all celebs would ban any photos of themselves being published!


----------



## FallenLightPhoto (8 July 2010)

NiknKia said:



			As far as I am concerned I would rather have my copy WITHOUT the watermark but If I had just paid 7 quid for a pic and was waiting for it to arrive then i think i have justified me posting it.

Whats the difference to me buying then scanning it in on my computer then posting it then??? They are the same thing just without the water mark 

Nikki xxx
		
Click to expand...

Do you eat your chocolate bar before paying for it in the shop?? 

Copyright means you can not reproduce the photograph in any form even if you have paid for a print ... you purchased the print not the rights to the photograph, plus its just a little ignorant and rude seen as the thumbnails have copyright written all over them?  If a museum or attraction says no cameras do you still take one in?  Rules are rules really you abide by showground rules I'm guessing?


----------



## Roasted Chestnuts (8 July 2010)

Well I am sorry but if a photographer is willing to give me a jpeg and a copy of the picture after i have purchased it from now on i will be telling them to delete images of me then i will have the only copies.

As the subject I have rights to the copies and how they are used, if I am willing to let a phtographer put images of me on a public site then I am afraid me posting the image to my page for my friends to see is no different from me hanging it on my wall and inviting my friends to my house to see it. I am not PRINTING the images off and selling them 

I have people wqho i know who are photographer and they have had no issue of BOUGHT copies of their work being put on a site for others to see. Otherwise obtained I am one for not allowing and agree that should be stopped as well as the removing of watermarks I think that is terrible that people do that. If I think a photo is that good I will buy it.

Nikki xxx


----------



## Roasted Chestnuts (8 July 2010)

FallenLightPhoto said:



			Do you eat your chocolate bar before paying for it in the shop?? 

Copyright means you can not reproduce the photograph in any form even if you have paid for a print ... you purchased the print not the rights to the photograph, plus its just a little ignorant and rude seen as the thumbnails have copyright written all over them?  If a museum or attraction says no cameras do you still take one in?  Rules are rules really you abide by showground rules I'm guessing?
		
Click to expand...

I have done actually lol wandered do the shoping round asda a few time eating the bar keeping the wrapper then paying for it with the rest of my shop.

You eat food in a resturant before paying for it do you not???

Nikki xxx


----------



## fltogger (8 July 2010)

NiknKia said:



			Well I am sorry but if a photographer is willing to give me a jpeg and a copy of the picture after i have purchased it from now on i will be telling them to delete images of me then i will have the only copies.

As the subject I have rights to the copies and how they are used, if I am willing to let a phtographer put images of me on a public site then I am afraid me posting the image to my page for my friends to see is no different from me hanging it on my wall and inviting my friends to my house to see it. I am not PRINTING the images off and selling them 

I have people wqho i know who are photographer and they have had no issue of BOUGHT copies of their work being put on a site for others to see. Otherwise obtained I am one for not allowing and agree that should be stopped as well as the removing of watermarks I think that is terrible that people do that. If I think a photo is that good I will buy it.

Nikki xxx
		
Click to expand...

actually the law says you have no rights to the photo as the subject.. id suggest you read up on copyright law because you could not be more wrong.. which could end you in court in the future.


----------



## now_loves_mares (8 July 2010)

I haven't even begun to read all this thread. But I presume that non of the 'togs on here have ever so much as pressed "record" off the radio (back in the day!), or burned a copy of a cd from a friend, illegally downloaded some music or a film or anything......

Thought not


----------



## Santa_Claus (8 July 2010)

NiknKia said:



			As the subject I have rights to the copies and how they are used
		
Click to expand...

No no you don't! you have no right at all to them IF they are taken on public land. i use my celeb photo example yet again.

You can ask for them to be deleted which 99% of togs will at your request but they don't HAVE to.


----------



## George Michie (8 July 2010)

santa145 said:



			ok my attempt to hide the decent image. 
http://katiebisson.co.uk/test/Test.html

please try to post non copyrighted version of my photo of a cute exmoor foalie!
		
Click to expand...

just came in


----------



## Roasted Chestnuts (8 July 2010)

fltogger said:



			actually the law says you have no rights to the photo as the subject.. id suggest you read up on copyright law because you could not be more wrong.. which could end you in court in the future.
		
Click to expand...

Well i think i will continue as I have as I havent had folk chasing me for payment when i have bought images from them. i didn think that posting on a forum of your proff pix classes as fraud i mean who are defrauding??

Nikki xxxx


----------



## Santa_Claus (8 July 2010)

did you take it from the source code by any chance? currently trying to find a way other than framset to either effectively hide source/image code or restrict access to the image files. Maybe this is where I should read through my numerous coding manuals....


----------



## MegaBeast (8 July 2010)

George Michie said:



			just came in 






Click to expand...

That one's easy even with my limited knowledge.


----------



## George Michie (8 July 2010)

NiknKia said:



			NOT if I have paid for the image!!!!!! I have BOUGHT the right to the image!!!

Nikki xxx
		
Click to expand...

as already said you don't but I'm pretty pragmatic when it comes to this. Whilst I retain copyright I'm very relaxed about what you can do with a print you've purchased. 

My T&C's




			All the images on this website are copyright George Michie.

Commercial publications use them on pain of having body parts removed with rusty pliers. I'll also invoice you at a rate designed to pay off my mortgage. If you ask however I might surprise you and let you use them for a credit, it's unlikely but you never know.  I do guarantee however that the day you give me free display advertising is the same day I give you free images.

Customers however, you're fine. If you've bought an image you're free to do what you want with it, except for handing it to magazines and papers etc for commercial publication. However, if you're using it for advertising a bike, car or horse then feel free to use it. If you're not sure that you're allowed to do something give me a phone and we'll sort something out. If you've bought it though the chances are I'll pretty much let you do anything you want with it.

I realise that not everyone wants to see themselves on a website. If you see your picture anywhere here and would prefer that I remove it please email me and I'll get onto it.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## MegaBeast (8 July 2010)

santa145 said:



			did you take it from the source code by any chance? currently trying to find a way other than framset to either effectively hide source/image code or restrict access to the image files. Maybe this is where I should read through my numerous coding manuals....
		
Click to expand...

I just right clicked on the box that only showed a little bit and selected copy, then pasted it and had the whole image without any watermark.


----------



## Santa_Claus (8 July 2010)

MegaBeast said:



			That one's easy even with my limited knowledge.
		
Click to expand...

was it easy because you took it from source code? If yes I'm working on that bit 

edit to say you just said how and rubbish can completely exclude that option then LOL

Oh well was worth a try, hadn't even thought about clicking copy!


----------



## George Michie (8 July 2010)

santa145 said:



			did you take it from the source code by any chance? currently trying to find a way other than framset to either effectively hide source/image code or restrict access to the image files. Maybe this is where I should read through my numerous coding manuals....
		
Click to expand...

aye  took longer to upload than copy


----------



## fltogger (8 July 2010)

NiknKia said:



			Well i think i will continue as I have as I havent had folk chasing me for payment when i have bought images from them. i didn think that posting on a forum of your proff pix classes as fraud i mean who are defrauding??

Nikki xxxx

Click to expand...

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright

and point 8 here..

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/copyright_myths


----------



## spottyhorse25 (8 July 2010)

i love to go online and look at my pics from shows, order them to download to post on my fb, so its shocking to hear you earn so little!! 
although your prices are very reasonable- i just looked at my pics from a show last weekend and the photographer is £18 for a print or a download!


----------



## FallenLightPhoto (8 July 2010)

NiknKia said:



			I have done actually lol wandered do the shoping round asda a few time eating the bar keeping the wrapper then paying for it with the rest of my shop.

You eat food in a resturant before paying for it do you not???

Nikki xxx

Click to expand...

Just etiquette really though and respect for the service being provided and as they say doing the right thing and your view on copyright and photography images etc is sadly wrong, just need to google it to see that or look on most art/photography sites.  Although "good will" of some photographers will grant permission for a purchased print to be scanned etc, this does not mean every photographer feels the same, you purchase the print so yes to use it for design and purpose of being displayed at home is fine to show off to your friends!

Think you might be missing the point of Copyright though!  And just the whole help everyone win situation!


----------



## MegaBeast (8 July 2010)

santa145 said:



			was it easy because you took it from source code? If yes I'm working on that bit 

edit to say you just said how and rubbish can completely exclude that option then LOL

Oh well was worth a try, hadn't even thought about clicking copy!
		
Click to expand...

lol, I said it was simple!  That's pretty much where my knowledge ends these days!


----------



## Shrek-Eventing-SW (8 July 2010)

santa145 said:



			ok my attempt to hide the decent image. 
http://katiebisson.co.uk/test/Test.html

please try to post non copyrighted version of my photo of a cute exmoor foalie!
		
Click to expand...

It took a rather long time, but here is the exmoor foalie!


----------



## maletto (8 July 2010)

Frances144 said:



			I feel your pain.

What would you do about this?







I, too, am a professional photographer who has recently gone into horse event photography.  I am feeling rather disillusioned now.

The thing is she is so pleased with herself and so blatant!

All suggestions gratefully received.
		
Click to expand...

that is absolutely terrible!!


----------



## Weezy (8 July 2010)

NiknKia, if HHO/IPC catch you putting up a photograph on this forum that you do not own the CR to, they will remove and you will get your wrist slapped.  If you persevere, you will get banned.


----------



## teapot (8 July 2010)

Easy peasy santa, even on firefox/mac set up. I literally just "right-clicked' and copied the image location address of the zoomed in 'only showing a bit of image at any one time' box.


----------



## George Michie (8 July 2010)

now_loves_mares said:



			I haven't even begun to read all this thread. But I presume that non of the 'togs on here have ever so much as pressed "record" off the radio (back in the day!), or burned a copy of a cd from a friend, illegally downloaded some music or a film or anything......

Thought not 

Click to expand...

I'd be pretty sure we all have at some time or another. I certainly remember, albeit vaguely , recording Radio Luxembourg. The others, no, I haven't actually but the principle is the same. 

I guess the point you're making is it's now hypocritical to try to protect our own position having had no problem doing the same in the past and to an extent you're right. 

However, if your employer came to you and said they wanted you to work for a month, gave you glowing reports all the way through, told you they'd pay at the end of the month but paid you off instead with no reimbursement you'd probably not be that happy


----------



## FallenLightPhoto (8 July 2010)

CotswoldSJ said:



			Trouble is can you invoice people?

Should I chase the people who pinched this pic (I don't sell pics, just the gear)

Stolen photoshopped image - emailed about it and they just photoshopped it more! 






My original 





Click to expand...

Contact the hosting site if it is on a website you can prove your are the original owner of the photograph as you have the full image etc ... majority of professional web designers/hosters take copyright as seriously as the photographers!


----------



## laa666 (8 July 2010)

I have nothing to do with your pics.  I do buy pics of my horses at BSJA shows and my walls are covered in them to prove it.  However I did not think about facebook and i will make sure in the future that only pics that we purchase or have taken myself find ther way on to my daughters FB.  After reading your rants, I am going to buy some pics from weekend show, sorry wont help you.  Question.  Is it okay to put purchased pics on FB or is this against rules ?


----------



## FallenLightPhoto (8 July 2010)

now_loves_mares said:



			I haven't even begun to read all this thread. But I presume that non of the 'togs on here have ever so much as pressed "record" off the radio (back in the day!), or burned a copy of a cd from a friend, illegally downloaded some music or a film or anything......

Thought not 

Click to expand...

As I mentioned previously I ride and compete and yeah many moons ago I lifted the odd thumbnail off photographers sites etc and also purchased ALOT but NOW I wouldnt dream of it ... I now know how much hard work and how long the days are being an event photographer and its not just for that one day either its the prep work and the post production too sorting through and editing 1000's of photos etc 

I'm sure I'm not alone as a horse rider when someone doesn't understand the reason we spend so much money on our horses and the amount of time and effort and sometimes grief we go through just for our love of horses etc?  How many people have cringed and got annoyed when someone says "horse riding is easy, you just sit there!" or " horse riding isn't a sport" and things like that?

Now think of it from the photographers side who has a passion for taking good quality photos and producing them for customers ...

I'm sure a professional rider would not produce a horse for free, unless under special circumstances, seen as this is how they make a living too!?

If you don't like the photo you don't have to buy it, if you don't want a print or can't afford it, most togs are now providing FB images at low cost (this varies I know!) or just ask them, why steal it, esp when you know its wrong?


----------



## FallenLightPhoto (8 July 2010)

laa666 said:



			I have nothing to do with your pics.  I do buy pics of my horses at BSJA shows and my walls are covered in them to prove it.  However I did not think about facebook and i will make sure in the future that only pics that we purchase or have taken myself find ther way on to my daughters FB.  After reading your rants, I am going to buy some pics from weekend show, sorry wont help you.  Question.  Is it okay to put purchased pics on FB or is this against rules ?
		
Click to expand...

Technically and practically it is still copyright theft but I'm sure if you contact the photographer they would give you the thumbs up to putting em on FB with a credit to them or they might even send you a low res copy for free as you purchased a print!  Each photographer is different so to be on the safe side and out of politeness just ask!


----------



## SpottedCat (8 July 2010)

I have to say I do think photographers need to move with the times - if I buy an album from iTunes I can burn up to (I think) 7 copies of it for my use. I can't play it commercially, but I can have a copy on my computer, one on my iPhone, one on my iPod, a CD for the car (if I needed one - my stereo bluetooths to the iPhone), a CD for the lorry, one for OHs car etc. 

My feeling is that if I buy a print I could hang it anywhere I liked, and let anyone look at it - therefore I should reasonably be able to scan it in and post it online too. Realistically, once someone has bought a print, I really don't think photographers should be worrying about how I use it for my own personal use - which includes my FB site. There is no way I'll buy a print and a jpg....

I know the law, but realistically, the music industry has faced up to this, why can't photographers?


----------



## Frances144 (8 July 2010)

I wouldn't have too much of a problem with someone purchasing a print off me and then using it for other things.  Tbh, the quality they can achieve from a scanner is not going to be as good as the tiff it was printed from.

What I do have a real problem with is someone stealing it from my website, spending hours removing my deliberate large watermark and then boasting about it to their friends, showing the photo, on Facebook having paid nothing.

Considering a decent sized Facebook photo is £3, it is just theft, plain and simple.  I have problems with that tbh.


----------



## SpottedCat (8 July 2010)

Frances144 said:



			I wouldn't have too much of a problem with someone purchasing a print off me and then using it for other things.  Tbh, the quality they can achieve from a scanner is not going to be as good as the tiff it was printed from.

What I do have a real problem with is someone stealing it from my website, spending hours removing my deliberate large watermark and then boasting about it to their friends, showing the photo, on Facebook having paid nothing.

Considering a decent sized Facebook photo is £3, it is just theft, plain and simple.  I have problems with that tbh.
		
Click to expand...

Quite agree with that - I don't want/need decent quality for FB - I'm just wanting to show everyone I have moments of not being a complete pleb


----------



## fltogger (8 July 2010)

SpottedCat said:



			I have to say I do think photographers need to move with the times - if I buy an album from iTunes I can burn up to (I think) 7 copies of it for my use. I can't play it commercially, but I can have a copy on my computer, one on my iPhone, one on my iPod, a CD for the car (if I needed one - my stereo bluetooths to the iPhone), a CD for the lorry, one for OHs car etc. 

My feeling is that if I buy a print I could hang it anywhere I liked, and let anyone look at it - therefore I should reasonably be able to scan it in and post it online too. Realistically, once someone has bought a print, I really don't think photographers should be worrying about how I use it for my own personal use - which includes my FB site. There is no way I'll buy a print and a jpg....

I know the law, but realistically, the music industry has faced up to this, why can't photographers?
		
Click to expand...

some photographers may be happy for you to do that but to assume you can do that without the say so of them would be a gross misjudgement..

has the music industry solved any of their issues with piracy though? last time i read about it they were still losing millions if not billions of pounds a year..


----------



## FallenLightPhoto (8 July 2010)

Frances144 said:



			I wouldn't have too much of a problem with someone purchasing a print off me and then using it for other things.  Tbh, the quality they can achieve from a scanner is not going to be as good as the tiff it was printed from.

What I do have a real problem with is someone stealing it from my website, spending hours removing my deliberate large watermark and then boasting about it to their friends, showing the photo, on Facebook having paid nothing.

Considering a decent sized Facebook photo is £3, it is just theft, plain and simple.  I have problems with that tbh.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree feel this post is more aimed at the lifting from websites than about the purchased prints!  Which I think is the main concern amongst photographers, although the actions after purchasing a print is still in question when it comes to "copyrights" but not as pressing!

As for the music industry moving with the times ... they are selling to a MUCH wider audience, 1000's + will be purchasing just one single song from iTunes and the likes, as photographers we are limited on selling the photo of rider and horse to pretty much just that one person, esp when it comes to event photography.  And I wouldnt say photographers are not moving with the times seen as they provide jpeg images we provide a fb image upto a limited 7x5 jpeg image as well as prints with online purchasing and not just on the day from the field.  Unlike music producers and artists we don't get paid to perform, we don't get royalties, and we provide almost a one to one service, potentially a one off photo!


----------



## Mike007 (8 July 2010)

So let me get this straight,you photographers think its quite ok to create images of me and post them on the internet,without my permision. Yet you are squawking if I then create my own image of yours.It clearly isnt yours ,because a) the definition is entirely diferent, and b) mine does not have the writing across it that your copyright version has.


----------



## fltogger (9 July 2010)

FallenLightPhoto said:



			Totally agree feel this post is more aimed at the lifting from websites than about the purchased prints!  Which I think is the main concern amongst photographers, although the actions after purchasing a print is still in question when it comes to "copyrights" but not as pressing!

As for the music industry moving with the times ... they are selling to a MUCH wider audience, 1000's + will be purchasing just one single song from iTunes and the likes, as photographers we are limited on selling the photo of rider and horse to pretty much just that one person, esp when it comes to event photography.  And I wouldnt say photographers are not moving with the times seen as they provide jpeg images we provide a fb image upto a limited 7x5 jpeg image as well as prints with online purchasing and not just on the day from the field.  Unlike music producers and artists we don't get paid to perform, we don't get royalties, and we provide almost a one to one service, potentially a one off photo!
		
Click to expand...

nail + head.


----------



## fltogger (9 July 2010)

Mike007 said:



			So let me get this straight,you photographers think its quite ok to create images of me and post them on the internet,without my permision. Yet you are squawking if I then create my own image of yours.It clearly isnt yours ,because a) the definition is entirely diferent, and b) mine does not have the writing across it that your copyright version has.
		
Click to expand...

legally we have the moral high ground lol

lets set a few things straight.. legally nobody needs permission to photograph somebody else. legally the owner of the image can do what they like with it (as long as its not character harming etc). generally a model release can be used for commercial work (i.e. - advertising) however legally they cannot be enforced in the UK.

legally you CANNOT take, reproduce or alter a photographers work.

you my friend are breaking the law not us.


----------



## FallenLightPhoto (9 July 2010)

Mike007 said:



			So let me get this straight,you photographers think its quite ok to create images of me and post them on the internet,without my permision. Yet you are squawking if I then create my own image of yours.It clearly isnt yours ,because a) the definition is entirely diferent, and b) mine does not have the writing across it that your copyright version has.
		
Click to expand...

As a rider/person you have the human right to ask us not to take any photos of you of which photographers do not have to oblige but I'd say 99.9% would due to welfare of horse and rider and just curtosy!  We can/have the right to photograph anybody/anything on public property or if invited onto private with intent to photograph.  A photograph, book, music, painting etc is owned and copyrighted by the original creator unless otherwise stated!

We are not as photographers stating a moral high ground just stating the law and trying to spread the word that this is hindering our business and the ability to provide a service thus bumping up our costs and prices!

Again you can request your photo is removed from a site but by law the owner of the photograph (of which is the creator) does not have to obide, but once again out of respect etc I think most photographers etc would oblidge.

On typing this starting to feel we actually respect the wishes of people more than they respect us or the service we have been ASKED to provide at events!?


----------



## JazzmanII (9 July 2010)

I cant be bothered to read this whole topic but 
TBH... i think your new watermark is totally pathetic, unprofessional and outrageous. and if you want to gain more custom, instead of slating your customers on a public forum you should be alot more polite and respectful about the situation. yes people will take pictures, but whos gonna buy all the rubbish ones, lets face it out of the 5 or 6 taken there is only usually one of two worth buying, but people still like to have a copy of the rubbish ones too. whos to say you can put peoples pictures on the internet anyway. if you dont want it to happen, dont put them on the net, it happens in every industry, its not rocket science!


----------



## fltogger (9 July 2010)

JazzmanII said:



			whos to say you can put peoples pictures on the internet anyway.
		
Click to expand...

um as above, the law (or lack of it saying we cant).




			if you dont want it to happen, dont put them on the net, it happens in every industry, its not rocket science!
		
Click to expand...

so the music industry should stop selling music because its too easy to copy? likewise we shouldnt have any more films made.. like i said earlier DO NOT punish the copyright owner because people are ripping us off..


----------



## JazzmanII (9 July 2010)

well tbh its your choice of job, so find a way to solve it if you dont like it.

but i think this post is totally unprofessional as is his new watermark and know full well now i wouldnt buy from him!!


----------



## Zebedee (9 July 2010)

santa145 said:



			had to go even further round houses but using similar route and about 3 mins from start to upload






Click to expand...



IE. Allowed pop ups, & allowed access to clipboard. Right click & saved to desktop.
I am a totally computer numpty hence not posted here as I don't know how to do that, or how to edit it in anyway come to that !


----------



## PrettyPiaffe (9 July 2010)

I think the watermark you have put across your photographs is ridiculous and i certainly wouldn't buy a photograph from you if 5+ other photos you had taken of me had a watermark that stated my riding 'sucked'. I don't think that is going to gain you any custom at all.

Instead of ranting and raving all other forums and social networking sites calling people scumbags and thieves (probably customers), it would of been much more professional of you to have a friendly chat/ posted a notice on your website/facebook stating why you dont appreciate them copying and pasting the photos you have taken.

Like i said, i certainly wouldnt buy a photograph from someone who has splashed 'my riding sucks' all over photos they have taken of me.

I hope you are aware that all the ranting and name calling you have been doing is viewable by the general public and has probably done the opposite of what you intended and lost you customers rather than gained you some. In my opinion all of this is very unprofessional.


----------



## Mike007 (9 July 2010)

fltogger said:



			legally we have the moral high ground lol

lets set a few things straight.. legally nobody needs permission to photograph somebody else. legally the owner of the image can do what they like with it (as long as its not character harming etc). .
		
Click to expand...

And so at last we come to the crux of the matter. Your "(as long as its not character harming etc). "is covered under common law. You are acting as the sole arbiter of what you consider "not character harming etc"because once you have put these images on the internet ,YOU CAN NEVER RECOVER THEM.


----------



## Rambo (9 July 2010)

Okay, trying to return to something a little more constructive than 'name calling'....

As i've said before, you can never eradicate copyright theft.....where there is a will there is a way and all that...but you can make life as difficult as possible for those trying to do it.

My attempt number 2 at protecting the image was unfortunately rather flawed due to the changes i made from attempt number 1....so no prizes for those who managed to lift the image that time. I think this attempt should be more robust....please have a go at doctoring the image of Shane Breen on this page :-

http://www.krk.me.uk/Test3.html


----------



## TGM (9 July 2010)

Mike007 said:



			And so at last we come to the crux of the matter. Your "(as long as its not character harming etc). "is covered under common law. You are acting as the sole arbiter of what you consider "not character harming etc"because once you have put these images on the internet ,YOU CAN NEVER RECOVER THEM.
		
Click to expand...

If having photos of yourself on the Internet concerns you so much why do you not just ask the togs beforehand not to photograph you?  As said above most will oblige.


----------



## lizzie_liz (9 July 2010)

To the photographers, have you conducted market research into what competitors want from the event photographer. Am thinking here size of photo, cost, print or jpeg image etc It seems that from this thread we all do appreciate you taking photos but maybe the products on offer are not what customers want. I know one company in south England produce
fridge magnets and keyrings for only a few pounds.


----------



## fltogger (9 July 2010)

TGM said:



			If having photos of yourself on the Internet concerns you so much why do you not just ask the togs beforehand not to photograph you?  As said above most will oblige.
		
Click to expand...

exactly. to be honest i dont see what the problem is, we've been ASKED by the event organisers to provide a service to everyone attending.. the photos are of people competing in events not papp'd picking up a hooker.. 

i did (out of courtousy, not legal requirement) have a section on our website about removal of images if persons required. its NEVER had anyone use it and ive recently taken it off as it was a waste of space on the page.

and as ive been saying all along, rant at the people STEALING the photos not us making legitimate business..

and becides mike you havent answered my question on where you stand with the thousands of CCTV cameras in the country constantly taking your pictures. are you not concerned where they end up?


----------



## measles (9 July 2010)

SpottedCat said:



			I have to say I do think photographers need to move with the times - if I buy an album from iTunes I can burn up to (I think) 7 copies of it for my use. I can't play it commercially, but I can have a copy on my computer, one on my iPhone, one on my iPod, a CD for the car (if I needed one - my stereo bluetooths to the iPhone), a CD for the lorry, one for OHs car etc. 

My feeling is that if I buy a print I could hang it anywhere I liked, and let anyone look at it - therefore I should reasonably be able to scan it in and post it online too. Realistically, once someone has bought a print, I really don't think photographers should be worrying about how I use it for my own personal use - which includes my FB site. There is no way I'll buy a print and a jpg....

I know the law, but realistically, the music industry has faced up to this, why can't photographers?
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree with SpottedCat


----------



## George Michie (9 July 2010)

Rambo said:



			Okay, trying to return to something a little more constructive than 'name calling'....

As i've said before, you can never eradicate copyright theft.....where there is a will there is a way and all that...but you can make life as difficult as possible for those trying to do it.

My attempt number 2 at protecting the image was unfortunately rather flawed due to the changes i made from attempt number 1....so no prizes for those who managed to lift the image that time. I think this attempt should be more robust....please have a go at doctoring the image of Shane Breen on this page :-
		
Click to expand...

there you go


----------



## George Michie (9 July 2010)

fltogger said:



			and becides mike you havent answered my question on where you stand with the thousands of CCTV cameras in the country constantly taking your pictures. are you not concerned where they end up?
		
Click to expand...

Mike hasn't actually answered any questions, not just that one.


----------



## Rambo (9 July 2010)

George Michie said:



			there you go 






Click to expand...

Okay...thank you.

In order to help me eradicate the weakness, can you tell me exactly what you did / how you did it. What platform / sppecific browser and version you used.

I should say, the only way to improve this sort of technology is by trial and error. There are so many nuances of all the different browsers and operating systems that it is a bit of a nightmare lol!


----------



## Admirable (9 July 2010)




----------



## Baileyhoss (9 July 2010)

I did it to.  Just used Print Screen then paste.


----------



## Rambo (9 July 2010)

Baileyhoss said:



			I did it to.  Just used Print Screen then paste.
		
Click to expand...

See that's not helpful 

Can you tell me what browser and what o/s you are using....as my code does successfully disable print screen and paste for a lot of scenarios.

Thanks.


----------



## spidge (9 July 2010)

Rambo said:



			See that's not helpful 

Thanks.
		
Click to expand...

Well I thought it was quite funny!


----------



## Baileyhoss (9 July 2010)

Ah, sorry.  I'm on IE.  when I opened the new document and went to paste, it didn't come up, but when I opened the clipboard, there the image was and it allowed me to select and paste from there.


----------



## Baileyhoss (9 July 2010)

I confess I haven't read the previous 27 pages    So didn't know what other things you tried to disable.
 Sorry


----------



## spidge (9 July 2010)

Wow this has turned out to be possibly the most interesting and long running thread I have seen on here recently, or is that just because it matters to me?

What has become abundantly clear is that this is a genuine area of concern for many photographers, not just equine.  What is also clear is that there is a huge amount of sympathy  from riders and competitors  who genuinely appreciate what we do.  I know from the responses I have seen both online and offline that a decent amount of people have now begun to consider the issue in a fresh light.

I had a lady email me last night to say that I was behaving like a small child and that she understood that it must be annoying to see people stealing my images. Here's my response:

"It is not just annoying, it is undermining my business and my livelihood.  That is the motivation for my efforts to prevent or at least reduce it from happening. Would it not be irresponsible to do anything else in that situation?

Personally I had misgivings about the watermark but everyone we showed it to thought it was great, funny and hitting the nail on the head with a light touch of humour.  I was also aware that the joke could quickly become irritatingly unfunny through constant repetition.  That said, you really would be pretty desperate or determined to copy any image onto your Facebook with that splashed across it."

For those who do not see the funny side of the watermark, I have now changed it to something less subtle and more direct.

What has also become clear is that many photographers are obviously not meeting the needs (or unreasonable expectations?) of their target audience either through lack of innovation, staleness, complacency or for whatever reason.  I would like to believe that I am not one of those, but perhaps I am. I have taken steps to move to an alternate gallery provider that will provide me with enhanced gallery features and usability for my customers, I hope that I recoup the £45 per month that this change will incur for my business. Downside other than this additional cost is that the security of images doesn't appear to be that much greater.

Thank you again for all the responses, both positive and negative.  I'm a grownup really, I can take criticism on the chin.  I now need to focus on the logistics of my business as I have a very busy few days coming up.  For that reason I may not have time to respond  to any new direction this thread may go in that may require my input.


----------



## Rambo (9 July 2010)

Maybe see you at Felbridge over the weekend ?


----------



## spidge (9 July 2010)

We'll be there both days, I'll be at a dog agility on Sunday


----------



## mike weeks (9 July 2010)

An interesting read spread over 3 days and I have joined to make a reply. The thread seems to be taking 2 directions, that originally intended (IMHO) by Spidge and a second one that many throw up some interesting code for anybody with a gallery from which they sell images. There are some other interesting areas thrown up.

Where am I coming from? I set up the Event Photographers Society about 18 months ago to help us talk to each other and find better ways of working and to help customers find us.

What I have learnt from the thread;

1. Many do not understand copyright, and even when it is explained to some of them their attitude is to stick 2 fingers up to the photographer to the point that some riders are totally outraged by us wanting to protect our rights.

2. Riders want photographers to attend their events - personally I think a photography charge on the entry price will never work because there will be those that think it then entitles them to free product.

3. Many riders have the skills to attempt to download images for free/remove watermarks

What I already know;

1. To set up as an equestrian event photographer will cost at least £10K but more realistically come closer to £20K - includes cameras, printers, trailers etc.

2. We have ongoing costs such as insurance, staff, equipment repairs and servicing, advertising, web sites etc.

3. Allowing customers to set prices would never be realistic, asking for different product may be achieveable.

4. We are a business i.e. we are there to make money.

Conclusions

1. We need to educate the riders about copyright

2. We need to listen to our customers - but we have been doing this for years

3. *Riders* as well as photographers should be reporting any copyright infringements to web hosts / facebook etc. If we work at this we can help each other i.e. help us to help you.

Personally I think that if the actions of Spidge help to promote a more responsible attitude where it is required then you will continue to have photographers at your events.

Mike


----------



## flyingfeet (9 July 2010)

spidge said:



			For those who do not see the funny side of the watermark, I have now changed it to something less subtle and more direct.
		
Click to expand...

I still think your font is too small and it needs to be more opaque!


----------



## spidge (9 July 2010)

CotswoldSJ said:



			I still think your font is too small and it needs to be more opaque!
		
Click to expand...

Thank you xxx

But not too offensive now?


----------



## flyingfeet (9 July 2010)

Nope - as no longer making a personal comment


----------



## EquineImage (9 July 2010)

I've just seen this on H&H i can't tell you how frustrated i've become, i spend many hrs not only at the events taking the best pictures i can, then many hrs editing & uploading, then like a spider i watch the picture hits & last weekend was up to about 8000 picture hits in 5hrs &  some sales but not huge...i've started to sell FB images for £1 just as a trail to see if this helps me at least put some petrol in my car...just not sure it will ?

Very sad because really enjoy my equestrian photography, weddings are so much easier to do & they pay ?

Best Regards

Wayne :0(


----------



## SpottedCat (9 July 2010)

Interesting that weddings have come up more than once - my wedding photographs were a package which meant I was provided with no prints, just all the images on a CD, copyright free, to do as I wanted with....food for thought perhaps? In return, all our thankyou cards have the photographer's details on so a) she might get business from someone else, and b) people may buy prints from her site directly.

But essentially the main reason we picked her was the fact that aside from the brill pics she took, we got all the images (all 375 of them) copyright free to do what we liked with, it was a major plus for me.

ETA: This package was also significantly cheaper than anything any other photographer was offering, and no limit on number of pics etc - if it was good, we got it.


----------



## Santa_Claus (9 July 2010)

SC would you mind PMing me the address of the wedding photographer you used as I am currently on the hunt for my wedding next year


----------



## Mike007 (9 July 2010)

[
and becides mike you havent answered my question on where you stand with the thousands of CCTV cameras in the country constantly taking your pictures. are you not concerned where they end up?[/QUOTE]

Well, since you ask,of course it concerns me.However very few are connected to the internet for public viewing.


----------



## SpottedCat (9 July 2010)

santa145 said:



			SC would you mind PMing me the address of the wedding photographer you used as I am currently on the hunt for my wedding next year  

Click to expand...

I would not mind at all. I'll even give you the password to see our pics! She is seriously good, we are thrilled with our pics.


----------



## EquineImage (9 July 2010)

SpottedCat said:



			Interesting that weddings have come up more than once - my wedding photographs were a package which meant I was provided with no prints, just all the images on a CD, copyright free, to do as I wanted with....food for thought perhaps? In return, all our thankyou cards have the photographer's details on so a) she might get business from someone else, and b) people may buy prints from her site directly.

But essentially the main reason we picked her was the fact that aside from the brill pics she took, we got all the images (all 375 of them) copyright free to do what we liked with, it was a major plus for me.

ETA: This package was also significantly cheaper than anything any other photographer was offering, and no limit on number of pics etc - if it was good, we got it.
		
Click to expand...

Weddings, i supply all the edited on a USB drive & supply some 8x9 for free & yes copyright free...after all they've paid my fee job done i'm v happy & so are they, just want a fair days pay for a fair days work.. & first rate service :0)


----------



## measles (9 July 2010)

EquineImage said:



			I've just seen this on H&H i can't tell you how frustrated i've become, i spend many hrs not only at the events taking the best pictures i can, then many hrs editing & uploading, then like a spider i watch the picture hits & last weekend was up to about 8000 picture hits in 5hrs &  some sales but not huge...i've started to sell FB images for £1 just as a trail to see if this helps me at least put some petrol in my car...just not sure it will ?

Very sad because really enjoy my equestrian photography, weddings are so much easier to do & they pay ?

Best Regards

Wayne :0(
		
Click to expand...

£1.00 for a Facebook image sounds about right to me and I would buy regularly (if I uploaded photographers photos to Facebook)


----------



## figbat (9 July 2010)

Just to add, this very forum carries advice about how and how not to treat photographs on the internet.  Although it's interesting that even professional publishers like those behind H&H can't get it exactly right.


----------



## Weezy (9 July 2010)

I would buy pretty much every single photo taken of me for £1 for FB, and then buy at least 1 in high res for repro.


----------



## EquineImage (9 July 2010)

measles said:



			£1.00 for a Facebook image sounds about right to me and I would buy regularly (if I uploaded photographers photos to Facebook)
		
Click to expand...

I have had sales, riders buying pictures & the £1 FB image, so fingers crossed for the moment it stays>

Need to find the answer to this huge problem & culture of its on the net so its free ?


----------



## Santa_Claus (9 July 2010)

Weezy said:



			I would buy pretty much every single photo taken of me for £1 for FB, and then buy at least 1 in high res for repro.
		
Click to expand...

ditto this and edit to say far more reasonable than the £10 for a facebook image my local tog charges which i will never pay!


----------



## Vetwrap (9 July 2010)

Sorry, haven't read the whole thread, but read your rant.  Someone might have said this before.

I did a little local competition in Spring and the photographer had no website and just a laptop and printer.  I suggested to him that he have a flat fee for all images of a certain rider.

That way, his overheads were less and he could email straight out, unedited images for people to do with what they wanted.

For those that want their images cleaned up, do the work and charge accordingly.

Would this be an option at all?


----------



## becca92 (9 July 2010)

I haven't read the whole of this topic, but I've got the basic gist.

I see your point, and I understand where you are coming from - If I was a photographer and was losing money because of this I wouldn't be pleased.

YET, I do believe the way you have handled the situation is childish and quite ridiculous. The watermark you first uploaded was rude and childish, and because of that I feel that you may have lost customers due to that. Nobody likes to see a watermark over the image saying their riding 'sucks'. It's unprofessional and quite frankly, rude. I certainly wouldn't dare buy any photos from a company that treats it's customers like that. 

Like I said, I understand where you are coming from, and I wouldn't dare put photos on my Facebook page unless I have previously bought them, yet do feel you need to 'move along with the times'. There are many other methods and ways in which you can encourage people to buy the photos without stealing them first. Yet, by publicly putting them on your website you are opening yourself up to people stealing them - it happens to every photographer, and will probably never stop happening. 

You've just got to find more secure methods of selling and producing the photos, maybe at the event, or (like a photographer from a show I went to a week ago did) - sent proofs of the photos in the post to each competitor. These photos were very small, yet big enough to see, and obviously you couldn't distribute these onto the internet as they were small and on paper. Along with it was sent an order form, and that is how I bought the photos from the event. This seems to be a much more secure method.

Ranting about it on a public forum maybe isn't the best way to go, either.

Good luck.


----------



## spidge (9 July 2010)

Maybe there'll come a time when I won't need the overheads of a trailer, computers, printers, staff etc and all I do is attend an event and make the images available unwatermarked via  a web site for all to download. 

Sounds streamlined and efficient but soulless.  Why not take the photographer out of the equation and just have a web cam streaming images of the event that we can all later watch on Youtube.

I appreciate there are efficiencies of scale and as event photographers we are very versatile at adapting our products, pricing and workflow to the particular event.  What works at one may not work at another. This is the challenge we face along with weather, rising costs, diminishing competitor numbers ( pony club events seem especially impacted this year) and recession with more pain to come. 

I am happy to embrace new pricing methodologies regarding events, unfortunately it requires close planning with the organisers + committee, and a lead time of several months when you consider some venues/events publish an omnibus edition for the entire year.  It will take time and venues excited by the prospect of working more closely with the venue, rather than regarding the photographers as a necessary evil that they have to endure.


----------



## tullystud (9 July 2010)

I recently purchased an excellent digital photo from an event for £2.99.  It was a fair price for a digital picture no printing involved.  I was happy to purchase.

But I object to paying £8-10 for a photo that is often just a snap just so I can share with my friends.  If you have 2 children and myself competing it makes a very expensive day.  Perhaps a more realstic price for FB images to share wth your friends and people would pay the prices. For those competing regularly as much as a copy of the day is a nice to have at those prices it is just too much.


----------



## MrFigjam (9 July 2010)

lizzie_liz said:



			To the photographers, have you conducted market research into what competitors want from the event photographer. Am thinking here size of photo, cost, print or jpeg image etc
		
Click to expand...

Cool.....maybe all businesses should do that.   Dear Nikon, I would like one of your new D3s (rrp £3589) for £1 and a new 300mm f2.8 VR lens (rrp£3999) for £2 please, and I expect these new items to be on your website within a week.  I mean surely they would sell MUCH MORE at that price!!!! <sigh>

Right, here are my 2 cents worth

I decided not to get annoyed by this anymore as I'm never going to beat the theivers (official term).
I've decided to take a different approach....

At every event I do, I send out (free of charge) a small selection of images with the words "Courtesy of www.EventPhotographyScotland.co.uk" at the bottom of them.  The images are 400px at the longest edge and are 72dpi. 

"THAT'S MAD" I hear you say!

Not really, Because a lot of people do not know that I am at their event because usually I am there shooting for Eventing Worldwide website and photograph different horses and fences throughout the day.  The agreement that they get the images is that they do not crop the message off the bottom or they won't get any more.  These people plaster the free photos all over H&H, face book etc. so that their mates see them.  This prompts the mates to go to the website thinking "I wonder if they have any of me" and look at the watermarked images and prompts them to buy. 

It's not perfect, but as I am not long in this business, I am really trying to get people looking at the website regularly and coming back.    If someone buys a print and contacts me, I'll gladly send them a small digi image (without watermark) because I would rather they were displaying a nicely optimised version of my work rather than a dodgy scan.

That is all.


----------



## figbat (9 July 2010)

becca92 said:



			I haven't read the whole of this topic, but I've got the basic gist.

I see your point, and I understand where you are coming from - If I was a photographer and was losing money because of this I wouldn't be pleased.

YET, I do believe the way you have handled the situation is childish and quite ridiculous. The watermark you first uploaded was rude and childish, and because of that I feel that you may have lost customers due to that. Nobody likes to see a watermark over the image saying their riding 'sucks'. It's unprofessional and quite frankly, rude. I certainly wouldn't dare buy any photos from a company that treats it's customers like that.
		
Click to expand...

If you HAD read the rest of the thread, you will have seen that Spidge has responded to feedback and modified his watermark.  I personally found the original one amusing and suspect was a knee-jerk reaction to a frustrating situation.  In the context of the reason for having it, it would probably be very effective.




			Like I said, I understand where you are coming from, and I wouldn't dare put photos on my Facebook page unless I have previously bought them...
		
Click to expand...

...with express permission to use them on Facebook...




			...yet do feel you need to 'move along with the times'. There are many other methods and ways in which you can encourage people to buy the photos without stealing them first. Yet, by publicly putting them on your website you are opening yourself up to people stealing them - it happens to every photographer, and will probably never stop happening.
		
Click to expand...

What a sad situation, that society expects the worst of people if the opportunity arises - if something can be stolen, you must expect that it will.  I wonder if the same people who steal photographs from websites also steal food from supermarkets and fuel from filling stations?  After all, it is just there on the shelf or forecourt.  All the internet does is allow you to commit a crime at a distance and anonymously.  Must be OK then - after all if the photographer didn't want me to steal it, they wouldn't have made it so easy for me to do so.  By this thinking, if you leave your horse in a field you must expect me to help myself to it.  A locked gate is scant security.




			You've just got to find more secure methods of selling and producing the photos, maybe at the event, or (like a photographer from a show I went to a week ago did) - sent proofs of the photos in the post to each competitor. These photos were very small, yet big enough to see, and obviously you couldn't distribute these onto the internet as they were small and on paper. Along with it was sent an order form, and that is how I bought the photos from the event. This seems to be a much more secure method.
		
Click to expand...

Above, you said to move with the times but you have just described the most old-fashioned process for picture sales I can recall.  I remember having to do this 15 years ago!




			Ranting about it on a public forum maybe isn't the best way to go, either.
		
Click to expand...

The fact that it has raised so much debate, raised awareness of the issue and facts and, it would appear, adjusted some people's behaviours suggests this is the PERFECT way to go about it.  And if H&H pick up on this thread for their newsletter or even in their magazine then it will get even more exposure.


----------



## Weezy (9 July 2010)

Mr FigJam I wish you came down south   I had 20 odd photos taken of me at last event, I wanted them all, but had to buy just 2, which were £15 EACH for the jpeg and they are 300dpi


----------



## ch70 (9 July 2010)

I just came across this thread on the H&H facebook and as an equestrian photographer I felt the need to reply to the comments that I read. FYI, here's what I posted...

_Hi, as a professional equestrian photographer I can add some light to this...

It's illegal to use any image, whether printing or via electronic media without permission of the photographer or owner of that image. The photographer owns the copyright to the images that they take and if you have not purchased the right to use that image for a specific purpose then you are breaking the law and could well be taken to court. It's no different to copying a music track or dvd illegally.

When you buy a photograph print you are buying just that, a copy of that image in print. The photographer still owns that image. If you scan that image and print more copies you are also breaking the law.

Most photographers will sell you the copyright at a price, however they would have to take into account any possible future income that may have come from that image in order to work out that price.

Image theft costs photographers and graphic artists worldwide millions each year, people seem to forget that the photographer is a business like any other trying to make a living. The reality is the effort that goes into preparing for a show, having a number of photographers covering a show, the costs in travel, papers, inks, generators, equipment, actual working time etc... isn't cheap and all those costs need to be covered. Even after the show, all the images that have been taken have to be processed, cropped, adjusted then uploaded to the web. So a typical show can take 3 or 4 days of effort. Then storing those images online requires webspace, a webiste, online payment services which all have to be paid for etc...

Photographers spend years learning their craft. Good equestrian photographers will have spent time around horses, possibly ride themselves, understand how they move, understand stride patterns, know how to act around them and be familiar with dressage tests etc... Considerable effort is invested in developing styles that make good photographs of a horse and rider in different types of event.

Unfortunately the internet has made image theft a lot easier, however, what most people do not realise is that images have hidden meta data that says exactly who took that image and who owns the copyright. Also slapping a big copyright watermark across the image helps but does not stop people copying the image or linking to it.

Regarding people saying about permission to take their photograph. Just because you are in an image does not give you permission to use that image. It must be pointed out that most photographers are at events at the request of the organisers. Generally this would be indicated on any show schedules and flyers. If you are not happy with that then you are quite at liberty to ask the photographer not to take your photo when you are about to compete.

At the end of the day, photographers are there to try and capture a moment that you want to remember and want to keep and why anyone would expect they would be doing that for free I have no idea._


----------



## spidge (9 July 2010)

Lots of photographers have joined H&H just to follow this thread and a good many have posted.  I'm sure the tons of great suggestions and feedback will filter back into their business to allow them to decide what works best for them and their customers.  Without this dialogue togs might just be sitting around moaning that business is slow and customers moaning that the togs are cr*p, too expensive, too slow, too outdated etc.  I have implemented several changes, such as backdating the option to download £3 Facebook suitable images to my entire 2010 back catalogue of over 100 events, I am in the process of changing gallery providers and I have announced a Facebook amnesty and the offer of potentially 1000's of images as giveaways to push my point home that a decently edited and processed image even just for £3 for FB is better than a shoplifted, watermarked screen print or worse still camera phone snap of the print or image on screen complete with flash bulb.

You can rest assured that we as photographers although we are in competition can also set aside those differences to work together to protect our own interests.


----------



## aregona (9 July 2010)

ok, so, deep breath..........at risk of needing to run away from here after posting this i would like to know yor thoughts so here goes....

at the bottom of the page are my images. the one to the far left anf far right were taken by my mum.
the ones in the middle are pro pics WHICH I BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. so how do pro's feel about images been used like this after they have been paid for as i do understand by law i am still breaking it and these images still belong to the pro. do you mind seeing images like this?????

I pay for LOTS of photos as i compete 3 horses BE and youngsters and usually buy photos. i have an album which probably cost me over £500 aver the years. I dont not regreat buying any of them as the horse i have the most of (the mare in the pic left od the middle) was retired suddenly last month and i have some amazing pics of her.

your thoughts please?????? **now i run and hide**


----------



## George Michie (9 July 2010)

aregona said:



			so how do pro's feel about images been used like this after they have been paid for as i do understand by law i am still breaking it and these images still belong to the pro. do you mind seeing images like this?????
		
Click to expand...

Doesn't bother me at all  You've bought it and if you want to make it part of your sig then that's fine by me.


----------



## spidge (9 July 2010)

I can't speak for all other  togs only myself. Technically yes I think in fact you are in breach of copyright but if you had purchased the image, frankly I don't care.  Pictures are meant to be enjoyed. not hidden in a hard drive.

Do I get then get upset if you then tell me later at a show as a competitor did this week that the (her words) absolutely stunning picture I took of her chestnut showjumper had been scanned and blown up to a poster size print. Did I lose revenue?  Yes.  Did I smile and ignore it?  Yes.

Life's too short.


----------



## Santa_Claus (9 July 2010)

if you had asked permission i'm sure most togs wouldn't have an issue, if you hadn't would be miffed, even me a amateur would be miffed if a photo was taken (i openly post them on facebook no copyright majority of time as just like to share them) and then used in such a way. 

Had they asked me very quickly "do you mind if I use for xyz" I would say no problems go ahead, takes all of 10 seconds to type and send such a message on facebook for example and when buying a photo at an event even less time.

On the rare occasions (as previously mentioned why  ) when I buy pro pics at events I always without fail ask if I can post them online on facebook and here and the like and not one tog has ever said no provided I give them credit which I always do


----------



## figbat (9 July 2010)

Not only are you breaking the law but also the rules of this very forum.  As has been said, in many cases if you take the time to ask for permission, it may be granted (perhaps with the request for a credit to be included).  However, without this permission you have commited theft and are liable to the consequences.  Strictly speaking, if your mother didn't give your explicit permission to use her pictures, then you are violating her copyright too, although I understand that in most cases such permission amongst family is implicit and would be gladly given.

What you can't and shouldn't do is assume that if one photographer is relaxed about it, they/we all are - this is why it is polite to make sure first.


----------



## MrFigjam (9 July 2010)

figbat said:



			...although I understand that in most cases such permission amongst family is implicit and would be gladly given.
		
Click to expand...

Stuff that!!!   I Made Figjam buy her first images from me that she wanted printed for her desk at work! 
I told her that she was "helping the cause"  

I then Found out she'd used my money from the joint account, but it was the principle of the thing!  lol


----------



## ch70 (9 July 2010)

MrFigjam said:



			Cool.....maybe all businesses should do that.   Dear Nikon, I would like one of your new D3s (rrp £3589) for £1 and a new 300mm f2.8 VR lens (rrp£3999) for £2 please, and I expect these new items to be on your website within a week.  I mean surely they would sell MUCH MORE at that price!!!! <sigh>

Nope.. I'd be asking for Canon! 

Click to expand...


----------



## lizzie_liz (9 July 2010)

MrFigjam said:



			Cool.....maybe all businesses should do that.   Dear Nikon, I would like one of your new D3s (rrp £3589) for £1 and a new 300mm f2.8 VR lens (rrp£3999) for £2 please, and I expect these new items to be on your website within a week.  I mean surely they would sell MUCH MORE at that price!!!! <sigh>

.
		
Click to expand...

That is not what I am saying as you would have to be stupid to think you could ask Nikon if they would sell you £4000 worth of equipment for £1. I am saying do photographers really know what customers want and are actually willing to pay for a photo. I am sure many of us would agree that a printed picture is worth more than £5. But when 7x5 pictures are more than £10 then I am sorry but I won't buy the picture, unless it was a special event I was at. 

We all appreciate photography equipment is expensive and that you need to sell photos to make a living. However if togs are not selling photos they have taken, you have to ask yourselves, why is not selling? Any business would do this. 

Based on what people have said on this thread, I am interpreting the following. People would be willing to pay £1 for a photo suitable for facebook and if they were they would buy all photos taken that day. This in the long run could become more profitable as it would attract more people to buy photos in the first place. Instead of only 10% of competitors buying photos the number buying would rise significantly. But togs could perhaps have a deal that if you only buy one FB photo you pay £3/4 but the more you buy the cheaper each invidual photo becomes, or 5 FB photos for £10.


----------



## aregona (9 July 2010)

thanks for you views, that is certainly a question i will be asking from now on with any purchases made with the possibility of using them online. 
As for my mum, im prity sure it goes without saying that she has taken them for my use and considering the 2 horses belong to her.......i can't see there being  problem


----------



## MegaBeast (9 July 2010)

measles said:



			£1.00 for a Facebook image sounds about right to me and I would buy regularly (if I uploaded photographers photos to Facebook)
		
Click to expand...

ditto this... FB images are an option I've not yet seen available.

I think it would be great if you could pay maybe £15 to get a 7x5 print but included in that would be all the pics taken of you that day as lowish quality digital files.  Quite often I'll look and think yeah they're okay, but there isn't one I'd particularly want however it's nice to have some momentos even if not great.

Showground Photography (Mount Ballan) do a really nice option which is a montage, you select five photos you like and they produce one large print, with a pic in the middle and one in each corner plus wording of your choice across the bottom.  Think it costs £30.

The togs who've contributed to this thread do seem to think more innovatively and offering more affordable options, however I feel they're in the minority as all the ones I've come across to date at shows just offer the normal £10+ per print


----------



## aregona (9 July 2010)

ditto that one megabeast - all mine have been printouts, iv seen a cd or memory stick - never the option of facebook images.


----------



## Kat (9 July 2010)

MrFigjam said:



			Stuff that!!!   I Made Figjam buy her first images from me that she wanted printed for her desk at work! 
I told her that she was "helping the cause"  

I then Found out she'd used my money from the joint account, but it was the principle of the thing!  lol
		
Click to expand...

Love it!  My DH made his own mother pay for a print! And it was nearly her birthday - tight bu99er!!!


----------



## MrFigjam (9 July 2010)

lizzie_liz said:



			That is not what I am saying as you would have to be stupid to think you could ask Nikon if they would sell you £4000 worth of equipment for £1. I am saying do photographers really know what customers want and are actually willing to pay for a photo.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was a little too sarcastic of me.  Apologies.

The thing is, every person wants everything for as little money as they can get it for.  Think about how we haggle when we go to buy a car or something similar.
When we buy a car, we are not concerned about the garage or whether they can afford to sell it at that price or not, we want it as cheap as we can get it.   I think customers have to be listened too, but not as far as price is concerned.

If you are not in the photography industry then there's probably a lot of costs that are unknown.   Some of the comments that are here are just not realistic.

Even if you sold double the amount by offering cheap facebook images you are still going to struggle to make money.  
On Saturday I spent 11 hours at Hopetoun and then spent around 4 hours editing images afterwards.  15hours all togther.   If you take off petrol money, depreciation of camera gear, broadband costs, insurance costs, showground refreshments, payment to organiser etc. then I would probably have to earn minimum £120-140 to cover my costs and make minimum wage (around £5.50ish per hour).  

If you sell the majority of your images as "Facebook Images" then you are going to have to sell a hell of a lot to earn as much money as a paper boy.   

Would you work your butt off for 15 hours if someone was going to steal all your profits?  I'm glad I do it as a supplementary income because I certainly couldn't support myself on that.

This is why images are so expensive.  If only 10 people or so buy an image per event then the cost has to cover the outlay.   Simple demand and supply.  If loads of people bought images then the photographer could afford to price themselves lower because they would still have the volume.

It's a Catch 22 situation.  Nobody will buy images because they are too expensive, and photographer can not lower prices as nobody is buying images.


----------



## EquineImage (9 July 2010)

lizzie_liz said:



			That is not what I am saying as you would have to be stupid to think you could ask Nikon if they would sell you £4000 worth of equipment for £1. I am saying do photographers really know what customers want and are actually willing to pay for a photo. I am sure many of us would agree that a printed picture is worth more than £5. But when 7x5 pictures are more than £10 then I am sorry but I won't buy the picture, unless it was a special event I was at. 

We all appreciate photography equipment is expensive and that you need to sell photos to make a living. However if togs are not selling photos they have taken, you have to ask yourselves, why is not selling? Any business would do this. 

Based on what people have said on this thread, I am interpreting the following. People would be willing to pay £1 for a photo suitable for facebook and if they were they would buy all photos taken that day. This in the long run could become more profitable as it would attract more people to buy photos in the first place. Instead of only 10% of competitors buying photos the number buying would rise significantly. But togs could perhaps have a deal that if you only buy one FB photo you pay £3/4 but the more you buy the cheaper each invidual photo becomes, or 5 FB photos for £10.
		
Click to expand...

Hello,

Yes my camera's have cost £££ however its my bussiness & i want to produce the best to sell & show my work.
I believe we have to move with the times, i'm selling more & more digital jpeg's for digital frames, full-size jpegs & now offer FB & Twitter pictures at £1, I find customers buying pictures & all the FB jpegs, they seem happy & i'm happy


----------



## JazzmanII (9 July 2010)

i have to say, i think the £1 or £3 facebook image is a really really good idea. Where i am based, the photographer at most shows is very good, but according to all the prices on here seems v expensive. I almost always buy photos from him at £15 each or like 5 for £70 and at one 5 day show we brought 21. But this price means i can only buy the very best, and often there are photos you like but not enough to buy, but would happily pay less than a fiver for. so i hope this idea comes more common!!


----------



## Kat (9 July 2010)

How about buy one print and get ALL of the rest of the images of you at facebook size for £1 each. To compliment the £3 facebook image? I bet lots of people would go for that and it would boost levels of sales.


----------



## JazzmanII (9 July 2010)

Katt said:



			How about buy one print and get ALL of the rest of the images of you at facebook size for £1 each. To compliment the £3 facebook image? I bet lots of people would go for that and it would boost levels of sales.
		
Click to expand...

think this a very good idea, even 2 quid would still be fine


----------



## mike weeks (9 July 2010)

MegaBeast said:



			I think it would be great if you could pay maybe £15 to get a 7x5 print but included in that would be all the pics taken of you that day as lowish quality digital files.  Quite often I'll look and think yeah they're okay, but there isn't one I'd particularly want however it's nice to have some momentos even if not great.
		
Click to expand...

Would probably have to be sent on by email if it was at my event




			Showground Photography (Mount Ballan) do a really nice option which is a montage, you select five photos you like and they produce one large print, with a pic in the middle and one in each corner plus wording of your choice across the bottom.  Think it costs £30.
		
Click to expand...

What size print is this?




			The togs who've contributed to this thread do seem to think more innovatively and offering more affordable options, however I feel they're in the minority as all the ones I've come across to date at shows just offer the normal £10+ per print
		
Click to expand...

There are a lot of us that regularly talk about how we can offer different product/services but here is the catch, whatever we do it must make us a profit - all of these stolen images are our profit.

Mike


----------



## EquineImage (9 July 2010)

JazzmanII said:



			i have to say, i think the £1 or £3 facebook image is a really really good idea. Where i am based, the photographer at most shows is very good, but according to all the prices on here seems v expensive. I almost always buy photos from him at £15 each or like 5 for £70 and at one 5 day show we brought 21. But this price means i can only buy the very best, and often there are photos you like but not enough to buy, but would happily pay less than a fiver for. so i hope this idea comes more common!!
		
Click to expand...

I can't speak for other photographers & i won't but i can tell you, if a customer asked me for all their pictures i'd be more than happy to do a deal, to be honest i like to provide a service i'm in this for the long haul & my customers are buying prints & facebook images with a small copyright & (ok facebook) on the image.
Yes i could leave the equestrian photography & just go with the Wedding stuff, but having horses myself & so many lovely customers plus i'd miss the horses ! lol


----------



## Kat (9 July 2010)

I think actually most photographers would rather do a deal and get a sale than miss out completely but in the UK people are very reluctant to haggle. 

It is frustrating being at shows with my husband (an artist) and someone asks you a price, and then just walks off. Especially if they have been umming and ahhhing over two images. 

You always wonder whether if it had been a few quid less you might have got the sale. I would rather someone said if they can't afford something and you can see if you can work something out. 

Maybe we have a smaller cheaper version in the back, or can do a deal on a version we have where the packaging is damaged. Particularly at the end of a show when there aren't likely to be any other sales it is worth asking (although don't take the pee). And with commissions it is certainly worth saying ok so your quote is £500 my budget is £300 is there anything you could do to fit my budget. We'd rather sell something for less than miss a sale all together. 

So if you are looking at your photos and you can't decide between three ask the tog if he can do a discount for buying all three, or can chuck in digital images if you buy one print.


----------



## ch70 (9 July 2010)

I can only add my thoughts here and not those of my employer! 

Running a photography business is no different to any other. The money coming in has to be more than the money going out, end of. If you are selling all your photos at a loss, then you're not going to be around a very long time.

Now some would argue that selling a photo for a pound is a good idea (especially the buyer) and is better than nothing. I don't really agree on the whole. What you are doing in effect is devaluing your product. Now when times are hard, as they are now, people will do pretty much anything to make a few pounds extra, however, when things pick up again the customer is going to expect the prices to continue at that rate.

Lets say we have 4 photographers out on an event plus a couple of people manning the fort taking orders and doing prints. That's 6 people we have to pay. In addition, the cost to get to the venue, the cost of paper we use, ink (wow we use a lot of yellow this time of year!), incidental costs during the day. You would need to sell a lot of images to break even let alone make any money. Let's add to the equation that the weather turns bad half way thorugh the day and no one hangs around after they have competed, how many photos do you think we would sell that day? It's a risk we have to take.

I think the customers believe that photographers earn a lot of money, infact the opposite is true unless you are one of the handfull of people who have been lucky. Most of us scrape our way through and do in part do this job due to enjoying it!

We have an even harder job these days as every Tom, Dick and Mildred (Harry has retired) thinks they can turn up with a compact or consumer range DSLR and suddenly take awesome photos. It isn't going to happen. What differentiates a professional from an amateur is consistency and knowing how to use the equipment. With a compact you might get 1 or 2 hits out of 10 that look OK, with a low end DSLR you might get 5 assuming you have good reactions and know what to shoot. Professionals expect to get 9 or 10 out of 10 on the money, we have to otherwise we won't sell them.

With regard to us in social networking sites such as facebook, if the person has bought the original photo from us and has asked if they can use it then generally there is no issue. If they don't buy anything then continue to use the image online without permission, that would be an issue.

This turned into a slightly longer post that planned!


----------



## EquineImage (9 July 2010)

ch70 said:



			I can only add my thoughts here and not those of my employer! 

Running a photography business is no different to any other. The money coming in has to be more than the money going out, end of. If you are selling all your photos at a loss, then you're not going to be around a very long time.

Now some would argue that selling a photo for a pound is a good idea (especially the buyer) and is better than nothing. I don't really agree on the whole. What you are doing in effect is devaluing your product. Now when times are hard, as they are now, people will do pretty much anything to make a few pounds extra, however, when things pick up again the customer is going to expect the prices to continue at that rate.

Lets say we have 4 photographers out on an event plus a couple of people manning the fort taking orders and doing prints. That's 6 people we have to pay. In addition, the cost to get to the venue, the cost of paper we use, ink (wow we use a lot of yellow this time of year!), incidental costs during the day. You would need to sell a lot of images to break even let alone make any money. Let's add to the equation that the weather turns bad half way thorugh the day and no one hangs around after they have competed, how many photos do you think we would sell that day? It's a risk we have to take.

I think the customers believe that photographers earn a lot of money, infact the opposite is true unless you are one of the handfull of people who have been lucky. Most of us scrape our way through and do in part do this job due to enjoying it!

We have an even harder job these days as every Tom, Dick and Mildred (Harry has retired) thinks they can turn up with a compact or consumer range DSLR and suddenly take awesome photos. It isn't going to happen. What differentiates a professional from an amateur is consistency and knowing how to use the equipment. With a compact you might get 1 or 2 hits out of 10 that look OK, with a low end DSLR you might get 5 assuming you have good reactions and know what to shoot. Professionals expect to get 9 or 10 out of 10 on the money, we have to otherwise we won't sell them.

With regard to us in social networking sites such as facebook, if the person has bought the original photo from us and has asked if they can use it then generally there is no issue. If they don't buy anything then continue to use the image online without permission, that would be an issue.

This turned into a slightly longer post that planned!
		
Click to expand...

Very well said !


----------



## SpottedCat (9 July 2010)

I do think one of the major problems is that photographers see 'lifted' images as a decrease in revenue, but doubtless the person who lifts them doesn't because they never would have bought the picture in the first place - I suppose what I am saying is that if you came up with the silver bullet of gallery software which made it impossible to steal an image, then you wouldn't necessarily see your revenue go up. So therefore how about requesting people link to their images on your site on FB rather than lifting watermarked images? After all, FB (for me) is all about sharing pics with lots of people, and that works well too I think.


----------



## spidge (9 July 2010)

SpottedCat said:



			I do think one of the major problems is that photographers see 'lifted' images as a decrease in revenue, but doubtless the person who lifts them doesn't because they never would have bought the picture in the first place - I suppose what I am saying is that if you came up with the silver bullet of gallery software which made it impossible to steal an image, then you wouldn't necessarily see your revenue go up. So therefore how about requesting people link to their images on your site on FB rather than lifting watermarked images? After all, FB (for me) is all about sharing pics with lots of people, and that works well too I think.
		
Click to expand...

It is a decrease in revenue because why buy it if you can steal it.  Photographers who put "stolen" as part of their watermark see an increase in sales.  Why is that?

Why do I need to rush home and spend 2 hours creating a gallery and uploading to my web site after an event ( which I very typically do so on the same day) because so many people want to see their pictures and relive the day or browse them in the office the next day.  Oh yes Sunday night and all day Monday peak viewing time! What I could do is what for the enquiries to come in and just email some proofs after I've found the chestnut with the white 
socks and the blue numbna that jumped before the gray and after the dun, or was it after the bay.  Oh sorry I don't know the class.

Do you know if I factor in my time, ecommerce costs etc I dont know if there is any profit in a £1 FB image.  Perhaps if the volume was there or there was a minimum order value imposed to make it viable.


----------



## SpottedCat (9 July 2010)

spidge said:



			It is a decrease in revenue because why buy it if you can steal it.  Photographers who put "stolen" as part of their watermark see an increase in sales.  Why is that?

Do you know if I factor in my time, ecommerce costs etc I dont know if there is any profit in a £1 FB image.  Perhaps if the volume was there or there was a minimum order value imposed to make it viable.
		
Click to expand...

Do they really see an increase in sales? That's interesting, I am surprised by that - and if it is true why doesn't every photographer use that tactic - seems pretty simple to me.

If there is no profit in it, then there is no point, as you say. On the other hand, I do think (as I said before) that this is a really odd industry in that you pay the venue for the privilege of being there. I can understand a charge for stands etc, but having a photographer makes a competition more attractive to enter, so I don't really understand that part of the equation.

The weird thing about this whole thread is that the professional photographers seem to think they make little/no profit, which begs the question as to why you do it and how you pay the mortgage. I ask this seriously as someone who runs their own business, and whose rates are based on me only working 2.5 days a week billable time with 6 weeks holiday a year - I know I turn a profit, and I would go back to working for someone if I didn't!


----------



## EquineImage (9 July 2010)

spidge said:



			It is a decrease in revenue because why buy it if you can steal it.  Photographers who put "stolen" as part of their watermark see an increase in sales.  Why is that?

Why do I need to rush home and spend 2 hours creating a gallery and uploading to my web site after an event ( which I very typically do so on the same day) because so many people want to see their pictures and relive the day or browse them in the office the next day.  Oh yes Sunday night and all day Monday peak viewing time! What I could do is what for the enquiries to come in and just email some proofs after I've found the chestnut with the white 
socks and the blue numbna that jumped before the gray and after the dun, or was it after the bay.  Oh sorry I don't know the class.

Do you know if I factor in my time, ecommerce costs etc I dont know if there is any profit in a £1 FB image.  Perhaps if the volume was there or there was a minimum order value imposed to make it viable.
		
Click to expand...

I'm 100% behind what you've written above & i do the same people only see you at events they don't see the hrs we spent in Post on the road & office.
My £1 FB Image was a 30 day Trail which ends of the 16th i'm giving my report to a FB page.
I also send my images i want to protect to a website in the USA & they scan the web looking for my images, once they find the image they send me a report & then they ask for payment & we split the sale or the image is removed, FB will remove my copyright images straight away...


----------



## ch70 (9 July 2010)

SpottedCat said:



			I do think one of the major problems is that photographers see 'lifted' images as a decrease in revenue, but doubtless the person who lifts them doesn't because they never would have bought the picture in the first place - I suppose what I am saying is that if you came up with the silver bullet of gallery software which made it impossible to steal an image, then you wouldn't necessarily see your revenue go up. So therefore how about requesting people link to their images on your site on FB rather than lifting watermarked images? After all, FB (for me) is all about sharing pics with lots of people, and that works well too I think.[/QUOTE

Here is the very problem, people do not see "lifting" an "image" from a website as theft because to many when it is online it is not a "physical" thing. Whether a person would have bought it or not is not the issue, they are making use of something they have not paid for and making it easier for them to do so is not going to make things improve for the photographers. It's like me walkng into Comet and walking off with a TV. I didn't want to buy it but it will look nice in my living room so I took it anyway.

There is no magic bullet for this unfortunately. Even if you stop right clicking and all those things, people can always take a screen print to the computers clipboard then crop the image and save it. All photographers can do is try to protect their investment by:


Making online images low res
Slapping big old copyright messages across them
Using third party companies who specialise in scanning the web for images and then approach any offenders with legal action if required.

The whole FB thing is a real issue (although it's actually any online use, not just facebook). If you allow people to link to your site and to a watermark free image then they will do that, more often than not they will never bother to buy a photo again and people will have nice big libraries of photos they can view that didn't cost them a penny and they are not paying to store.

There has to be some sort of charge and that has to be proportional to the cost of producing that image in the first place. Selling something for £1 is fine at a car boot sale when you have a nice jar of coins but online there will generally always be charges to pay so suddenly your pound becomes 75p.

regarding why I do this? A number of reasons:


I have a love for photography
I love wildlife and animals and as both my wife and 2 daughters ride I have been around horses for a looooong time!
I still get a buzz when someone buys one of my images and compliments me on the quality of the shot!

To be clear, like a lot of event photographers, I do this as a second job. I couldn't earn enough from this to feed myself let alone my family. I have been an IT consultant for the last 21 years which is why I know a lot about the internet!
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Cinnamontoast (9 July 2010)

NiknKia said:



			essentially the copyroght belongs to the phtographer but the IMAGE belongs to me it is me in the pic and as stated above I could buy that pic then tell the photographer to delete the images of me as the rights of the sunject. So if I have paid for an image it belongs to me.
		
Click to expand...

I see your point (hi, Nikki!) but the image remains the intellectual property of the photographer. You have the right to post it if you bought it, obviously, but not the right to use it for other content. 

It's a bit like plagiarism, I suppose. If you buy Harry Potter, it's your book, but you can't reproduce it elsewhere.


----------



## Cinnamontoast (9 July 2010)

Hey Frances, I would forget the £3 and report the picture on FB and speak to the girl's father re potential suing. Obviously, you're not going to sue her for that amount, but no harm in scaring the **** out of her.


----------



## Rambo (9 July 2010)

CH70 you have hit the head on many points there and your experience in IT shows. There is no panacea in terms of a technical solution as there is no bullet-proof way of preventing imGe theft. However, i must disagree with you on one key point....selling something for a pound IS better than not selling something at all...so long as that sale doesn't cost you a pound or more. I would argue that 90% of all the pictures you take have no value...either because the quality is not good, the timing is out, or the competitor just has no intention of ever buying a photo. Surely if you can entice the buyer into parting wiyh something for that photo it is better than nothing !? If not, you have tskrn the photo anyway so you have 'spent' your money on it !? I personally think you need to explore further the concept of a loss leader...for example "Buy an image for £x and for a further £y get low res copies of all the other photo's you wouldn't otherwise have bought". To my mind that is £y gained rather than £z lost


----------



## Frances144 (9 July 2010)

I like that idea.  Hmmm.... off to rethink my pricing strategy.


----------



## MegaBeast (9 July 2010)

mike weeks said:



			What size print is this?
		
Click to expand...

Re the montage print that Showground photography do... I've got one hanging on my wall, think it's either A2 or A3 sized.  It's a really nice momento of a horse trial as I've got pics from the DR, SJ and XC all together and the text across the bottom reads "horses name Mount Ballan BE 2009"


----------



## mike weeks (10 July 2010)

I take it that this print was sent to you later as the largest dye sub print is 12" x 8"

Mike


----------



## Pebble101 (10 July 2010)

Just to add that I rarely buy photographs any more as I have bought so many over the years.  I prefer not to have a frame as mine go into an album and I HATE the cardboard frames they tend to be supplied with (and therefore resent paying for it).  I don't do Facebook and prefer to remain anonymous on the internet so never post photographs of me or my horses.

I have never bought off the internet - all mine have been purchased at the event.  I hate it when you have to look at a computer as there is normally a long queue and I give up waiting so the small prints on the board work best for me (with a look at the computer when buying to crop as necessary).

I now only buy if it is a particularly good one.  I won't buy if my position is naff, I am pulling a face, my horse isn't making a nice shape  etc..  So although you might get lots of people looking there could be valid reasons why they don't like a photograph, and none of them the fault of the photographer.


Off topic but related ......

A few years ago I went to see an exhibition by the photographer Tim Flach.  I was particularly taken by two stunning photographs (they were huge).  Had they been of my horse I would have paid a lot of money for one.  The price - over £4000 per print (but it did include a frame which was very expensive).

I bought his book with the pictures in it instead.


----------



## natalia (10 July 2010)

Rambo- Think thats a brill idea, buy one full price print of the pic you really like and say get up to 5 little jpeg images of the less good ones to go on face book etc. for £1 each either emailed or on to memory stick. That way everyone is a winner and you've sold more photos.


----------



## Frances144 (10 July 2010)

Pebble101 said:



			Off topic but related ......

A few years ago I went to see an exhibition by the photographer Tim Flach.  I was particularly taken by two stunning photographs (they were huge).  Had they been of my horse I would have paid a lot of money for one.  The price - over £4000 per print (but it did include a frame which was very expensive).

I bought his book with the pictures in it instead.
		
Click to expand...

Tim Flach came up to Shetland to photo our ponies for the EQUUS book.  It was him who persuaded me to turn professional!


----------



## ch70 (10 July 2010)

Rambo said:



			CH70 you have hit the head on many points there and your experience in IT shows. There is no panacea in terms of a technical solution as there is no bullet-proof way of preventing imGe theft. However, i must disagree with you on one key point....selling something for a pound IS better than not selling something at all...so long as that sale doesn't cost you a pound or more. I would argue that 90% of all the pictures you take have no value...either because the quality is not good, the timing is out, or the competitor just has no intention of ever buying a photo. Surely if you can entice the buyer into parting wiyh something for that photo it is better than nothing !? If not, you have tskrn the photo anyway so you have 'spent' your money on it !? I personally think you need to explore further the concept of a loss leader...for example "Buy an image for £x and for a further £y get low res copies of all the other photo's you wouldn't otherwise have bought". To my mind that is £y gained rather than £z lost 

Click to expand...

Hi Rambo, thanks for the response. I appreciate your view on the selling price and that's the beauty of a democracy, we can all have different views 

In my mind, as much as you could argue something is better than nothing (in certain situations that is very true) I still hold the line that the cheaper you offer a product the more likely people are to go for the cheap option.

Let's take an example... You do a show and take 11 images of 10 teenagers and 1 adult. You're usual price for a print is say £10. Now the teenagers are generally internet users and want to slap the photo online for their mates to view and are more inclined to want to do that rather than buy a print. So all 10 decide to buy the "FB" special! That makes you a whopping £10! The adult prefers print and buys 1 print at £10... total of £20 for the day for 11 images sold.

If however you don't have the "FB" special, but instead allow people to wack up a small image as long as they buy one of your prints, you only need to sell 1 to a teenager and 1 to the adult make the same money and the customer still generally feels happy as they have got something for nothing. Now you could argue that maybe no one would buy a print but we could go around in circles discussing the different scenarios that might occur.

Now don't get me wrong, I believe we should embrace the online market, I've been building ecommerce and online systems since the early 90's when the WWW was still in nappies and regularly shop online. However there needs to be a way to do that and make it worth while.

Now each one of us "togs" (I sound like a duvet...) has different pricing schemes, provides different sizes of photo on various media and we do that based on what we have found out works for the type of events and type of customer we have. You will never please everyone no matter how competitive your prices or how many variations you offer. Someone will always complain you're too expensive or they want a 10ftx20ft image immediately. Yes from a consumer point of view it would be great for them if every show they went to the photographers sold the same sizes at the same prices but that isn't practicle for many reasons. 

We have a lot of regular customers who are very happy with what they buy and long may that continue. If one person comes up to me at a show and thanks me for a great photo I feel I've done my job


----------



## ch70 (10 July 2010)

Frances144 said:



			Tim Flach came up to Shetland to photo our ponies for the EQUUS book.  It was him who persuaded me to turn professional! 

Click to expand...

Tim has done some great equine portraiture work and is one of those "lucky few" who have made a name for themselves in the equestrian photography world. His abstract images are thought provoking and are in reality "fine art" images you would happily see up on a wall.

However there is a "huge" difference in event photography and studio like portraits. In events we obviouslly get one chance at the shot and have no way to set that up as we might like! That's all part of the fun


----------



## mike weeks (10 July 2010)

Tim is however in a different market from event photographers (the word tog should be banned) and having been to his studio a couple of times and seeing how he works he has a luxery of time that we do not have and it is totally understandle why his images command the price that they do. 

I have however met a few other photographers that also work with a controlled environment to produce equestrian images and again it is a luxery that we do not have. I would understand why many people would want to copy their images from the internet whereas when we are covering an event the market we are aiming for is very small and therefore every stolen image is a loss of revenue. If you steal it you obviously want it and therefore it has a value - what we as photographers must do is find a way of making it pay and for some this means just selling images. Remember photographers are just as much individuals as riders are.

Mike


----------



## lifebythedrop (11 July 2010)

applecart14 said:



			If photographers at events weren't so greedy then maybe more of us would pay to have photos.  If people can download photos or copy paste, get rid of copyright watermarks , enlarge them and print them out and put in a nice frame free of charge then they will continue to do so.  I just don't understand how photographers can justify a cost of £8, £9 or even £10 for a single photo, not when there are 200 people at a fun ride or 220 entries at a one day event for example.  There are some brilliant photographers around, and some are more reasonable than others.  You cannot surely express surprise that people infringe copywright when a) they are given the tools to do so, and b) are continually ripped off by photographers trying to make a fast buck.
		
Click to expand...

I haven't had time to read the entire thread, got top about page 15, but I am afraid the statement above is ridiculous.

My camera cost over 3000 which is nothing compared to the lenses. The camera has an expected lifespan of 300,000 shutter releases (then it will have to be replaced), my insurance is 500 per year for fairly basic insurance.  The toner to run the printer for contact sheets costs about 100 per week. That is before all other running costs.  

I have stood today for many hours in the teams of rain and will now spend most of the night editing and uploading images. The complaints from people if you miss taking a shot of their horse can be quite abusive, which would lead me to believe they want a photographer on site. 

I sometimes receive emails from people asking if there were any more shots of their horse - I email them, never to hear from them again until the images appear on Facebook. By the way we only charge 2 for a low res copy for Facebook - hardly robbery.  

No photographer is forcing people to buy their photos - but stealing them is another matter. Are you are suggesting that is people don't wish to pay then it is OK for them to just steal them?


----------



## mystiandsunny (11 July 2010)

Regarding photos at events, be they SJ/D/whatever - I'll happily have a look at what was taken, but don't need a photo from every event I go to, or the house would be full of them!  So maybe one for the first outing of a youngster, one if we do something new/special, but that's it really.  I don't think £10 is a lot for a photo, think it's probably fair for a print on the day (convenience and all that!), but have no need for the photos themselves - probably similar to other people!  If I could buy the photos that were taken as digital images, I probably would - stored on a computer they don't take up space in the house, and are a record of each competition and our progress.  I understand though that I'd be able to print them myself then, if I wanted to, so no-one would buy the prints on-site.  You could lump all of them for each horse, for a fee so people paid more!

On another note though, it would help if more photographers were able to take card payment, as on the odd occasion where I have liked a photo, I've invariably run out of cash!  Once I'm home, it seems silly to spend £10 on a picture, so I don't bother.


----------



## MegaBeast (11 July 2010)

mike weeks said:



			I take it that this print was sent to you later as the largest dye sub print is 12" x 8"

Mike
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I ordered it off the internet


----------



## walkingman (11 July 2010)

How about black and white versions for online before they buy?

Also, terms and conditions to be accepted before continuing to buy, thus helping to educate the buyers to copyright and giving you the comeback of small claims in the event the photograph is reproduced without permission - enlarging etc.

What do you have in terms of notices about copyright both online and at the events?   What do you have in terms of advertising what you'll do for the customer?  Discounts for bulk buying for example?

Would you be prepared to expand your current income stream and improve the general public's photos for them? For example Photoshop their pictures (where possible), and/or use your equipment to print off their pictures. You'll have access to a high quality resource to do this, which they probably won't.


----------



## juliap (11 July 2010)

I looked at photos after W Wilts last weekend & not all of mine were up despite my time being 3.45 & I didn't leave until 5.30. I know it does take time & I happened to be the first one on the memory card so I guess it was just the timing.

There was one photo I liked & at £10.00 for 9" x 6" I thought it was a fair price but the £3.50 post & packaging seems excessive. It is £0.66 postage for a large letter. Say £0.25 for hard backed A4 envelope ( easy to find at around 10p each if buying in bulk).

That means over £2.50 for putting photo in the envelope! I emailed & offered to send sae but had no response.

Maybe I'm missing something & am happy to be corrected. there is no option to buy digital image either.


----------



## mike weeks (11 July 2010)

Yes you are missing the point about postage. It is not generally easy to have a vast range of prices for differing amounts of prints so personally I balance 2 things the actual postage costs and the time it takes to get the order ready and get to the post office.

Consider this; the post office is a couple of miles from me and if I have to deliver just 1 image I have to package, take to post office wait in queue, get a receipt, travel back home - potentially a half hours work and that at minimumwage is £3 whereas if was actually doing photography I could be earning a lot more.

What I am trying to say is that you are paying for the service and not just the actual cost - at a restaurant you dont just pay for the ingredients.

Mike


----------



## juliap (11 July 2010)

I appreciate it takes time to go to the post office but I doubt it would only be one envelope to post. The prep time would be the same as at the show except for putting it in an envelope. 

I'm in no rush & so wouldn't expect a trip to the PO just for my photo. I still feel £3.50 is excessive & the lack of response to email disappointing.

I've had a look at other photographers p&p charges & most are £1.50 - £2.00. Some say order may take 10 - 20 days which isn't a problem if you know the timescale.


----------



## mike weeks (11 July 2010)

Actually I do get a lot of trips with only 1 or 2 orders to take to the post office but as a further example I get a lot of work delivered from a professional lab where the post is collected from them and they send literaly hundreds of orders per day which reduce their time & effort per order and they are able to buy their packaging much cheaper - and their prices are £5 regardless of order size.

There is another point to this and that is if a photographer is VAT registered they have to charge VAT on this and there is no VAT they can reclaim on the actual postage i.e. 52p of the £3.50 we have to pay to the government and even if the actual postage cost are £1 you are looking at a further 50p in normal tax and then some NI on top of that so maybe you can start to realise how little the photographer is actually taking for providing the service.

Mike


----------



## Frances144 (11 July 2010)

Our most efficient post office (cuts out a day) is 45 minutes away or 25 miles away.  I charge £2.99 for postage and that involves collecting the photo from our nearest town (25 miles away) packing it in a brand new cardboard backed envelope and then posting it.

I also offer free collection.


----------



## mike weeks (12 July 2010)

walkingman said:



			How about black and white versions for online before they buy?
		
Click to expand...

You can get everything else wrong but dont get the colour of the horse wrong so a B&W preview will not be beneficial.




			Also, terms and conditions to be accepted before continuing to buy, thus helping to educate the buyers to copyright and giving you the comeback of small claims in the event the photograph is reproduced without permission - enlarging etc. What do you have in terms of notices about copyright both online and at the events?
		
Click to expand...

Have you not read some of the answers here even when infringers (thieves) have this pointed out to them. Most cant see the big pricing signs so I am sure they would not read a copyright notice.




			What do you have in terms of advertising what you'll do for the customer?  Discounts for bulk buying for example?
		
Click to expand...

Read above about price signs.




			Would you be prepared to expand your current income stream and improve the general public's photos for them? For example Photoshop their pictures (where possible), and/or use your equipment to print off their pictures. You'll have access to a high quality resource to do this, which they probably won't.
		
Click to expand...

I need the time to do my own work and imagine the scenario where I print off somebody elses shot and charge £1 and I charge £10 for my own or can you see Joe Public paying me £10 for printing a 9x6 from their camera phone?

Always good to look at ideas but they have to work.

Mike


----------



## Kat (12 July 2010)

mystiandsunny said:



			On another note though, it would help if more photographers were able to take card payment, as on the odd occasion where I have liked a photo, I've invariably run out of cash!  Once I'm home, it seems silly to spend £10 on a picture, so I don't bother.
		
Click to expand...


Sadly taking payment by card is a hugely expensive business. I have looked into it time and again for my husband's business as we have lost some very big sales due to not being able to accept cards.

People just don't realise how expensive card machines are to buy/rent and run. We accept cash or cheques so I suggest you take your cheque book to shows just in case you want to make any purchases. We can also accept payment via paypal/google checkout over the internet, and theoretically could accept a payment by paypal in person using mobile internet (although there are transaction charges there too).

Realistically photographers may well add transaction fees on if they do have card machines as it eats into their profits so much.


----------



## mike weeks (12 July 2010)

Personally I add the £30 a month it costs me to run a credit card terminal into my overall operating costs, all I need is another 3 sales per month. Yes there is a cost per transaction but this is no different from any online sales system such as paypal. I dont charge extra for the PayPal so why do it for credit cards.

This is not a great expense for a professional photographer and I am surprised that you are still getting photographers turning up at venues without such items. At all the seminars I give it is one of the points that I stress - if you dont give the customer the means to pay it is another lost sale.

Three important points for an event photographer;

1. Quality of Image
2. Suitable product
3. Method of payment

I am surprised also that more organisers are not asking the questions.

Mike


----------



## spidge (12 July 2010)

Katt said:



			Sadly taking payment by card is a hugely expensive business. I have looked into it time and again for my husband's business as we have lost some very big sales due to not being able to accept cards.
		
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on your turnover and whatever you determine your payback point is.  We have one and to be honest would not be without it.  Sure it's £30 a month plus the transaction charges but for convenience and to capture extra sales it's invaluable. Quick, convenient, less agg than schlepping to the bank to pay in cheques, transaction reports, money into my bank rather than my pocket, audit trail is easy for accounting purposes.  Plus I think in many peoples eyes it legitimises your business and provides credibility.


----------



## Kat (12 July 2010)

spidge said:



			I guess it depends on your turnover and whatever you determine your payback point is.  We have one and to be honest would not be without it.  Sure it's £30 a month plus the transaction charges but for convenience and to capture extra sales it's invaluable. Quick, convenient, less agg than schlepping to the bank to pay in cheques, transaction reports, money into my bank rather than my pocket, audit trail is easy for accounting purposes.  Plus I think in many peoples eyes it legitimises your business and provides credibility.
		
Click to expand...

It is something we are looking into at the moment. We've been able to manage so far as we have access to a shared one through a collective we are a member of but there will come a point where we have to bite the bullet and get our own. It is expensive especially when some months you may not use it at all. The show we were at on saturday, two people asked about methods of payment, one whipped out a cheque book the other had the cash, no transactions through a card machine (we didn't have one with us but could do them over the phone if necessary).


----------



## Kat (12 July 2010)

mike weeks said:



			Personally I add the £30 a month it costs me to run a credit card terminal into my overall operating costs, all I need is another 3 sales per month. Yes there is a cost per transaction but this is no different from any online sales system such as paypal. I dont charge extra for the PayPal so why do it for credit cards.

This is not a great expense for a professional photographer and I am surprised that you are still getting photographers turning up at venues without such items. At all the seminars I give it is one of the points that I stress - if you dont give the customer the means to pay it is another lost sale.

Three important points for an event photographer;

1. Quality of Image
2. Suitable product
3. Method of payment

I am surprised also that more organisers are not asking the questions.

Mike
		
Click to expand...

In my experience for the MAJORITY of shows the only question they ask is "can you pay the fee?" preferably upfront six months in advance. 

It is poor business but many shows are more interested in filling all the trade space, and getting photographers that will pay them the maximum rather than having any eye on quality. It is only the very popular events who pick and choose. Sad because chosing carefully would help improve the image of their event and in turn increase visitor numbers, but too often we've been stuck on a trade stand next to the rotary club tombola or someone selling made in taiwan tat.......


----------



## mike weeks (12 July 2010)

These are all useful comments but the one excuse that I have never heard is that I stole the images off of your site because you did not have a card machine with you. At £2 for a facebook image it would not be worth me taking a card.

Mike


----------



## Rambo (12 July 2010)

Just tried to go onto the Spidge website to look for some pics from Felbridge over the weekend and notice that the site is down / not responding today (it was there on sunday but the galleries hadn't been uploaded from saturday). I've noticed quite a lot recently that the site has been down (it's an error 503 - server may be down, too busy or experiencing other problems.....)...and wonder if it's because you are uploading lots of pictures ? I know you're looking at changing your gallery software / provider so it might not be a problem going forward....but wonder if website availablity has become an issue for some (obviously not for the 'thieving scumbag facebook shoplifters' as they can still get 'their' images....but for other genuine customers). Was hoping to find some nice piccies to splash my £3 or so on and help your pension pot to grow a little


----------



## ch70 (12 July 2010)

Just catching up on the last couple of pages of comments. Proves a point I made earlier, people base their opinions of "all photographers" on their experiences with one or two, i.e. they taint all of us with the same brush whether that be a good or bad experience. There is almost an assumption that we all work the same way, sell at the same prices and offer the same services which of course we don't. Lots of factors dictate what each company can offer and what they need to charge to make ends meet.

The second thing is it's obvious that buyers have a very different "perception" of what the value of an image is. Paying £10 for an image for example isn't expensive at all! The idea that just because there are 200 people at a show means that they will all buy a photo and the photographers will all drive home buried in £10 notes is of course daft, if they did there would be no problems! 

As a comparison, my teenage daughter recently had an invite from a studio in London. Some competition she entered gave her the opportunity to have a photo shoot. The preparation, makeup etc was included but the photos were extra, £120 to be precise for a couple of images. In reality I know that some of that money covers the makeup costs etc... as a business has to cover it's costs one way or another. She didn't go, not because I thought it was expensive, I just can't afford to pay that a the moment.

Now a studio has known running costs, can build up a  pipeline of planned work and therefore will know in advance that they will have a minimum return of £nnn. As event photographers of any type of event, not just equestrian, the return is unknown, the running costs vary from location to location and there is an inherent risk involved. The reason we do it is there is a demand for on site, instantly produced images to take away.

Lets say you go to a theme park, there you have to pay £10 for a single, slightly fuzzy, automatically taken image from a theme park ride of four people with their hands in the air screaming! Or £25 for a single antique effect image of their family dressed up to look like they are cowboys in a make shift saloon bar. Well yes people will moan, but they will still buy one, why? To "remind them" of that moment. A picture will bring back memories of a moment in time even when you look at it 10 or 20 years afterwards.

Both my daughters ride and have done for the last 7 or 8 years I guess. I understand the costs of running a horse, travelling, show fees etc... I'm an average family man living each month to the limit of financial collapse! Even before I turned professional on the photography we would buy a couple of images at pretty much every show (in fact largely from the company I now work for!). My daughters have a few photo albums each of photos covering the whole time they have ridden, not to mention a wall covered in rosettes! Why do I buy them? Because I want them to be able to look back on them with their children and re-live those experiences in years to come. Something few of us older people can do due to the lack of photograph opportunities when we were younger. 

So the value of any photograph isn't the paper, the ink, the sweat and toil involved in taking the image, it's in the memory that it contains that makes you smile each time you look at it...


----------



## spidge (12 July 2010)

Rambo, re the website Sunday's gallery from Felbridge is now up.  By way of innovation we extended the £5 for any clear round picture which we have tried recently to the entire day.  We sold double the volume of pictures and ended up roughly where I would have expected money wise.

Reliability wise the web site availability is generally fairly good. I changed the BSJA gallery urls last week to make them unavailable and only available subject to providing name, address etc but then relented and changed them back to the originals.  With my new gallery software I will introduce time limited galleries and insist on registration once I can get this in place.

Saturdays pix are churning away now and should be online some time around 6pm today.  My gallery software only allows me to add a text watermark in one line in one location so I am having to run a separate process to watermark all images first then create and upload the gallery. Not forgetting to make a backup of the images of course!

So thank you, please be patient and my pension pot contribution will have to wait a short while longer.  Sat was an 18 hour day and yesterday about 16 so quite relaxed really.


----------



## pinktiger (12 July 2010)

spidge<  im so sorry you have been subjected to this, it really isnt fair at all!!   i think that we all love to see a photographer at events and love to have a look through the pics after, ofcourse, learning a thing or two by way of education through the images we see!!   I think a sticky on the horse and hound forum with a reminder that 'if we abuse these good people we will eventually lose them', i for one always buy my pics as i am aware that its against  copyright to use the pics without purchase or permission!! But not everyone is aware of this, im sure, and if they had any idea they wouldnt do it, the other ones will do it anyhow and therefor you have to alter your security to protect your business which is a real shame!!!


----------



## spidge (12 July 2010)

Thank you.  It's the way of the world.  What has been very gratifying for me is to sit back and take account of the many many people who have gone out of their way over the last week to get in touch with their thoughts and offering support etc. It has certainly got many people chattering amongst the local SJ community and a few parents looking at their ickle darlings FB accounts.  So the message is communicating across and will continue to do so.  

There are many good, honest and ethical people out there and a lot of them are my customers


----------



## TinselRider (12 July 2010)

I think the message is getting further than you think  Hopefully people will stop stealing copyrighted photos and actually start COMMUNICATING with their local photographers


----------



## spidge (12 July 2010)

Boogles now that it is a cryptic reply. PM and explain yourself please as you have me intrigued.


----------



## Rambo (13 July 2010)

spidge said:



			Rambo, they're up complete with enhanced watermark, nothing too offensive.  

PM me your choice and I'll send you some FB style images to get your thoughts.

http://www.spidge.co.uk/2010_Gallery/Equestrian/BSJA/Seniors/Felbridge/Saturday_10th_July_2010/

Click to expand...

Some super shots there of Bo on the saturday....have PM'd you with details of some of them....would like to compare low-res with and without watermark before deciding which to go for though 

Hope it was a fruitful weekend for you...and even my OH noticed the new pricing strategy so well done.


----------



## mystiandsunny (13 July 2010)

You know those keyring things - do you think it would be possible to ask about having the same mini photos but without the keyring?  Same price....?  I love the mini pictures but once in a keyring they can't go in an album or anything, and when used, the keyring breaks/gets wet etc and the photos are lost.  Most of our local photographers do them.


----------



## mike weeks (13 July 2010)

mystiandsunny said:



			You know those keyring things - do you think it would be possible to ask about having the same mini photos but without the keyring?  Same price....?
		
Click to expand...

This should not be difficult for most photographers and as this thread has shown us photographers can also learn from our customers. Are you thinking of a sheet of 4 or 8 of these images?

Mike


----------



## spidge (13 July 2010)

Rambo your pix of Bo with Louise onboard are with you by email, please confirm receipt as not sure I have your most recent address.  

They're FOC by the way, thank you for your efforts on the forum, kept various people amused defacing your images.  Still no silver bullet so it seems.


----------



## TinselRider (13 July 2010)

Spidge all I meant was word is getting round photographers my way  and of course onto FB as there is the group of people pledging not to post copyrighted piccis.


And also as I said if people actually talked to their local photographers more it helps all parties involved


----------



## rotters13 (13 July 2010)

Just so you know I am now emailing all photographers whom I like to see if they do the option of facebook images. (Although have received RIDICULOUS prices! £15?) What do you charge?


----------



## spidge (13 July 2010)

£3 low res watermarked, £5 low res non watermarked, £15 high res jpeg.

To be honest I am unlikely to drop much on these prices, well I might for orders in excess of 5+.  I know I definitely did for the young lady who ordered 25 FB images from me.

The dilemma for the photographer is twofold.  It is to balance the loss of income from not selling a print at £10 for a 6x9 print which seems to be a generic price nationwide if one had to choose a benchmark figure against selling a FB suitable image for £3 that will display well on a computer screen or PDA but not print well.  If the quality of the low res jpeg is too high then you can get a reasonable print from it even on a home laser.

My site explicitly says suitable for FB etc but not printing yet I am still getting customers mail me saying these don't print well to A4 size.  Well duhhh... It's all about expectations, if you want a decent A4 size print then pay for it.

Boogles thank you for the explanation.  Yes I think word is spreading and more people are talking to their photographers about products, pricing etc.  It would be a shame to see equine photographers on the endangered species list!


----------



## EdRyder (13 July 2010)

I do some event photography occasionally to help feed my camera equipment addiction. I'd echo what others have said that £10 for a print is not expensive when you consider the camera and lens costs (possibly £2.5k or more if you do indoors in the winter without a flash), time, travelling, software etc.
I don't buy the idea that if prints were cheaper we'd sell more and people would steal less. My photos are quite a lot cheaper than elsewhere as I don't do it purely for a living and my overheads are small (internet only ordering, 3rd party printing etc) and I don't sell many (if any) more than the numbers mentioned here. If you make things too cheap then they are perceived as having little value and the profit margins become so slim it's not worth going out in the first place. I do some competing locally and am disappointed when a photographer is not there but I can understand why.
The argument that just selling jpgs should be much cheaper has to be countered with that by selling the image electronically you are losing potential sales (especially at larger print sizes where the biggest margin is) and multiple sales, unless you sell them at quite a low resolution.

I agree that BSJA shows can be a bust - unaffiliated local shows are usually more profitable.

For watermarking I use pictureshark before uploading to my site. There's always a balance to be struck between spoiling the image for people ripping it off and making it so difficult to see that no-one buys it anyway.
It makes me laugh that people will spend hours removing a watermark instead of just spending £10 to buy it - how much is their time worth?

Ed


----------



## Mike007 (14 July 2010)

I always thought that horsey types were generaly poor at business and out of touch with reality but you Horse photographers seem to have taken it to a new level."Yes I think word is spreading and more people are talking to their photographers about products, pricing etc. It would be a shame to see equine photographers on the endangered species list!".Good grief!A good equine photographer should have no problem staying in business providing they understand who and where their market is and what the customer wants and is prepared to pay for.The photographer should be the one actively seeking to understand the market,not the otherway round.


----------



## walkingman (14 July 2010)

ch70 said:



			Just catching up on the last couple of pages of comments. Proves a point I made earlier, people base their opinions of "all photographers" on their experiences with one or two, i.e. they taint all of us with the same brush whether that be a good or bad experience. There is almost an assumption that we all work the same way, sell at the same prices and offer the same services which of course we don't. Lots of factors dictate what each company can offer and what they need to charge to make ends meet.
		
Click to expand...

Yep and this is demonstrated very well by the following. I've lost any sympathy 



mike weeks said:



			You can get everything else wrong but dont get the colour of the horse wrong so a B&W preview will not be beneficial.
		
Click to expand...

Spurious.



mike weeks said:



			Have you not read some of the answers here even when infringers (thieves) have this pointed out to them. Most cant see the big pricing signs so I am sure they would not read a copyright notice.
		
Click to expand...

Dismissive reply and doesn't address the small claims point.



mike weeks said:



			Read above about price signs.
		
Click to expand...

Again dismissive but nothing else.



mike weeks said:



			I need the time to do my own work and imagine the scenario where I print off somebody elses shot and charge £1 and I charge £10 for my own or can you see Joe Public paying me £10 for printing a 9x6 from their camera phone?

Always good to look at ideas but they have to work.

Mike
		
Click to expand...

Again, not really considering the suggestion.

You don't want any suggestions to facilitate your business, you think you know it all already.  You're probably one of those people that's only happy when they've got something to complain about.  Good luck with that attitude.


----------



## ch70 (14 July 2010)

Mike007 said:



			I always thought that horsey types were generaly poor at business and out of touch with reality but you Horse photographers seem to have taken it to a new level."Yes I think word is spreading and more people are talking to their photographers about products, pricing etc. It would be a shame to see equine photographers on the endangered species list!".Good grief!A good equine photographer should have no problem staying in business providing they understand who and where their market is and what the customer wants and is prepared to pay for.The photographer should be the one actively seeking to understand the market,not the otherway round.
		
Click to expand...

Most of the photographers on here have been working in this business many many years. They have over that time worked out what their customers want and have been providing that. I have worked in product innovation for some very large corporates over the years so I know about market research campaigns and product variations. Good photographers will always be listening to their customers and also taking note of market trends.

The problem here is not the same at all, it's generally not that the photographers are not providing what the customer requires. It's that the customer expects something for nothing. There is a "market value" for photographic images and in reality the photos sold at events are already generally a lot lower priced. If you scan the net for the cost of a portraits for example you will see that you pay approx £40 + for one 8x10 image. 

The market is the same, the delivery of the product is what has changed. People wanted to buy online for the convenience and flexibility that it provides them. So the photographers have provided that, however that has then led to the very issue this thread was started for. The advent of Facebook (not to say this wasn't happening before FB but the visibility is exponentially higher now) be it good or bad has led to considerable copyright breaches and "potential" loss of income.

Although it must be said, a majority of customers do buy images, it's a small number who abuse the system and they will always do whatever they can to justify why they do that.


----------



## George Michie (14 July 2010)

Mike007 said:



			I always thought that horsey types were generaly poor at business and out of touch with reality but you Horse photographers seem to have taken it to a new level."Yes I think word is spreading and more people are talking to their photographers about products, pricing etc. It would be a shame to see equine photographers on the endangered species list!".Good grief!A good equine photographer should have no problem staying in business providing they understand who and where their market is and what the customer wants and is prepared to pay for.The photographer should be the one actively seeking to understand the market,not the otherway round.
		
Click to expand...


Here's another facebook comment relating to some of mine




			laura really good photos, how do you get them off copywrite and on to fb?? i cant do it!! lol
		
Click to expand...

It's not to do with understanding the market, it's to do with preventing theft but I'm starting to get the feeling that you either don't understand that or, more likely, don't care.

Edit: That should really read it's not ONLY to do with understanding the market. But, if you've disabled right click, provided multiple product options which do sell, give customers low cost face book options and they still take screen prints I'm not sure what else a photographer can do??!!.


----------



## burtie (14 July 2010)

I have one local photographer that I nearly always buy at least 1 photo from, yet very rarely any others. I buy from her because she'll email me the full quality original image for £5 or a full set of all taken for I think(£35) on CD. Almot all the others won't sell the full quality image at all or charge around £40, I won't pay this unless the photo is some kind of amazing thing and as yet have not seen this so never but at all.

Given that every event seems to have a photographer these days and most people can't afford to spend much on photograhy I think it is definately better to go for the sell more cheap option than sell few/none at higher prices.


----------



## Mike007 (14 July 2010)

Let me give you an analogy. 
When I go to a show,part of my day out is a cup of tea and a Burger (with onions). I want a reasonable burger at a fair price and not to have to queue for long. I do not want a resturant meal. If I go to a resturant I will choose the time and place,and I cant afford to do this often. I also dont expect to have to pay a resturant price for my burger.
    I would be very upset to arrive at a show and find that only resturant food or gourmet posh burgers at resturant prices ( and a very slow queue) were on offer.I would probably steal a couple of bread rolls and walk off in a huff.
    I have just been looking at some proof photos from a sponsored ride I went to last year,as I wondered why I never bought a photo. I quickly remembered why. Because they were the equvalent of a cheap nasty burger,badly cooked, which arrived stale and all at a high class resturant price.To cap it all the cook thinks he is a great resturanteur.


----------



## George Michie (14 July 2010)

Mike007 said:



			Let me give you an analogy. 
When I go to a show,part of my day out is a cup of tea and a Burger (with onions). I want a reasonable burger at a fair price and not to have to queue for long. I do not want a resturant meal. If I go to a resturant I will choose the time and place,and I cant afford to do this often. I also dont expect to have to pay a resturant price for my burger.
    I would be very upset to arrive at a show and find that only resturant food or gourmet posh burgers at resturant prices ( and a very slow queue) were on offer.I would probably steal a couple of bread rolls and walk off in a huff.
    I have just been looking at some proof photos from a sponsored ride I went to last year,as I wondered why I never bought a photo. I quickly remembered why. Because they were the equvalent of a cheap nasty burger,badly cooked, which arrived stale and all at a high class resturant price.To cap it all the cook thinks he is a great resturanteur.
		
Click to expand...

So, to summarise, you condone theft?


----------



## Mike007 (14 July 2010)

George Michie said:



			So, to summarise, you condone theft?
		
Click to expand...

 If that is all you managed to draw from the analogy ,no wonder you photographers are having problems.


----------



## spidge (14 July 2010)

Easy Mike, I was just going to add that I did not think you were inferring or implying that.

What I thought you were saying was perhaps that you felt some photographers get carried away with their own importance, pricing etc when in reality the product of image and product that they are producing does not in fact justify their own opinion of themselves or certainly their pricing.

Most equine togs are small outfits so although we have similarities, we are not in fact all the same.  Surely this thread has demonstrated that a lot of photographers are in fact really innovative and responsive to their customers needs, expectations etc.


----------



## George Michie (14 July 2010)

edit: never mind, not worth it


----------



## Mike007 (14 July 2010)

I absolutely agree with you spidge.I know two equine photographers with entirely different styles. One is a seeker of elegant portrait photos (and is very good at it). The other is more of a hunter,after the action shots ,and he gets some remarkable photos. Both are innovative and realistic. Both apply a huge amount of skill and hard work.Unfortunately there are also some awfull "picture takers"out there.
    The public have been so inundated with photos on the internet.I wonder how many hundreds of thousands appear on the internet each weekend.Is it any wonder that they have been devalued.It is as much theft to charge your mobile phone at work,as to steal a television .Some people are naturaly theives,but they are fortuntely a very small minority, If a business is suffering a lot from theft ,the first question should be ,what am I doing wrong , what have I missed,rather than why has everyone suddenly become dishonest.
    Facebook is a very immediate form of social interaction . The value of an immage to your clients ,for facebook dimminishes rapidly with time.If Facebook is how your clients interact with their friends ,they want immages FAST. This is why some will simply post copyrighted images,or spend time(10 minutes at best) cleaning up your immages.Sure ,it is wrong but it is a matter of perspective. 
    I hadnt realised until a couple of nights ago ,just how immediate facebook is to some younger people. A couple of pigs got loose from a farm next door to a yard I was visiting . So we went and rounded them up. By the time we got back,the YO,s daughter had already got our pig hunting on facebook.


----------



## spidge (14 July 2010)

Mike007 said:



			Unfortunately there are also some awfull "picture takers"out there.
    The public have been so inundated with photos on the internet.I wonder how many hundreds of thousands appear on the internet each weekend.Is it any wonder that they have been devalued.It is as much theft to charge your mobile phone at work,as to steal a television .Some people are naturaly theives,but they are fortuntely a very small minority, If a business is suffering a lot from theft ,the first question should be ,what am I doing wrong , what have I missed,rather than why has everyone suddenly become dishonest.
    Facebook is a very immediate form of social interaction . The value of an immage to your clients ,for facebook dimminishes rapidly with time.If Facebook is how your clients interact with their friends ,they want immages FAST. This is why some will simply post copyrighted images,or spend time(10 minutes at best) cleaning up your immages.Sure ,it is wrong but it is a matter of perspective.
		
Click to expand...

Agree that there is an avalanche of images but the customer is more discerning because of this avalanche.  Why do togs web site viewing stats show hundreds of visits for an event but relatively few conversions into sales? Good images are highly valued, hence the widespread theft that occurs on pro togs web sites.  What am I doing wrong?  If I provide comprehensive coverage of an unaffiliated showjumping day for example and a competitor competes in a couple of classes and maybe gets through to a jumpoff, he may have 20 images to choose from and 6-8 that he really wants.  He buys 1, maybe 2 at the show or simply elects to copy them all off the website later that evening.  So I provide good quality images, onsite printing, a wide choice of price points and products and the images are loaded onto my site the same day typically, to capture the immediacy that you spoke about.

Please tell me what I am doing wrong other than perhaps making the mistake of putting them on tinternet at all?  

"Sure ,it is wrong but it is a matter of perspective"   Sorry my perspective remains that it is shoplifting and I am taking very deliberate steps to address this and will continue to do so.


----------



## EdRyder (14 July 2010)

One of the good things about buying photos is that you pretty much know what you are getting beforehand (imagine if you got to taste your burger before deciding to buy it!). If you don't think the images are any good or that they are overpriced (or you don't like the photographer for some random reason) don't buy them.

It's the whole ethos that "well I don't like that enough to spend money on it, but I'll have it for nothing" that doesn't sit well. Either it's good and pay for it or it isn't so don't have it. If your mate took something just as good or better from the crowd that's ace, use theirs then. 
The argument of "well I wouldn't have bought it anyway" is used for all types of media - music, films, games etc especially on the internet and there's not really any way of getting beyond that attitude, and it's true that not every ripped image on FB translates as a lost sale. It's when people start taking the mick and have hundreds of ripped photos where it gets annoying I'd imagine.

The Amazon model of selling in bulk at cheap prices is quite a risky choice if your livelihood depends on it (I'm lucky in that mine doesn't). It also doesn't change the buyer's expectations of it - I was contacted once by someone who had paid £5 for a 8x6 and was very disappointed that I hadn't photoshopped out all of the crowd from the background (before anyone asks why I had the crowd in the first place it was either that or a seriously back-lit horse  )!
At the end of the day there's not really much that can be done about people using images once they're on the internet (you ask for them to get taken down and they'll pop up somewhere else 5mins later) so I don't tend to look for my pics on facebook as I'd just get annoyed.

Ed


----------



## Mike007 (14 July 2010)

As a matter of interest,how old do you think the average age of your picture pirates is?


----------



## dominobrown (14 July 2010)

I haven't read all of this thread, cba to be honest, but do photgraphers mind if I post a link to their website? I have done this on another post, but I have bought the picture too.


----------



## Mike007 (14 July 2010)

You are quite entitled to post a link,though one post earlier suggested you wern,t. You may not be entitled to copy a book ,but you are certainly entitled to give directions to Foyles bookstore.


----------



## ch70 (15 July 2010)

I have to admit I have been bewildered by some of the comments I have read here. Some seem to indicate that the photographers are somehow to blame for all this, other comments seem to indicate that because people want something fast they should just take it and then there are sweeping generalisations about quality.

Common sense tells you that in any market you are going to get good and bad. There will be people starting out, learning the trade and those who have been doing it for donkeys (or horses) years. As such you are going to encounter a wealth of styles and qualities of product.

On top of that and often more importantly, it doesn't matter how good a photographer you are, how well framed, exposed and tack sharp your images are, if the subject of that image looks like a bag of spuds being thrown over a garden fence the photo is not going to be too impressive. That's not to say you won't sell it, it just won't win any awards. How many times has a person come up and said, "Oh look at my face, the expression is awful!" or "The horses shape looks terrible, look at the legs, they aren't tucked up very well at all!" Not much I can do about that I'm afraid.

Often you have little control over the backgrounds, not every venue has a nice line of green trees you can use as a nice backdrop and even if there is, the position of the sun is going to effect the direction you can shoot at any particular time of day.

Anyway, in the end there is "Choice". The customer has the choice whether to buy the product, not to buy it or to steal it. No one holds their arms behind their backs and forces them to do any of those things.

I still believe this is very much a cultural issue. The "net" generation has grown up with the internet, file sharing, emailing of files, instant messenging etc... and to them it is normal. They believe rightly or wrongly that there is nothing wrong in sharing whatever they have with anyone else and probably most do not even realise the consequences of doing so.

Do I think offering an option for a low quality digital image will solve the copying issue, no I don't. You might make a few extra sales and there is no harm in at least offering that. However, the vast majority of people who copy these images still won't buy them, especially if they can get something for free, even if it has a great big copyright notice across it!


----------



## ch70 (15 July 2010)

dominobrown said:



			I haven't read all of this thread, cba to be honest, but do photgraphers mind if I post a link to their website? I have done this on another post, but I have bought the picture too.
		
Click to expand...

I don't see any issue in providing a link to a page that contains that image, but that's my view. The only time I would imagine there could be an issue (dependant entirely on the views of the owner of that image) is if you were to embed that image in another page directly using deep linking (incase you've never heard of it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_linking).

I woulld say the best bet is always to drop the owner of the image a quick email and make sure they are OK with that.


----------



## Mike007 (15 July 2010)

Dear photographer, please understand that you cannot compose real life the way you compose a picture through a viewfinder. Human nature is human nature. Suggesting that someone will steal an image if they cannot get it fast enough ,is not the same as suggesting they should. Please dont bleat that it is all wrong and someone should make it stop.You are the one that starts off with sole control of that immage. The loss of control is entirely through choices you have made.If you dont like the result dont do it.


----------



## EdRyder (15 July 2010)

Download a copy of The Hurt Locker and then tell the movie studio that


----------



## fltogger (15 July 2010)

Mike007 said:



			As a matter of interest,how old do you think the average age of your picture pirates is?
		
Click to expand...

varies hugely from teenagers up to mothers in their late 40s.




			Dear photographer, please understand that you cannot compose real life the way you compose a picture through a viewfinder. Human nature is human nature. Suggesting that someone will steal an image if they cannot get it fast enough ,is not the same as suggesting they should. Please dont bleat that it is all wrong and someone should make it stop.You are the one that starts off with sole control of that immage. The loss of control is entirely through choices you have made.If you dont like the result dont do it.
		
Click to expand...

suggest that to the film and music industry would you, id be interested to hear what they say to that.

and as i said previously - THE PHOTOGRAPHER IS NOT THE ONE IN THE WRONG, THE PEOPLE STEALING THE IMAGES ARE.

next youll be saying that a burglar is entitled to the goods in a house if they manage to get into it..



dominobrown said:



			I haven't read all of this thread, cba to be honest, but do photgraphers mind if I post a link to their website? I have done this on another post, but I have bought the picture too.
		
Click to expand...

wouldnt have a problem posting a link to a page with the image on, however as said above hotlinking is frowned upon by many websites (not just photographers) and many disable it due to it hammering traffic to webservers.


----------



## dominobrown (15 July 2010)

I don't want to be in the wrong. I buy pictures if I like them, but sometimes (and its nobodys fault), I look at the pictures and decide they are not worth buying. One event they didn't have any pictures of the horse at a fence, just cantering so I am not buying a picture of that. 
I also never relised photgraphers make so little money, and I was talking to one the other day and was shocked how much the printer and the printer cartridges cost! In the future I will support the photgrapher by buying a picture if it nice


----------



## fltogger (15 July 2010)

dominobrown said:



			I also never relised photgraphers make so little money, and I was talking to one the other day and was shocked how much the printer and the printer cartridges cost! In the future I will support the photgrapher by buying a picture if it nice 

Click to expand...

see now its comments like that i like to read, hopefully this thread has served a purpose 

we spent a total of 34 hours shooting this weekend, we busted our behinds (still are busting our behinds sorting through 6-7k of photos) and had a larger initial outlay of costs than usual.. to see a large amount of those taken without permission would seriously dent our finances and/or make us reconcider covering equestrian events.


----------



## ch70 (15 July 2010)

Mike007 said:



			Dear photographer, please understand that you cannot compose real life the way you compose a picture through a viewfinder. Human nature is human nature. Suggesting that someone will steal an image if they cannot get it fast enough ,is not the same as suggesting they should.
		
Click to expand...

Mike, I'm really not sure what planet in our solar system you live on, but I'm not convinced it's Earth. You are suggesting that as a race it is within our nature to steal? Well I hate to break that mould but I don't go around taking what is not mine, neither do my children. Why? because I had morals instilled in me as a child and I have done the same with my children as do the majority of people I would hope.



Mike007 said:



			Please dont bleat that it is all wrong and someone should make it stop.You are the one that starts off with sole control of that immage. The loss of control is entirely through choices you have made.If you dont like the result dont do it.
		
Click to expand...

What a load of old tosh. I really can not comprehend the motivation behind any of your comments to be honest. I'm not sure whether you are simply trying to stir up emmotions or genuinely believe what you have written. Why are you so passionately defending the behaviour of these people?  

It seems you are happy to completely ignore the numours statements on here about the "Legality" of copyright infringement (it is against the law plain and simple) and continue to believe in your mind that it is the photographers fault for putting the images online, something we have done to respond to the desires of our law abiding customers. Putting something in front of a persons nose does not give them the right to take it.


----------



## Mike007 (15 July 2010)

fltogger said:



			varies hugely from teenagers up to mothers in their late 40s.



suggest that to the film and music industry would you, id be interested to hear what they say to that.

and as i said previously - THE PHOTOGRAPHER IS NOT THE ONE IN THE WRONG, THE PEOPLE STEALING THE IMAGES ARE.

next youll be saying that a burglar is entitled to the goods in a house if they manage to get into it..



.
		
Click to expand...

Do you leave your house unlocked when you go out.I think not. If people are walking off with your posessions ,lock the door. 
    It truely doesnt matter if you are in the right. They will still bankrupt you if you let them. CH70,I am hardly defending the behaviour of these people,
(who incidently to a large part are minors)I am somthing you clearly are not.A realist. I know I am not going to change human nature so I would make it as hard as possible for someone to steal from me.If you choose to leave your posessions out in the street,why are you so surprised when people walk off with them.


----------



## fltogger (16 July 2010)

Mike007 said:



			Do you leave your house unlocked when you go out.I think not. If people are walking off with your posessions ,lock the door.
		
Click to expand...

burglars have picks for locks and bricks for glass.

would you please move on from securing the images rather than persuing those actually breaking the law.. short of phoning the heads of every operating system and asking them to remove the screenshot feature from their software we (the photographers) have done everything in our power in that regard.

unfortunately i dont have steve jobs (etc) direct dial..


----------



## mike weeks (16 July 2010)

walkingman said:



			You don't want any suggestions to facilitate your business, you think you know it all already.  You're probably one of those people that's only happy when they've got something to complain about.  Good luck with that attitude.
		
Click to expand...

Actually I am probably doing more to adapt my business and help other photographers with their business than you will ever know. I did not dismiss everything out of hand, they were all considered replies with justifications about a market that I have a relatively good understanding about - I operate a business and if you had read the whole thread from where I joined you will see that I have actively discussed how we as photographers can improve (I never said I understood it all and I am happy to take on board good ideas), so I suggest that the only one made happy by complaining is facing you in the mirror. I will benefit from much of what I have read in this thread and will approach any changes with an appropiate attitude - its not about luck.

Mike


----------



## spidge (16 July 2010)

Well who would have thought that this thread would get to 400 contributions and nearly 20000 viewings. I hope it has achieved something in all manner of ways for a great deal of people, I know I shall reread this next week and digest the nuts and bolts of it to ascertain if there is anything further I can glean to implement in my own business operation.

My sincere thanks for all ( well most ;-) contributions ) and I guess this thread can now be laid to rest as it seems to have run out of steam


----------



## MrFigjam (16 July 2010)

fltogger said:



			see now its comments like that i like to read, hopefully this thread has served a purpose 

Click to expand...

Yes, but the important part of that message is "if it is nice!"

If photographers produce nice pictures and products, people will buy them.  (people will steal them too but that's another point)  

The most important thing to every photographer should be to get the highest quality picture they can.  The people who steal will always steal but at least if the people who don't normally buy, buy a couple of prints then it's worthwhile.


----------



## kit279 (16 July 2010)

Alright, I'm going to have my say on this one too (albeit late to the party).  Mike007 is being realistic - the people who copy and paste are by and large very young, very social media savvy and very unaware of things like having to pay the mortgage.  It's a good thing that they learn the consequences of their actions.  Rather like when you buy a £1 t-shirt from Poundland and are then surprised to find that it was made by child slaves somewhere horrendous.  However, just as Tesco's factor in an inevitable degree of shoplifting into their accounts despite their security guards etc, the photographer is going to have to be realistic - no matter what you do, some people are going to pinch your images, watermark or not.  The only way around this is making the image too blurry to be worth anything. FWIW, the best software I've seen is Imagepoint - you can see the photos enough to see whether you like them but the quality is too bad to make it possible to screen capture them.

I buy music from iTunes because it's 99p a track and it's unbelievably easy to click buy and have instantaneous gratification.  I have probably spent about £100 over 12 months doing this off and on and I bet I'm not the only one.  If I could do the same and have a nice copy of a photo for Facebook, I would do so - from my perspective, your sales would go up if you offered this.  If the photo is really nice, I will buy a print for posterity regardless.


----------



## spidge (16 July 2010)

The only way not get images images stolen is not to put them on tinternet in the first place, just as the only guaranteed way not to get pregnant etc.  Hey but where's the fun in that?

Yes some people do have a price point at which they will buy.  The consensus on here gathered from a recent thread I posted on this very subject was £3.  Yes your right about the social  media savvy, typically young etc.  But one thing is very obvious to me.  Most people know that it is wrong and illegal, without me having to point it out.

I have messaged several people via FB this week who have had anything from 20-100 of my images on their pages.  None have denied it, protested or said they didn't realise it was wrong.  All have been offered 10 images free if they agree to stop doing it in future.  A couple have said they didn't realise how the images got on there ( no I'm sorry I don't know either).  A couple even agreed to buy the images rather than remove them.  One a livery yard owner, BSJA rider and dealer chose not to respond.  I am sure FB will be more responsive.

We as photographers have to factor in these thefts.  We need to decide what we consider to be acceptable.  My web site sales are on a par with what I consider to be some  exceptionally good photographers. Better even than a lot of other photographers. What I also know is that I have not sold several thousand images via my web site over the last year.  Yet there appear to be that many out there that have been shoplifted from my web site.  I am seeing the issue at all levels from social events, through pony club, unaffiliated, affiliated through to riding clubs and eventers. At all age groups, don't be persuaded that this is just a teenage thing.  If we as photographers were deriving even a moderate income of £1 per image that is shoplifted I would be a lot happier.  Right now I feel that some many riders are frankly just taking the p*ss out of photographers and treating them fairly poorly.  How many times have my staff been asked " these pictures will be on the internet won't they?"  Then the viewing stats show dozens of people spending time of the galleries but few sales.

The bottom line: tomorrows pony club event won't be on the internet, let's see what that does to onsite sales!


----------



## mike weeks (21 July 2010)

This is a subject that appears to be taking off all over;

There is Facebook page that has been created to highlight the problem of copyright theft by the scanning of images. The idea is it to try and get as many photographers as possible to join, so their friends will see the link, maybe view the page and realise that they could be breaking the law. Many people will scan images knowing they are breaking the law and won't care, but very many also believe because they have bought a picture they have bought the rights to do what they want with it. I'm just trying to think of a way to raise the public awareness.

Paul Rogers one of the countries most respected event photographers is trying to turn this into a national campaign to raise public awareness. Many photographers will be putting literature in bags or on stickers on the back of prints to try and raise awareness. Anyway if you would like to help please join the Facebook page, and if you would like to have a copy of the logo for your website just drop him an email at admin@pellier.co.uk

Please feel free to join if you wish
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=120466621333069&v=wall 

Mike


----------



## TGM (21 July 2010)

Many of the competition venues have their own Facebook pages, so perhaps put the link on some of those to bring it to the attention of the competitors.


----------



## Mike007 (21 July 2010)

" but very many also believe because they have bought a picture they have bought the rights to do what they want with it. I'm just trying to think of a way to raise the public awareness."

The great thing about a public awareness campaign is....that it raises public awareness. Unfortunately the public might just not agree with the position put forward. If as you suggest ,mike, a great number of people believe that if they have bought a picture ,they have bought the right to display it how they choose,including on the internet.I would suggest,that in addition there are also a great number of people who believe they cant,but consider this moraly wrong.If the public choose, the law will be changed.


----------



## PaulSands (21 July 2010)

Eriskayowner said:



			There is a way of disabling right click (and therefore save picture as ) on websites bit I can't remember the coding. Of course the more determined can still print screen and crop, but you could put a massive watermark across the whole image with "stolen from www.abc.com"?!
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for those in the know it is easy enough to bypass that bit of code


----------



## MegaBeast (21 July 2010)

Mike007 said:



			" but very many also believe because they have bought a picture they have bought the rights to do what they want with it. "
		
Click to expand...

Surely if they're not using it for financial gain then there's no need for photographers to get het up about it?  Many have come on here saying they'd be happy for purchased images to be published on forums/facebook if people would just ask permission so why not simply change your copyright policy to include this?  Fair enough have to pay/ask permission for it to be used in an advert.


----------



## MegaBeast (21 July 2010)

I put this on the other thread Spidge started but having not had a reply thought I'd put it on here as think it's a point that nobody has raised.  I was think the other day about  the old days of paper proofs and how back in the day you'd have paper proofs posted out to you after which the photographer lost control of the proof and people were free to show the proof to family, friends, pin on the wall in the tackroom/office etc and then buy any particularly good prints. This is similar to what's happening now with people liberating these little watermarked images from websites, it's just due to the web photographers can see the use people are making of these proofs, I honestly believe nothing has changed and you can make it totally impossible for people to get images off your websites but it won't increase/generate sales/revenue.

I freely admit I have liberated pro shots, but I also buy several shots from pretty much every show at great cost. Okay this doesn't give me the right to effectively steal but all I'm doing is all I would have done ten years ago with paper proofs. Ie had every shot of me in miniature with a watermark in my possession for my personal usage and buy the shots that I particularly like. Even if I couldn't get these small proofs I still wouldn't buy any more photos.

So in my mind you're barking up the wrong tree, yes it's wrong, but equally I believe the majority of those who take the images wouldn't buy them so you're not losing out, all you're doing is giving yourself a headache due to unnecessary worry. I truly believe that the lower sales you may be seeing are due to the advent of the digital age, both camcorders and stills, as any joe bloggs can now get a reasonable shot, maybe not an outstanding pro shot but adequate for their needs.

Just to clarify, by using "you" I don't mean you personally, but pro photographers in general.


----------



## Mike007 (21 July 2010)

Valid points megabeast,did yo* read oldgits post on the other thread. It was very interesting . I wo*ld be an absol*te "m*g " for a *d of pi*kys for £50,with the right to show them to my friends via the internet.I wo*ld go intending to b*y one ,possibly two prints,and *ome away £50 lighter,*l*t*hing my *D .


----------



## Mike007 (21 July 2010)

What the hell has happend to my last post ,all the u,s have been censored!!!


----------



## OldGit (21 July 2010)

I purchase the shots I like, sometimes (this season not so often) it's difficult to choose a couple of shots, that will cost you £30. I always ask if it's ok to post on facebook/HHO and to date it's not been a problem. I have also had a couple of pro shots used on a commercial site, but put the two parties in contact to ensure that it was all above board.
I can understand pros getting upset with non purchased images being lifted, but I think a purchased scanned image is a different kettle of fish. At Gatcombe this year Stephen Sparkes took a load of photos that I liked, so difficult to choose 3or 4, however for £50 I had 29 high res images with written permission for printing and for online forums.


----------



## Godknows (21 July 2010)

Mike007 said:



			What the hell has happend to my last post ,all the u,s have been censored!!!
		
Click to expand...

I think you've just had one too many and lost where you are putting your fingers


----------



## Mike007 (21 July 2010)

Godknows said:



			I think you've just had one too many and lost where you are putting your fingers

Click to expand...

Hah ,me, touch type .You must be joking! Standard .two finger typing. Comes out the same drunk or sober.


----------



## George Michie (21 July 2010)

OldGit said:



			but I think a purchased scanned image is a different kettle of fish.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, and that's why my T&C's are worded..



			All the images on this website are copyright George Michie.

Commercial publications use them on pain of having body parts removed with rusty pliers. I'll also invoice you at a rate designed to pay off my mortgage. If you ask however I might surprise you and let you use them for a credit, it's unlikely but you never know.  I do guarantee however that the day you give me free display advertising is the same day I give you free images.

Customers however, you're fine. If you've bought an image you're free to do what you want with it, except for handing it to magazines and papers etc for commercial publication. However, if you're using it for advertising a bike, car or horse then feel free to use it. If you're not sure that you're allowed to do something give me a phone and we'll sort something out. If you've bought it though the chances are I'll pretty much let you do anything you want with it.
		
Click to expand...

Going beyond that I actually put a couple of polls on my site. 

The first asked if people wanted prints or downloads, the answer is both (exactly 50/50)

Following that I asked what size of download people wanted, facebook size, A4 size or full size. Most popular were facebook and A4. Guess where I'm going if I can resolve the webspace issue 

I also offered facebook images from my last event at a flat £2 with no watermark on them. Results have been interesting.

1. Some people still lifted them onto their facebook, seems like £2 still isn't cheap enough.
2. Some people who had previously lifted them actually bought
3. Some people bought prints AND the facebook images, that was a surprise


----------



## Mike007 (21 July 2010)

Sounds like some serious market research going on at last.


----------



## spidge (22 July 2010)

Mike007 the bulk of my posts on here have been exactly that, to engage with riders, guage their opinions etc.  I have offered USB memory sticks with hi-res images available to riders for nearly 2 years now, several riders have informal deals with me that allows them to select 20 images over the course of the year and receive 20 high res images for £50.  £3 facebook images can be purchased from any of my web galleries for the entire 2010 year, a recent retrospective change of pricing due to feedback received.  My web site has an offer running whereby anyone that agrees to discontinue the shoplifting of screenprinted images can choose 10 FB suitable images of their choice.  

Other photographers include George have seen this thread and find that it resonates with their own experience.  Many are introducing changes into their own business to better align with their customers wish lists but at a price model that fits both parties. Without this exchange of views caused by my "rant" perhaps none of this may have happened.  I deliberately labelled my initial posting on this thread as a rant with an eyecatching title.  The internet theft of images from photographers is a serious issue and of concern not only to the photographers themselves but to mnay thousands of riders up and down this country  who genuinely value the skill, expertise, services and products that they offer.  What this thread was about was to highlight the issue of the not inconsiderable minority who regard these galleries as fair game to do whatever they want with.  Go back to your bread roll analogy, well actually my restaurant is offering good products, with quick service at  reasonable prices.  Yet I am still seeing more bread rolls stolen than I am selling. 

Within my own business I am taking steps to address this.  A professional rider whom I messaged yesterday via FB replied as follows:

"Thank you for your email. I totally understand your point and I am in the wrong. Some of the images I have purchased and have framed at home but as I keep in touch with family abroad I have put ones with the copy right across on fb to show them what I have been doing. I honestly didnt realise how bad this was as it is kind of still advertising for you but do understand now. 

I have removed the albums for now and will purchase some of the images as you suggested for £3/£5 which is a great idea to prevent this type of thing. Can I get these from your website? 

Please do accept my apologies."

Hopefully I have now reached a mutual point with this rider that we are happy with.  So within my own business and the events that I cover I will continue to engage with riders, I will take further steps to protect my livelihood and I will look at introducing new workflows.


----------



## MegaBeast (22 July 2010)

spidge said:



			The internet theft of images from photographers is a serious issue and of concern not only to the photographers themselves but to mnay thousands of riders up and down this country
		
Click to expand...

As I said above but seems to have been ignored is I truly don't think this is the case.  Think back to the days of paper proofs which photographers posted out to people.  Every proof certainly didn't represent a sale and surely this is a similar scenrio to what's happening now, its just that with the digital age you can see the use people make of these "proofs".  Back in the day once you had your proofs you'd maybe order one or two of the best ones but I know plenty of people who'd keep the little images with watermarks to show people, pin up in their offices/tackrooms etc so is this really any different from what's happening now?

I will admit that I have liberated photos from websites, but I can honestly say that I've never done it at the expense of a sale.  I tend to buy one or two (often three because of package details!) from pretty much every show but it's nice to see the photos of the often "not so good" moments so you can track progress.  Call me a thief if you like, but I haven't actually stolen any of your revenue/sales as I have still bought ALL the pics that I particularly like.

I applaud your efforts with changing your pricing structure, I think it's excellent and wish the togs at the shows I go to would do similar.  But I think you're barking up the wrong tree with trying to make your website too inpenetrable as I don't think it will gain you any sales.  All most people are doing is creating their own paper proofs like what you woul have happily posted out to them ten or so years ago.

NB by the use of you I'm refering to photographers in general and not you specifically


----------



## spidge (22 July 2010)

Megabeast I refer you to this answer that I posted on another thread in case you had not seen this.  Who knows you may be right!

On Tuesday I did a bog standard BSJA event at a local venue. My initial costs involve towing my trailer to the venue, fuel to run my generator, rent to the venue and staff and print costs. At the end of a 10 hour day including travelling, setup and photography I then return home to create the web gallery and upload it to my web site. Call it a 12 hour day. By 8am Wednesday morning a rider who was at the event and who did not purchase pictures or jpegs that were available to view and buy on the Tuesday, has assiduously been onto my web site and screen printed 8 images that she has added to her facebook photoalbums for all her friends to see. This is to add to the collection of about 60 other images that she has of mine. Indeed she likes one of the new images so much that she chooses to use it as her new Facebook profile picture. This in spite of the fact that this image includes the text "IMAGE STOLEN FROM:" my web site address, the date and venue and copyright information. 

I have posted this message to her:


I recently came across your facebook pages and am pleased to see you like my pictures enough to put them on your Facebook page. 

Forgive me if you have actually purchased these pictures whilst onsite at a show, but I noticed that you are using copyrighted images of mine. Personally I think that is a bit naughty. You are in breach of copyright but I hope that by speaking to you this way we can understand each others position.

I dont know if you are aware but we have recently starting offering a new product to cater for this sort of market. It is a reduced resolution, discreetly watermarked image or unwatermarked image for £3 and £5 respectively. You are able to purchase these for any image on our website going back to the beginning of the year 2010.

Please either arrange to purchase these images or remove them from your Facebook page. Honestly they look so much better without that copyright across the middle. I hope you understand my position and you are welcome to speak to me about it by email or on the phone.

Kind regards


As yet I have had no response. There are several possible actions I can now take of course, including doing nothing. Does this illustrate the extent of the problem we are facing. I don't believe for a minute that this was the only rider that would have harvested my images from that event. As I have said before I don't think cost is the issue, it is about a particular mindset that regards it is as acceptable.


----------



## Saratoga (22 July 2010)

MegaBeast said:



			As I said above but seems to have been ignored is I truly don't think this is the case.  Think back to the days of paper proofs which photographers posted out to people.  Every proof certainly didn't represent a sale and surely this is a similar scenrio to what's happening now, its just that with the digital age you can see the use people make of these "proofs".  Back in the day once you had your proofs you'd maybe order one or two of the best ones but I know plenty of people who'd keep the little images with watermarks to show people, pin up in their offices/tackrooms etc so is this really any different from what's happening now?

I will admit that I have liberated photos from websites, but I can honestly say that I've never done it at the expense of a sale.  I tend to buy one or two (often three because of package details!) from pretty much every show but it's nice to see the photos of the often "not so good" moments so you can track progress.  Call me a thief if you like, but I haven't actually stolen any of your revenue/sales as I have still bought ALL the pics that I particularly like.

I applaud your efforts with changing your pricing structure, I think it's excellent and wish the togs at the shows I go to would do similar.  But I think you're barking up the wrong tree with trying to make your website too inpenetrable as I don't think it will gain you any sales.  All most people are doing is creating their own paper proofs like what you woul have happily posted out to them ten or so years ago.

NB by the use of you I'm refering to photographers in general and not you specifically
		
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of this, i used to pin the proofs sent through to me on the wall of the tack room or kitchen with the watermark all over it...is that any different to putting the digital proofs on FB?

Again it didn't ever stop me purchasing the good ones, but the ones i wouldn't have bought i would still pin up. Is that stealing too?


----------



## MegaBeast (22 July 2010)

spidge said:



			Megabeast I refer you to this answer that I posted on another thread in case you had not seen this.  Who knows you may be right!

As I have said before I don't think cost is the issue, it is about a particular mindset that regards it is as acceptable.
		
Click to expand...

Don't think you've really answered my question (not that I really asked a specific one).  You see, I don't liken it to thieving, more the creation of your own paper proofs which the photographer would have posted to you previously, therefore there is no or minimal loss of sales by this "thieving".  Guess I can't really expect you to agree with me though!  But thought it might put a different perspective on things.


----------



## Santa_Claus (22 July 2010)

but proofs (well the ones i were always sent) were miniscule , that size on a computer would be pointless as on lower res screens you would barely be able to make them out. The internet 'proofs' are far bigger and normally the same size as you would have on facebook anyway hence the appeal to take them as they are.


----------



## spidge (22 July 2010)

I have customer orders to print out, yes happy days, but I will respond.  I tell you why I think it is slightly different.  In the days of proofs you would have had to make contact with the photographer to request those proofs and provide your name and address.  Albeit minimal there is an element of personal interaction and accountability on both sides.  Fair enough if you choose not to order, then the pictures weren't good enough to persuade you to part with your cash. Or perhaps they were but you were happy with the watermarked thumbnail proofs.

You hear stories occasionally of wedding pictures proudly framed and displayed with "proof" emblazoned across the picture.  They just make me giggle at the mentality.

What you have with the FB shoplifting is deliberate and persistent in some cases harvesting of images from photographers websites over the course of that riders career.  But it is also a bit more than that, Facebook is being used by many professional riders and dealers to advertise, publicise and eventually sell their horses.  When this is taking take place with purchased images I have no issue.  It is when I see shoplifted watermarked images being blatantly used for advertising that my hackles are raised.

Does that go some way towards answering the question you never asked?


----------



## Saratoga (22 July 2010)

spidge said:



			In the days of proofs you would have had to make contact with the photographer to request those proofs and provide your name and address.  Albeit minimal there is an element of personal interaction and accountability on both sides.  Fair enough if you choose not to order, then the pictures weren't good enough to persuade you to part with your cash. Or perhaps they were but you were happy with the watermarked thumbnail proofs.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't ever contact the photographer to receive proofs, i assume they got my details from the secretary with my number, and sent the proofs on through the post.

And they were usually 5x7, with a watermark across them.


----------



## ch70 (24 July 2010)

Wow, this thread is still going, I really thought it had died a death a while ago!

There are a few comments I would like to add regarding the recent additions to this thread (last 2 or 3 pages). 

There are a number of things to remember when talking about "proofs". The images are still copyrighted. The proofs are of course created to allow the buyer to "window shop" the goods before buying. They are not meant to be a free gift! In reality however, we often let the "paying" customers take the paper proofs we use at the shows at the end of the day if they want them.

I agree with Spidge that normally the proofs would be sent at the request of the customer and not unsolicited by the photographer but I can't speak for everyone! I mean how would I know who to send which proofs to? I certainly wouldn't have posted 60 pages of proofs to every rider at a show (assuming I was some how provided those addresess) for financial reasons if nothing else.

Yes, in times past you would end up keeping the proofs you were sent.  In most cases these were often printed on low grade paper with low quality non fade resistant inks and not expected to last very long. And yes people would stick them on their walls, fridge etc... or show their friends and family. But there is a distinct difference between sticking an image on your wall for your own consumption or taking it around Nan's to show her over tea and crumpets and publishing an image on a website with potentially 100's or 1000's of viewers or worse still, using that image to advertise the sale of a horse which I have also seen happen.

Now the argument that the person who stole the images probably wouldn't buy them anyway and therefore this is not a loss of earnings does not hold water I'm afraid, legally or morally. If that person feels that those images are good enough to copy and re-use then they should be paying for those images. 

Whether it is "realistic" to expect people to obey the law is also not the issue. People are not doing so and as such should be made aware of the consequences. You will never stop everyone from doing this, not until there is a technological approach that can be taken, which may or may not ever come into being. However we should take necessary actions to minimise the occurence of image theft where possible.

The way I see it is that there are a number of types of people doing this:


I honestly believe that there are people out there who do not know that what they are doing is against the law. Those people just need to be made aware of the legal aspects of their actions and be given a choice of removing or buying those images.

I also believe that there are people out there who "claim" that they didn't know they were doing anything wrong but in fact know very well that they were. Most of the time these people are happy to comply and remove the images in question or pay a fee for them.

And finally there are those people who know they are doing something illegal, don't care and will continue doing so in the future. These persistant offenders are the ones that 

Each photographer has to make a decision as to what action to take based on the possible impact this has had to their business due to theft of their images. But in any case the actions will be broadly the same:


Contact the person and make them aware of the legality of their actions
Provide them with a selection of options to remedy the situation, i.e. remove image or purchase
Make the person aware of the consequences of not taking any action, i.e. court action

It had occured to me that maybe we need a standard approach to tackle this. Maybe we need an Equestrian Photographers Association! It's possible we could setup standard approaches to all sorts i.e. 


A standard copyright message we all use on our websites
A standard approach to copyrighting images
A standard set of steps to take when image theft has been identfified
A "Say No To Image Theft" logo and website page that we could put on the bottom of all our invoices/emails/webpages?

In other words a standard message and approach that both the photographers and customers are aware of. That way no matter what show people were at and who was taking the photos, the rules are the same, the message is the same. OK, these are just ideas and it would take a lot of effort, discussions and buy in to make something like this happen and work.

Regarding customer research, we do informal surveys at shows, generally to gauge what people are interested in. I have considered putting together an online poll to get some hard and fast statistics across a bigger audience and maybe this would allow photographers in general to tune their offerings to be more in-line with what the customers want, who knows.

Yes, this thread has been a worthwhile excercise in raising awareness of this issue. If nothing else people may realise the impact of their actions, and understand that by doing this they are breaking the law and in a court wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Paying £3 for an image is a damn site cheaper than paying court fees and compensation for loss of earnings!

And finally, FYI, this site (http://www.photographywebsite.co.uk/copyright-in-photography-c494.html) provides a nice "summary" of the legal aspect of image copyright. It's worth a read.


----------



## Honey08 (24 July 2010)

Forgive me, I haven't read through all these posts, but wanted to say that its a shame that H&H can't post a reminder thread at the top of the competition riders page reminding people to not use proofs in their posts - there are so many threads on here with people putting up pictures of themselves at competitions that still have the photographer's label on.  Its not fair!  Have any photographers complained to the forum about this?


----------



## Serenity087 (25 July 2010)

Yes, photographers have complained, and I got into big trouble for teaching forum members how to 'steal' proofs.

It's probably the biggest online debate going - does copyright stand on the internet.

I'm of the opinion it doesn't.  Anything submitted to the realm of the internet belongs to the internet.  Did you know everything we post on this forum belongs to IPC Media?  Thats why they delete dodgey posts and ban dodgey users - not to keep the forum harmoneous, but because they own what we write.  And as such, they have the right to republish anything we post on here without crediting us.

Now the reason IPC banned posting proffessional photos is cos they can't own something that is already owned.  I can show you on my facebook page, but I can't show you through the forum.
But I can't even do that... because Facebook own my Facebook page...

End of the day, if you find people are using online images, go back to the days of the tacky trade stand at shows.  Because no matter what you do, people are going to 'steal' copyright photographs.

Nothing to do with people wanting things for nothing, or any bad attitude, it's just the way of the internet.  Who owns what?


----------



## OneInAMillion (25 July 2010)

Weezy said:



			How about charging for the right to see the photos?  Charge £10 for their album to be unlocked, redeemable on purchase of photographs?  At least then if theft takes place you are earning something out of it?  You cannot be any worse off than you are now.
		
Click to expand...

I think if you do that people wont even bother looking at the pictures. :/


----------



## cobden99 (25 July 2010)

Phew, just got to the end of this thread - really interesting told me stuff I didnt know !
Nice to hear some reasoned debate as well without it degenerating into a slanging match.


----------



## PapaFrita (25 July 2010)

santa145 said:



			If a famous artist painted your portrait it wouldn't belong to you ever, you are the subject yes but that gives you no right to the painting.
		
Click to expand...

Well, that's not quite the case. If it were, then no one would be able to sell on paintings, which obviously they do, often for significant profit. I'm not famous, but as far as I'm concerned, once a drawing has been paid for (just the once) the owner is free to do what they like with it, including scanning, posting on FB, etc, etc. It is THEIRS, and whilst I reserve the right to reproduce my drawings and paintings on my website, if the owner wanted me to take it down, then I would.


----------



## Santa_Claus (25 July 2010)

PapaFrita said:



			Well, that's not quite the case. If it were, then no one would be able to sell on paintings, which obviously they do, often for significant profit. I'm not famous, but as far as I'm concerned, once a drawing has been paid for (just the once) the owner is free to do what they like with it, including scanning, posting on FB, etc, etc. It is THEIRS, and whilst I reserve the right to reproduce my drawings and paintings on my website, if the owner wanted me to take it down, then I would.
		
Click to expand...

PF not quite what I meant 

What I meant was if a painter painted a picture, say I randomly took a photo of you riding PF and painted a picture with you as the subject not as a commission but just because I thought you and PF made a great composition, you then have no rights to that painting even though you are the main subject. Yes if you brought it then the rights would pass to you (and I equally also retain right to reproduce etc normally when I sell any of mine), but unless you buy it even as the subject you have no rights to that painting. 

Does that make it any clearer?


----------



## PapaFrita (25 July 2010)

Ohh, OK, I getcha. Actually, I HAVE painted famous polo players (from my own photos, obviously) and then sold the paintings to a 3rd party without a second thought. Rather good likeness as well  Still, once paid for, I don't consider it mine any more.


----------



## Jul (25 July 2010)

At a recent event the Photographer took a couple of nice shots of us which I saw on their website. Not fantastic and £10 a go for a hard copy, so not a 'must buy and put on the wall' but nice and I would have liked to have them to keep for 'posterity'.

So I emailed them to basically say the above and could they do a couple of (low res) file copies for me at a reduced rate. The answer was no, that in fact due to extra work and copyright issues a file copy would be an extra £5. Given that I *could* if I wanted to, shoplift them from his website (just to keep on my own PC for myself rather than putting on FB), what would YOU do?


----------



## ch70 (25 July 2010)

Harper_Gal said:



			It's probably the biggest online debate going - does copyright stand on the internet.

I'm of the opinion it doesn't.  Anything submitted to the realm of the internet belongs to the internet.  Did you know everything we post on this forum belongs to IPC Media?  Thats why they delete dodgey posts and ban dodgey users - not to keep the forum harmoneous, but because they own what we write.  And as such, they have the right to republish anything we post on here without crediting us.
		
Click to expand...

Although I personally value hearing other peoples thoughts on this subject, from both camps, it does seem that people are jumping in this discussion having not read all the previous posts (although I appreciate in this thread there are many) and are therefore missing some of the facts. You may well be "of the opinion" that anything on the internet is there for grabbing, however in the eyes of the law your "opinion" means absolutely nothing. Copyright of media stands whether that be digital, print, cd, dvd, online, offline etc... And is one of the laws that does cross regional and country boundries. If you were to read the link I posted a page or so back there is a very good summary of how the "law" sees it.

Secondly, the Internet does not own anything! There is no such thing as "the realm of the Internet" although the term realm is used in web security. Infact the internet is not actually a single thing at all but an enormous collection of inter-connected computer networks, hence the name "InterNet" was derived.  These are run by all sorts of organisations including the ISP you use to access the Internet, universities, governments and businesses. No single company owns the internet although there are organisations that oversee the general health of it and ensure that routing "traffic" from one place to another works. You can think of the internet as a complex road network where pieces of information are being driven around from a starting place, i.e. this website, to a final  destination, i.e. your web browser on your computer.this is why it is sometimes referred to as the "information super highway". The world wide web, which we are using to read and comment here, is just one of many systems that run over the internet. 

Unfortunately this highlights another area of lack of understanding of the general public as a whole. A large proportion of regular Internet users have no idea what it is that they are using! I've worked in IT for over 21 years, more than 17 years of which has been designing and building systems that run over the Internet, and I see this all the time. People turn on the computer, which they don't understand, open a web browser, which they don't understand and then surf the web reading what quite often is a lot of incorrect information that has been posted online by other people who don't understand what they are writing about! The internet has provided the ultimate tool to play chinese whispers. How many times have you heard, "Oh I was reading on this website the other day that.. bla bla bla, so that must be true then".

Lastly, regarding your statement about IPC ownership of information contained on their site. This would be due to the terms and conditions that you agreed to when signing up to the site. You agreed to turn over ownership of information for re-use by them by agreeing to clause 5 of their terms and conditions, this was a "choice" that you made, assuming you read the T&C's before agreeing that is as I know many don't bother and just click accept without actually knowing what they have just accepted!



Jul said:



			At a recent event the Photographer took a couple of nice shots of us which I saw on their website. Not fantastic and £10 a go for a hard copy, so not a 'must buy and put on the wall' but nice and I would have liked to have them to keep for 'posterity'.

So I emailed them to basically say the above and could they do a couple of (low res) file copies for me at a reduced rate. The answer was no, that in fact due to extra work and copyright issues a file copy would be an extra £5. Given that I *could* if I wanted to, shoplift them from his website (just to keep on my own PC for myself rather than putting on FB), what would YOU do?
		
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, not every photo is going to be great. Sometimes the photographer makes a mistake, sometimes the rider or horse makes an error, sometimes external factors such as weather can have an impact. Now you did the right thing by approaching the photographer and asking them to consider a deal. Now each photographer is going to respond to that request differently and I can't comment on what their replies would be but in this case they had decided that they were happy to do the sale at the going rate (infact that's cheaper than the going rate for a digital image). The cost of a digital image will always be higher than a print due to the ability to re-use, copy and re-distribute that file as many times as you like. 

However you made the choice not to buy that image as you felt it was not worth having. Now you have decided that although they are not great photos for whatever reason, actually you would like a copy to keep for "posterity" and since the photographer won't sell at a price you like you are bascially asking for people to give their blessing for you to steal images from a hard working photographers website because you feel that paying the going rate for an image is more than you want to pay? Doesn't really sound good does it? I mean would you shoplift from a corner shop if you needed a bag of sugar they only had low quality own brand sugar and you felt their prices were too high? Why not? That's right, it's wrong. 

I would suggest you contact the photographer again, tell them that you don't want prints, you just want the images to keep for your records and you are willing to pay say £15 for the two images, i.e £7.50 each so they make a sale and highlight to them that otherwise they will make no sale. If they still say no, which they are quite at liberty to do, then unfortunately you have no further options and would not be able to get copies of those images. Even if they say yes you must be aware that unless they say otherwise you only have permission to use the image for personal use and can not publish that image in any public domain. They still own copyright of the original image.

I'm not standing on some moral high ground, although I do believe if we give the impression that breaking the law is somehow OK to our children then eventually nothing will be sacred anymore. I do however want to make sure people get the cold hard facts. 

The bottom line, whether individuals agree or like this is that copying a copyrighted image, which all images are unless explicitly stated otherwise, without permission is breaking the law, end of story, no arguements.

(Apologies if there are grammer or spelling mistakes, I've spent 7 hours in a field today running around taking photos of a cross country event and I'm rather tired!)


----------



## Kat (26 July 2010)

santa145 said:



			PF not quite what I meant 

What I meant was if a painter painted a picture, say I randomly took a photo of you riding PF and painted a picture with you as the subject not as a commission but just because I thought you and PF made a great composition, you then have no rights to that painting even though you are the main subject. Yes if you brought it then the rights would pass to you (and I equally also retain right to reproduce etc normally when I sell any of mine), but unless you buy it even as the subject you have no rights to that painting. 

Does that make it any clearer?
		
Click to expand...


Still not quite right!

An artist normally retains copyright to an image even once sold. 

Any resales are liable to pay royalties, and the artist has the right to reproduce or use the image even once the original has sold. 

The expections being where the artist has entered a specific contract dealing with the rights to an image such as a publishing contract or licenising contract. But these do not follow the original image. 

For example, if my husband does a drawing of WFP and Tamarrillo, my husband owns the rights to it, WFP has no say over what happens to it. So my husband could sell the original image to Joe Bloggs who sees it at an exhibition. But my husband still owns copyright, so he may then enter a contract with a publisher such as washington green or sally mitchell fine art to produce x number of prints for which he will be paid a fixed fee or percentage. He doesn't need the permission of either WFP or Joe Bloggs and neither do they have any say in whether the image can be reproduced or how it is reproduced, maybe as prints or on mugs or tea towels or whatever. They also are not entitled to any of the proceeds. 

Then if Joe Bloggs sells that original through a dealer or auction house, my husband gets a percentage of the resale price back as royalties as the creator.


----------



## figbat (26 July 2010)

Harper_Gal said:



			I'm of the opinion it doesn't.  Anything submitted to the realm of the internet belongs to the internet.
		
Click to expand...

What a load of .... well, nonsense.  "The Internet" doesn't "own" anything.  The internet is just another communications and distribution medium.  Just as you aren't allowed to copy and publish someone else's pictures in newspapers, magazine, books or leaflets without their permission, so you aren't with the internet.




			Did you know everything we post on this forum belongs to IPC Media?  Thats why they delete dodgey posts and ban dodgey users - not to keep the forum harmoneous, but because they own what we write.  And as such, they have the right to republish anything we post on here without crediting us.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I knew that.  These are the terms & conditions we all agree to when we sign up.




			Now the reason IPC banned posting proffessional photos is cos they can't own something that is already owned.
		
Click to expand...

IPC Media didn't ban this practice, the law did.  IPC Media just reiterated and reminded its users of the law.  If you, a user, infringe the law using their media, there is a chance they could be liable as well as you - they don't want that and nor should you.




			I can show you on my facebook page, but I can't show you through the forum.
But I can't even do that... because Facebook own my Facebook page...
		
Click to expand...

Facebook's stand on intellectual property and copyright infringement.  You agree to Facebook's T&Cs when you sign up, so you can't just use them as a 'kitchen wall' for private viewing.  You don't agree or don't like it?  Don't sign up.  Or don't be surprised if Facebook ask you to take down any infringing images or shut you down for non-compliance.




			End of the day, if you find people are using online images, go back to the days of the tacky trade stand at shows.  Because no matter what you do, people are going to 'steal' copyright photographs.
		
Click to expand...

People also steal cars, and horses.  I guess if that happens to you you'll just shrug your shoulders and say "well, it was bound to happen, never mind"?  You must shoplift too, right?


----------

