Ethics

[norwest]

The scenario.

The only means of income for Person 'A' is photography, with an appreciable proportion of total earnings coming via freelance press work. Person A is requested (by press) by both phone call and email, as is normal policy, to cover a handful of events over a weekend. He confirms his attendance by email and phone call, as is also normal policy. The events are all in the home town of person A.

The long term agreement is to provide shots of events which are chosen by the client via website viewing of said event shots which are uploaded asap following the events. Payment is per shot provided, on a sliding scale according to quantity. (person 'A's preferred agreement after hassles with hourly rate payments)

Person A attends and shoots all events requested and at four of theses events he notices a hobby photographer, person 'B' is present and shooting, with person A aware that person B is also a team member whom provides shots of his team to the press, free of charge and for accreditation only, when his team travels out of the region for away games. (it can be up to five hours travel)

'A' is familiar with 'B' after 'B' introduced himself previously at an event 'A' was covering, with words to the effect of 'I'm glad to meet you after seeing your work for such a long time' and was full of questions, as is normal when someone has an interest in photography.

'A' receives an order for shots immediately following the weekend and notices the order quantity is unusually small for the amount of events covered and the shots requested didn't appear to tally with the covered events, but puts it down to perhaps, tightly restricted allocated space provision.

He purchases the relevant papers the following day and as is normal, checks his published shots. 'A' immediately notices that shots provided by 'B' have also been published, with name accreditation included. Approximately double the amount provided by 'A', which enables A to realise the actual reason behind such and unusually small shot order from the client.

Now, this brings two separate instances into question regarding 'ethics', both personal and business.

1 - 'B' being well aware that 'A' earns his living from his work and is the regular photographer requested to carry out the event work orders for the particular client, but ignores this knowledge and still provides, free of charge, shots of those events for publication.

2 - The client reduces the event's shot order from 'A' by a large amount and instead, uses shots provided by 'B', free of charge after the requesting of and confirmation of coverage of the event by 'A'.

I have my own opinion of both 1 & 2, a very strong opinion at that, particularly with the knowledge this type of scenario is becoming more prevalent, but what do others think ?

And please, don't let this degrade into an us verses them, dog fight.

[pixy]

In my opinion if somebody wants my shots (they will be hard up for photos) I would provide them on the following; A friends,non profitable organisations,free of charge.B any profit making organisation would need to pay me.

My youngest son went to Darwin and took a good shot of a sunset, he wanted me to send it to a local news channel (who don`t pay for such photos ) and I never sent it, if organisations want photos they should have there own employees,or pay someone to do it ,

Jack

[jjphoto]

Here's a scenerio for you. Photographer A takes a 'good' photo and charges for it. Photographer B takes a slightly less 'good' photo but it is free. If you where the publisher with a budget to work to, which they all do, then w t f would you do?

Some publishers do go out of their way to keep their regulars working and in business, some times by not spreading work out too thinly or simply by using only one or 2 people in each region. Other publishers do not give a rats arse and to these publishers a free job is a good job. If a publishers no longer 'needs' regulars to call upon, because they can easily get pics for free, then why would they have them at all? However I don't see what this has to do with 'ethics' as it's just relevant to the needs of the publishers business. Where are these ethics defined and agreed upon?

[GJC]

Interesting situation. Ethics is a minefield, because it’s all about perception, harm, and intent. I think the best ethical solution is for the 3 parties to come to an arrangement where everybody wins. I’ll come back to that later.

It would appear that A, B, and P (The Publisher) do what they do for good reasons.
A - is in it for money - it's a job.
B - is in it for the satisfaction / recognition of taking good enough photos to be published.
P – wants the best balance of quality photos and cost.

All are perfectly good reasons by themselves. However, they are not mutually exclusive. It sounds as though A feels that they are being harmed by P - intentionally or not.

I assume that B has no malice toward A and is not sending photos to the publishers deliberately to harm A. I also assume that P’s motivation for publishing B’s photos over A’s is that they are either better or cheaper.
On this basis, personally I find it hard to see any ethical case to ask B to stop sending photos. If the ethical dilemma lies anywhere, it’s probably with P. This is mainly a business dilemma for A and P. A could say to P that they aren’t interested in covering any events where B is present, because A may well make a loss if P uses B’s photos instead of A’s. However, because P is not paying B for photos, P has no recourse should B become unavailable or unreliable. So, a better contract is required that satisfies both A & P. I think it would be sad if this was to the total exclusion of B.

Would P’s publication come to a screaming halt if A refused to do any more work for P? Probably not. P would likely find somebody else to do the job.

This is a common business situation. New competition is always coming onto the market and businesses are always looking for ways to cut costs. A needs to be aware of this and protect themselves and their income with better contract arrangements, or more differentiated offerings. There is always going to be somebody that will come along and undercut you, or a customer that won’t be loyal (I’m not necessarily referring to B & P here).

Without knowing all of the details, it’s hard to suggest a solution that is Win-Win-Win, for A, B, and P (assuming they want one). But here goes anyway:
A & P should come to better contract terms that will work for both A and P. E.g. some basic coverage of costs to attend events and take shots and process them, and then $x per photo published. P starts up a section in the publication for Best Amateur photos of the week, which are limited in number – which by the sounds of things will usually contain some from B.

Just my 2 cents worth. Actually - given that I've previously been a management consultant - It's probably about $300 worth. So what are the ethics of providing professional advise for nothing. DOH!

[Kym]

Ubiquitous access to good camera technology = many more 'togs are active, many/most being being amateurs.

There are no ethical or legal issues here. B did nothing wrong, neither did P.

[nwhc]

Does person A get paid per shot or per event?

[norwest]

Here's a scenerio for you. Photographer A takes a 'good' photo and charges for it. Photographer B takes a slightly less 'good' photo but it is free.

No relevance to the scenario mentioned regardless of 'less good', 'far superior' or 'absolute garbage'. 'A' had a confirmed work agreement to cover said events. He fulfilled his responsibility and the client did not.



If you where the publisher with a budget to work to, which they all do,

And in the case of 'A', the majority of the particular part of the budget was saved by using free shots, as was previously explained as an unusually small quantity ordered from what is normal and regular practice.



then w t f would you do?

I would as I've always done in business, uphold an agreement and not alter the conditions after the fact when the job is complete and for example, someone else drops off a CD of shots for free.



Some publishers do go out of their way to keep their regulars working and in business, some times by not spreading work out too thinly or simply by using only one or 2 people in each region.

Correct


Other publishers do not give a rats arse and to these publishers a free job is a good job.

correct And others may try to have bet each way.


If a publishers no longer 'needs' regulars to call upon, because they can easily get pics for free, then why would they have them at all?

Don't follow the gist of the comment. :confused013



However I don't see what this has to do with 'ethics' as it's just relevant to the needs of the publishers business.

The maintenance of an agreement or to the contrary, treating an agreement as folly, has all to do with ethical standards, honesty, trust and one's willingness to deal with those involved, be it a publisher, those that contract to the publisher, any business, individual or Joe Blow from down at the pub.


Where are these ethics defined and agreed upon?

In a written agreement provided by the client to the contractor. Unless, of course, one can define meeting the requirements of agreement or not meeting those requirements according to whether or not someone offers the product for free following the completion by others of a work order based on the agreement, as not being unethical and just relevant to the publisher's needs.

I think I get the drift of your opinion of business ethics re publishers, but what do you think of instance #1?

[Sifor]

I agree with GJC.

Absent any contractual arrangements, A has to deal with the free competition. A should enter into a contract with P to ensure s/he is paid for their time (ie hourly rate) and basic photos. This being said, however, such contracts in this situation create additional costs for the Publisher, so A may not be hired at all if P can rely on the photos of individuals such as B.

Unfortunately, this is life and if someone wants to shoot for free and manages to provide decent quality shots, then good for them.

[norwest]

Interesting situation. Ethics is a minefield, because it’s all about perception, harm, and intent. I think the best ethical solution is for the 3 parties to come to an arrangement where everybody wins. I’ll come back to that later.

It would appear that A, B, and P (The Publisher) do what they do for good reasons.
A - is in it for money - it's a job.



A is in it for a living but also takes pride in what he does, satisfaction when a job's done well and endeavours to do better with each outing.



B - is in it for the satisfaction / recognition of taking good enough photos to be published.

I can't presume to know the reasons.



P – wants the best balance of quality photos and cost.

Wants the best but endeavours to get a 10 shilling job for a 2 bob price. Or when it suits,

[Wayne]

I dont think I read that there is a guarantee to purchase a volume or minimum value per event or overall, but the basis of payment is per image.
That means you essentially are shooting on spec, and there has been no non-fulfilment of the publishers obligation. You assume the risk that the publisher will purchase images upon seeing the results, and the publisher understands they dont pay you for attendance as you seem to have requested by stating it was your choice to be paid on a per image model, which seems to now be a bad business decision.


You could in protest just stop shooting these events, and see if person B can cover all you cover, this may reinforce your worth to the publisher, it may open the door for person B or another operator, but anyone other than person B would still likely have to contend with person B in any case themselves. If I could get paid a guaranteed fee per event or hourly rate, i would take that for sports images any day over a paid per image model when dealing with small distribution like that or a regional newspaper.

As others have said, there is no ethics issue here. You could ask person B to give you their images and you pay them for any image sold, take a cut off the top etc, but whether that is manageable or not I can't say. Supply and demand I'm afraid, and businesses in fact most anyone will save a few $$ wherever they can.
If I wanted to do the work you are doing, I would have no problem in providing my images in a competitive and tempting way for the publisher in order to win them over, with little regard for your situation.

[norwest]

Ubiquitous access to good camera technology = many more 'togs are active, many/most being being amateurs.

There are no ethical or legal issues here. B did nothing wrong, neither did P.

B was spoken to on the day by A to let him know he received a work order to cover said events and also informed him that because A didn't trust the client completely to honour their agreement to not use B's shots supplied for nought if he was the give them the opportunity. It was also explained to B that for each shot supplied for nought resulted one less shot purchased from A. It was also explained to B that A had no problem at all with him supplying shots, be it for free or otherwise, for any event that A didn't not receive work order and therefore did not need to spend the time and costs to cover it.

P's written agreement with A has a provision for A to be the sole provider of photographs to P from events covered through a work order to A. A's agreement was previously altered to protect him from a couple of prior occasions when spending extended amounts of time and work costs fulfilling work order obligations and being gazumped by freebies after the fact.


Does person A get paid per shot or per event?

Yes. It's covered above.

[Wayne]

P's written agreement with A has a provision for A to be the sole provider of photographs to P from events covered through a work order to A.


This makes all the difference, why didn't you note it in the original post.
If the above is the case, simply remind P of the agreement, but be prepared for P to quickly cease or significantly reduce the number of work orders you receive...

[norwest]

I dont think I read that there is a guarantee to purchase a volume or minimum value per event or overall, but the basis of payment is per image.
That means you essentially are shooting on spec, and there has been no non-fulfilment of the publishers obligation. You assume the risk that the publisher will purchase images upon seeing the results, and the publisher understands they dont pay you for attendance as you seem to have requested by stating it was your choice to be paid on a per image model, which seems to now be a bad business decision.


You could in protest just stop shooting these events, and see if person B can cover all you cover, this may reinforce your worth to the publisher, it may open the door for person B or another operator, but anyone other than person B would still likely have to contend with person B in any case themselves. If I could get paid a guaranteed fee per event or hourly rate, i would take that for sports images any day over a paid per image model when dealing with small distribution like that or a regional newspaper.

As others have said, there is no ethics issue here. You could ask person B to give you their images and you pay them for any image sold, take a cut off the top etc, but whether that is manageable or not I can't say. Supply and demand I'm afraid, and businesses in fact most anyone will save a few $$ wherever they can.
If I wanted to do the work you are doing, I would have no problem in providing my images in a competitive and tempting way for the publisher in order to win them over, with little regard for your situation.

Understand what you're saying, Wayne, however, the agreement was changed for a reason. That reason being, and Kiwi has also mentioned similar, there is a very big difference between the actual hours spent covering an event as well as the travel costs and time in a big, wide region, and the amount of time the client thought it should take. It was previously hourly rate but was changed for that reason. Person B would have to quite his job to do what A does as much of it is on week days. Person B is also very inexperienced and needs quite a deal of improvement. Which perhaps he will have one day.

After speaking with B on the day and explaining in detail his circumstances and agreement with P, A was not only surprised but absolutely flabbergasted to see that B had still gone ahead with supplying freebies. Particularly as all was quite friendly and B appeared to be very understanding and in total agreement. I presumed.


This makes all the difference, why didn't you note it in the original post.
If the above is the case, simply remind P of the agreement, but be prepared for P to quickly cease or significantly reduce the number of work orders you receive...

I said A had an agreement, but my apologies for not being clear. Regardless, being written or otherwise, A still expects honesty from people with whom he endeavours to always go above and beyond his agreed responsibilities. I suppose A should live by his Grandfathers advice from many years ago when he said to never trust anything that you hear and only of what half you see.

[jjphoto]

... but what do you think of instance #1?

I think that people will be people and that you will never guess what thoughts or ideas are bouncing around in other peoples heads. Expecting others to behave to your own standards, morals or ethics is not realistic when there is nothing that obliges them to do so, ie considerng photog B is not 'working' (ie making a living) in the field and is free to do as he pleases. Photog B has no obligation to you or the publisher. Even if he lied to you, all that does is set you straight in terms of how to relate to him in the future.


....

P's written agreement with A has a provision for A to be the sole provider of photographs to P from events covered through a work order to A. A's agreement was previously altered to protect him from a couple of prior occasions when spending extended amounts of time and work costs fulfilling work order obligations and being gazumped by freebies after the fact.



....

And it still didn't make any difference.

[ricktas]

Everyone in business is out to ensure their bottom line is a positive number. At the end of the day, both photographers, the magazine/newspaper, and the event organiser are all out to make money.

If anyone in the chain can get something cheaper they will.

Does photographer A ask for a discount when he goes to upgrade his gear from his camera store? Does he gets deals from his local printer? How can photographer A lament someone selling something for cheaper, when he himself pushes his suppliers to provide stuff to him for cheaper?

The newspaper owner also wants to make a few $, or has a boss who needs to report to the shareholders that he made a profit.

Business today, not just photographer is basically about screwing the next person down to the lowest possible price to maximise their own returns.

Morals and ethics do not exist in business anymore. Photographer A needs to learn that and adjust.

Harsh, but that is the reality!

[norwest]

And it still didn't make any difference.

No and obviously, is the subject of the thread.

- - - Updated - - -


Everyone in business is out to ensure their bottom line is a positive number. At the end of the day, both photographers, the magazine/newspaper, and the event organiser are all out to make money.

If anyone in the chain can get something cheaper they will.

Does photographer A ask for a discount when he goes to upgrade his gear from his camera store? Does he gets deals from his local printer? How can photographer A lament someone selling something for cheaper, when he himself pushes his suppliers to provide stuff to him for cheaper?


Fine and dandy, Rick, if A was complaining about something being sold cheaper like your analogy insinuates, but he most certainly isn't, so why insinuate this? He doesn't expect suppliers to supply for zero dollars and that's the subject of the thread, along with the ignoring of an agreement and also being shafted by a hobbyist.



The newspaper owner also wants to make a few $, or has a boss who needs to report to the shareholders that he made a profit.


So, it's fine by yourself to dishonour an agreement if someone comes along with a give away product after you've completed your work because the newspaper wants to make a few dollars or has a boss who needs to report to the shareholders that he made a profit? Remember, the subject is not about discounts and has not been mentioned by myself at any stage, so please don't paint a picture about a non existent resentment of a business endeavouring to make a profit. That is not the case and has never been the case.


Business today, not just photographer is basically about screwing the next person down to the lowest possible price to maximise their own returns.

I repeat, it's not about the lowest price, it's about zero price and not honouring a written agreement.


Morals and ethics do not exist in business anymore. Photographer A needs to learn that and adjust.

Harsh, but that is the reality!


Photographer A has learned that just like the building industry he was in for 25 years, which is notorious for scammers and lack of ethical behaviour, photography is also not immune to similar problems or people. And just like the building industry, those practising unethical behaviour are also low life trash benefiting from manufactured disadvantage to others.

[MarkChap]

A lot of reading to be had here.

From what I have read, there is absolutely no ethical discussion to be had. If, as advised, the publisher had a contract with photographer A to only use images provided by him, then the issue is a simple breach of contract on the part of the publisher, plain simple and nothing to do with ethics

[ricktas]

And..Every agreement has a start and finish date (or should). Photographer A can whinge all he/she wants, but as soon as the existing agreement expires, guess who will get all the work under the next agreement?

[norwest]

And whom will get the work under the next agreement, 'B'? Perhaps if B, a full time employee in another field and a bloke whom has supplied free soccer shots only, can be available 7 days a week and at short notice to cover events of all descriptions, sport of all descriptions including midweek school sports, social occasions and Mrs browns dog having a litter of puppies, then maybe 'B' will get it, but only if he still supplies for free as he's set a precedent that will not be altered. As was said in another thread in 'business' regarding a guy providing his time for zero charge. Whom, by the way, was given short shaft by many for doing so.

[ricktas]

Actually it is more than likely that C will be the next one supply photos to the newspaper. Where C is anyone with a camera or phone who happens to be at a place at the right time and freely uploads their photo to the newspaper's website, in the hope they might get published and have their photo and name in the paper.

And the newspaper owner will be rubbing his hands with glee, not having to pay anyone for the photos, or deal with a photographer in his office waving a contract, cause its all done on the net, and he gets to keep more of his turnover as profit.

I know this is not a good scenario for A, or even B, but it is how the industry is heading, and photographer can either adjust or choose another career path.

Can we come up with an answer on AP...Nup!

[Mark L]

Have only read the first post, and before I read further my instant reaction is, the media should have better ethics.
Will read on know.

[Karl]

This isn't an ethical issue (I work in ethics everyday) it is a business issue and therefore needs to be looked at that way.

Obviously 'A' is very peeved that he is now loosing business to someone else who is moving in - but then this is no diferent to any other business out there when a new competitor moves into the area.

It would appear the 'A' has had it his own way for a while with no other competitors so maybe he now needs to look at his business plan / methodologies if he wishes to survive in this business. At the end of the day it is up to 'A' whether he wants to sink or swim and complaining about it isn't a good way to start.

There issue is always being brought up by 'Pro photogs' complaining that ammetures are under cutting them etc but I bet when they started out they under cut the Pro Photogs back then to get business. If you have a good product and busines plan you will survive otherwise 'A' needs to find a new occupation because there are plenty more 'B's out there and they are coming.

Karl

[Mark L]

This isn't an ethical issue (I work in ethics everyday) it is a business issue and therefore needs to be looked at that way.


So a contract is worth nought?

[Kym]

B was spoken to on the day by A to let him know he received a work order to cover said events and also informed him that because A didn't trust the client completely to honour their agreement to not use B's shots supplied for nought if he was the give them the opportunity. It was also explained to B that for each shot supplied for nought resulted one less shot purchased from A. It was also explained to B that A had no problem at all with him supplying shots, be it for free or otherwise, for any event that A didn't not receive work order and therefore did not need to spend the time and costs to cover it.
P's written agreement with A has a provision for A to be the sole provider of photographs to P from events covered through a work order to A. A's agreement was previously altered to protect him from a couple of prior occasions when spending extended amounts of time and work costs fulfilling work order obligations and being gazumped by freebies after the fact.
That was not covered in the O.P. but telling B anything is irrelevant.
If I'm at a public place and someone tells me I'm the 'pro' and don't publish your work (assuming no contract with the event people), I'd tell them to get nicked.
The ethical and possibly legal issue (not clear in the O.P.) is the agreement between A and P. B is a free agent.
Did P break an exclusive supply agreement? Then that is the real issue.

[norwest]

Obviously 'A' is very peeved that he is now loosing business to someone else who is moving in - but then this is no diferent to any other business out there when a new competitor moves into the area.

Some are lacking the ability to read what's been written and deciding they know the 'truth' of the matter. 'B' is a hobbyist whom gives away his shots from single type of event from a single field of photography. A is peeved because an agreement wasn't honoured in a major fashion on the particular occasion mentioned, the worst occasion of this by a country mile. He is also peeved that someone lied to him and and knowingly removed income with the only benefit being seeing his name under shots in the paper.

No one is undercutting 'A'. Undercutting is in the imagination of the reader, reading something that doesn't exist and hasn't been mentioned. Unless of course, giving away a product is classed as undercutting.

Do not make the mistake of thinking you know more of the motives of 'A' and his thoughts on the matter than 'A' does himself. And no, 'A' started out by providing a product in a market that previously had no product available.

[kiwi]

i agree, ethics have little to do with this unless you dont think B should be cuttting your lunch knowing that he's reducing a FT pros bread and butter, and although there is an argument there, ultimately its mean F all these days.

If you have an issue with the exclusivity of the contract take it up the line to the Editor

I see so much crap published these days, including horrid video grabs off a TV feed quality for bread & butter coverage is hardly a priority. $$$ is

[jjphoto]

No and obviously, is the subject of the thread.

....

Many areas of photography have become unsustainable from a full-time-pro perspective. Maybe this particular field, whatever it is, is one of them or is sliding that way.

The publisher and the nature of the business itself is the issue, not photographer 'B' or any other photog who wants to work for free (because they will potentially always be there). Complaining about it won't help, although talking to the publisher might. Are you just avoiding seeing the big picture, and possibly doing something about it? If there's no longer a profitable business there in the first place then worrying about 'ethics' or even contractual breeches is like shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.

[Sifor]

A is peeved because an agreement wasn't honoured in a major fashion on the particular occasion mentioned, the worst occasion of this by a country mile.

Be up front and straight - has the publisher breached the contract? If they have, resolve the dispute by mediation. If they haven't, you need to revise your contract and ensure future jobs don't end up like this.

I'm not a professional photographer (no aspirations either), however I'm well versed in business and law. With respect, it seems both highly unusual and risky to charge per photograph with no obligation imposed on your client to purchase your shots. If I engaged your services and didn't like your work, am I under any contractual obligation to provide consideration for your services? Going by the information you have provided, the answer seems to be no, the client has no obligation to pay you (please correct me if you do receive some payment for turning up). Others have suggested you at least charge a minimum per event to cover your costs....so instead of charging like $30 per photo, perhaps charge $500 for turning up and $10 per photo (or whatever). That way, if your client purchases fewer shots than you expected you're not going to be out of pocket and hitting the photography forums looking for blood :cool:


He is also peeved that someone lied to him and knowingly removed income with the only benefit being seeing his name under shots in the paper.

I don't wish to sound rude, but do you expect everyone to play nice? You screwed up by not having a suitable contract with the publisher. There is no emotion, feeling, care or "will someone please think of the children!" in law, business or indeed life.

Has the publisher and photographer "B" been ethical or moral? That's up to the individual's own subjective standards of morality and ethics - each person here will have a different perception of what it means to be ethical in business and it would seem as though (contrary any intention) that photographer "B" is quite happy to put his/her photos out for free for either personal (hobby) or aspiring professional reasons. In any case, B's motives are irrelevant - you need to focus squarely on the law and your current business model. In Australian contract law there is an implied duty of good faith, however discussing this would require construction of your contract and I'm not going to canvas hypotheticals on this matter.

I have no doubt that after this experience you'll rework your pricing model. It would be the only sensible and logical outcome of this unpleasant situation. Also, perhaps engage some legal services in drafting more suitable contracts for your clients.

[norwest]

The topic was raised as a mater of discussion for people whom might have had an interest in the subject without prejudice regardless of earning a living from photography or otherwise and judge the topic on merit. The attitudes i've seen in this thread are contrary to those in another thread n the 'Business' section regarding a hobbyist giving away his time. Why? I wouldn't have a damn clue.

And yes, the tread was started after the matter was raised with the editor in question. The assumption that a person is stupid and naive enough to sit on his hands and do nothing but comment on a damn forum, is ludicrous. There is a meeting with the editor tomorrow. However, judging on the initial excuses, the meeting will serve little purpose in gaining the trust required to believe that it won't continue in the future and 'A' will likely cancel about three weeks of future bookings with the client and advise them that enough is enough.

The thread has been an eye opener, for sure. It displays that some think it's ok not to honour an agreement because the business needs to make a dollar, too. Or it's quite ok and not personal unethical behaviour for individuals to be dishonest crawlers, picking your brains one day and pretending to be your long lost mate in photography, then, like a snake in the grass, knowingly stick a knife in the back. And then there's others whom still believe a little integrity goes a long way and may even help your business.

And no, Kym, 'B' wasn't told not to publish his shots as you have wrongly assumed. He asked what 'A's' arrangement was with the publisher and how it worked and also had questions regarding peer protocol. With the benefit of hindsight, his arse should have been have kicked and be told to annoy someone else but many tend to give benefit of doubt till shown it's not deserved.

[Sifor]

The thread has been an eye opener, for sure. It displays that some think it's ok not to honour an agreement because the business needs to make a dollar, too. Or it's quite ok and not personal unethical behaviour for individuals to be dishonest crawlers, picking your brains one day and pretending to be your long lost mate in photography, then, like a snake in the grass, knowingly stick a knife in the back. And then there's others whom still believe a little integrity goes a long way and may even help your business. .

I don't think anyone here thinks what has happened to you is a "good" thing or what B and the publisher did was "fair", rather it was expected. What I think most are trying to convey is that for many individuals business is business and if you leave yourself exposed, expect to be exploited as unscrupulous conduct is rife in cut throat competition and most cost conscious business in general.

Your best course of action for your meeting tomorrow is to attempt to renegotiate your contract terms with the client and for a payment up front to be provided to cover your costs. If you're in a certain specalised area of photography with little competition (but for your sly photographer "B" buddy), then your client may be open to continuing with the remaining shoots. I wouldn't storm in and cancel everything - if you aren't going to do those shoots what will you be doing with your time and equipment? Another shoot? Sitting at home? Out to dinner? Consider the opportunity cost of forgoing your upcoming shoots with the client.

[norwest]

Sifor, it's been said previously in this thread that they were obliged to use only shots provided by 'A' for publishing when a work order was placed with 'A' to cover an event, which was the case with all events covered by 'A'. It is a newspaper publisher, publishing two papers. Papers, and country papers in particular, use photographs to accompany most stories because country folk love seeing themselves in the paper. And events more often than not use a minimum of several shots per article. I've had up to 30 shots used for a single large, local, annual event coverage. There is a high degree of surety that many shots will be required. In normal circumstances. The reasons for preference for that system were explained earlier in the thread.

I think the logical outcome will be to not work for those that have shown they can't be trusted, regardless of perceived safeguards.

[Sifor]

Well then, if your contract imposes an obligation on the client to publish only your photos for the event (ie exclusive supply), you've got a leg to stand on..apologies for missing that in my original response.

[anon]

Seeing as this topic seems quite emotional I'll try to keep to the question asked.


(Snip)

Now, this brings two separate instances into question regarding 'ethics', both personal and business.

1 - 'B' being well aware that 'A' earns his living from his work and is the regular photographer requested to carry out the event work orders for the particular client, but ignores this knowledge and still provides, free of charge, shots of those events for publication.

2 - The client reduces the event's shot order from 'A' by a large amount and instead, uses shots provided by 'B', free of charge after the requesting of and confirmation of coverage of the event by 'A'.

(Snip)

Based on the information provided in the first post only, and only addressing the question of ethics, not business sense or on what I think I should do in this situation, do I think the above instances are ethical or unethical?

1 - I do not think the behavior of 'B' is unethical, depending on context it might be impolite, but I see no obligation for 'B' to protect the income of 'A'

2 - Again based on the information in the original post I see nothing unethical in the Client's behavior, the original post states that the client picks the shots and then pays on a sliding scale based on quantity, without other information I see no ethical reason not to use photos from another source

Given the other information, which unfortunately seems to be shifting in emphasis, so it's hard for me to judge how to interpret correctly, and again only looking at the ethics of the situation.

1 - If 'B' agreed not to submit photos (and was not under pressure or duress to do so) even if only verbally, then I think it is unethical to break that agreement. However it would be interesting to know what 'B' perceived the agreement to be...

2- If the client has made an agreement with 'A', then likewise If the client has chosen to break that agreement, that too seems unethical to me, however without knowing the exact details of the contract I can only speculate, based on the assurance that the agreement has been broken.

And no I do not want to read the contract/agreement, though it might be worth 'A' re-reading if 'A' has not done so already, to be sure of where he/she stands.

Regards,
Anon

[ricktas]

Some are lacking the ability to read what's been written and deciding they know the 'truth' of the matter. 'B' is a hobbyist whom gives away his shots from single type of event from a single field of photography. A is peeved because an agreement wasn't honoured in a major fashion on the particular occasion mentioned, the worst occasion of this by a country mile. He is also peeved that someone lied to him and and knowingly removed income with the only benefit being seeing his name under shots in the paper.

No one is undercutting 'A'. Undercutting is in the imagination of the reader, reading something that doesn't exist and hasn't been mentioned. Unless of course, giving away a product is classed as undercutting.

Do not make the mistake of thinking you know more of the motives of 'A' and his thoughts on the matter than 'A' does himself. And no, 'A' started out by providing a product in a market that previously had no product available.

Then you are failing to provide us with full disclosure, and the replies are based on the PARTIAL information given. If you want us to give you answers, we need EVERYTHING, just like a court! We need evidence, copies of contractual arrangements, who paid what to who, etc. If you expect replies to be able to answer the original situation, then give us a FULL AND ACCURATE disclosure of all FACTS surrounding the scenario. No use commenting on something others have said, when you have left out the information to begin with!

This is the issue when dealing with any dispute. There is always three versions, Party A, Party B and the truth. Generally human nature says each party will tell a version of the facts that in some way exonerates them from part of the cause/dispute. So without all the facts, free from bias, we cannot come up with a perfect answer (if one exists).

You have mentioned a few times now that they were obliged to publish photographer A's photos. Unless we can see the full wording of the contract between the parties, we are only going by one version of what the contract stipulated. Obliged and required have two different meanings. Based on what we do know (even then if what we do know is the truth), then Photographer A needs to take that up with the publisher. Photographer B has not breached any contract, laws etc as they are were not a signatory/in agreement under any contractual arrangement, written or verbal.

Ultimately Photographer A's issue is in relation to this contract/agreement with the publisher. Posting on the net will give you a range of answers, but the only solution is for A to go and see the publisher and resolve the issue. Issue resolution does not come about by discussions with third party's. A needs to go see the publisher and resolve this. No one else can.

[Longshots]

hello real world. Time to review your original commissioning agreement. If you've got this type of problem its time to review your terms and conditions of your quote, or agreement between you and the commissioning client. All of this party A and party B stuff is IMHO a huge waste of your energy. As a tip, I cant think of anything more futile that asking for opinions on a topic where you only present a generalistion and not the facts, and then debate/argue with those offering the opinions you seek.

[arthurking83]

..... It was also explained to B that for each shot supplied for nought resulted one less shot purchased from A. It was also explained to B that A had no problem at all with him supplying shots, be it for free or otherwise, for any event that A didn't not receive work order and therefore did not need to spend the time and costs to cover it.

.....

I'm afraid that the way I see this ethical dilemma, is that P is being 'stitched up' here (or so to speak) because what this conversations amounts too could be considered as collusion!

In a free market there should be no 'handshake agreements' between suppliers of good and services to restrict or otherwise unnaturally inhibit the supply of goods or services to prospective clients.

That is, any agreement between A and B can be construed as an illegal business practice, and if I were P I'd not be asking A to do any more shoots for me.

P has a right to source the cheapest possible pricing for their goods, just as you have a right to sourcing the cheapest camera gear, or grocery shopping, or petrol prices .. without the suppliers coming to some agreement between themselves to provide a specific restricted amount of goods at a set price.

I think what has to be realised here is that the times have changed for ever, and may never return to the good ol days.

The value of the commodity(A and B's images) has been devalued forever due to the sheer amount of it now.
The client base ... P .. is also drying up, as they probably require less images at lower prices images as sales of their own products also decline .. adding to their woe of diminishing advertising income.


People want cheap and free, and someone has to lose their job because of this.

W - we the readers want cheap or free news coverage .. so we forgo the traditional media format(newspapers) and begin to gravitate towards live news feeds via our phones and iPads and suchlike.
P - the middleman publisher now has a more limited budget to work with due to W's rejection of a hard copy of something they end up throwing out anyhow. His sales have declined, meaning he's on a reduced income, which has the cascade effect of advertising less ad money coming in as their circulation has dropped.
A - obviously is also struggling for income as P has hardly any money to provide him for his services .. reality is that P loves this endeavour, but it's a losing battle. There must surely be a realisation of this at some point!!
B - is the way of the future for imagery, and if you think it's prevalent now, it's going to be more so as time marches on with more devices being connected to image capturing technology especially as this technology improves.

They say now that there are restrictions on the absolute length of the longest lens you can take into many sports arenas .. for eg. you can't take a 300mm lens into the MCG or whatever it is.
Nokia have a 45Mp sensor in their new phone.
The two main reasons for such high Mp resolution is so they can allow for pixel binning for better noise quality(on regular sized images) BUT!! for the ability to zoom in, with a limited focal length(phone remember!!) .. otherwise it's a regular 8Mp type image.

So the rules and regulations so far are not keeping up with technology, as the old stance against 300mm lenses at the MCG means nothing.
Take a D800 and a high quality 200mm lens and crop to high heaven.
At some point in the future(if not already now!!) J as part of a sub group of W, probably achieve similar results in terms of photography from the rafters to what the pros can get from the sidelines in terms of images for news print.
The need for more Mp in terms of images for most display purposes does not increase. It's a fixed point in the technology stream.
But the gear is always increasing.
We have 36p large sized sensors now and 24Mp crop sensors. This is massive overkill, in terms of the requirements for news print, and so most of the pixels in the current crop of cameras is wasted.
45Mp cameras in phones! This is almost certainly not the end of it ether. Sony, Samsung etc will not lie down and succumb to Nokia's current marketing advantage here .. expect to see more Mp in phone cameras in the near future.
Everyone has a phone.
50,000 spectators at the average AFL game per weekend, which extrapolates to about 50K high res phones placed all around the ground from every vantage point.
99.9% of folks(that I've ever noticed at any one time at games I've been too) all seem to be happy snapping away.
The probability that of the billion images going to be captured on the day of the game, the spectators are more likely to capture the money shot than are the pro photogs .. simply due to the sheer volume of images being captured.
The less than 300mm lens rule is going to end up being a joke, and their only real alternative to stop the wanton capture of highly marketable images from J in the future is going to be that they have to ban mobile phones as a condition of entry. W will not stand for that.

This is the future of photography, and the pro tog must surely realise this and adapt themselves to offer services that offer better remuneration.
I don't think it's in their interest to make deals with other togs(professional or amateur) to restrict the number of and quality of images being captured at any event.
To me, this seems to be similar to burying your head in the sand, to a problem that is not going to go away at any point in the future ... and as B showed in this instance, will not always work.

As JJ said, not everyone is bound by the same set of ethics and morals, and as this thread shows, there are huge divides between all our respective understandings of ethics here.
If I were a publisher reading this, I'd be seriously concerned that I'm being taken for a ride and would be investigating all possible agreements I have with any sub contractors I have.

It's easy to go through life with blinkers on and only see a particular point of view with no thought as to the POV of the other party.
(this has happened recently at my work too and all the subbies who were ripping off the system are now paying for their limited mindset!!)

.. anyhow, I suppose I should get to this work too now.

:)

[Tommo1965]

I think its a crappy act from "B" to shaft "A"..also from "P" to shaft them both..firstly by free-loading "B" images and being a prat to "A" for requesting he attends said events and not buying his images because some twit has offered them for free....what happens next time if "B" is unavalible and "A" says shove it...."c" is an unknown and not to be relied upon if your operating a business that requires regular images .

I think the problem is "B" doesn't see what "A" is doing as a real job and as such may not realise what impact he's having..I wonder if he would take kindly to "A" coming to his work place and offering to his boss to do "B" job for free !!


"P" is down skilling his subby group and will in the end not have anyone reliable because nobody will do Photography as a "REAL" job any-more due to the state of the industry because of the shafting that went on


I like taking images of sport...and if a pro tog asked me to think again if a newspaper asked for free images..then I would....its good ethics really ....and do unto others as youd like done to you ...:)

forget the fame and glory of being in a 12 hour then in the bin Rag !!

[norwest]

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/images/BP-Grey/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by norwest http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/images/BP-Grey/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?p=1050420#post1050420)

Some are lacking the ability to read what's been written and deciding they know the 'truth' of the matter. 'B' is a hobbyist whom gives away his shots from single type of event from a single field of photography. A is peeved because an agreement wasn't honoured in a major fashion on the particular occasion mentioned, the worst occasion of this by a country mile. He is also peeved that someone lied to him and and knowingly removed income with the only benefit being seeing his name under shots in the paper.

No one is undercutting 'A'. Undercutting is in the imagination of the reader, reading something that doesn't exist and hasn't been mentioned. Unless of course, giving away a product is classed as undercutting.

Do not make the mistake of thinking you know more of the motives of 'A' and his thoughts on the matter than 'A' does himself. And no, 'A' started out by providing a product in a market that previously had no product available.



Then you are failing to provide us with full disclosure, and the replies are based on the PARTIAL information given. If you want us to give you answers, we need EVERYTHING, just like a court! We need evidence, copies of contractual arrangements, who paid what to who, etc. If you expect replies to be able to answer the original situation, then give us a FULL AND ACCURATE disclosure of all FACTS surrounding the scenario. No use commenting on something others have said, when you have left out the information to begin with!

This is the issue when dealing with any dispute. There is always three versions, Party A, Party B and the truth. Generally human nature says each party will tell a version of the facts that in some way exonerates them from part of the cause/dispute. So without all the facts, free from bias, we cannot come up with a perfect answer (if one exists).

You have mentioned a few times now that they were obliged to publish photographer A's photos. Unless we can see the full wording of the contract between the parties, we are only going by one version of what the contract stipulated. Obliged and required have two different meanings. Based on what we do know (even then if what we do know is the truth), then Photographer A needs to take that up with the publisher. Photographer B has not breached any contract, laws etc as they are were not a signatory/in agreement under any contractual arrangement, written or verbal.

Ultimately Photographer A's issue is in relation to this contract/agreement with the publisher. Posting on the net will give you a range of answers, but the only solution is for A to go and see the publisher and resolve the issue. Issue resolution does not come about by discussions with third party's. A needs to go see the publisher and resolve this. No one else can.

Sorry, Rick, but that is rubbish and backtracking by yourself after deciding to include undercutting into the argument when all mention was regarding the gifting of no cost shots. Please don't insinuate i might not be telling the truth. "(even then if what we do know is the truth)". Benefit of the doubt would be nice, regardless of myself not being one of your long term AP members.

And i'll repeat once again for the hard of hearing. It has not been even hinted that 'B' breached any contract or laws only his lack of personal ethics in what he did and how he went about it.

Good god, the thread was started for discussion purposes, not for the want of solving anything. With so much ill feeling, resentment and personal bias always entering such discussions about hobby photographers giving away work, a bloke would have to be a complete fool to ask for anything more than opinions.

If you care to look, it was said earlier that the editor was spoken to about the matter and a meeting arranged for today and following the receiving of legal advice and advice from a number of credible sources in both the photographic and publishing industry. Though legal avenues will serve no other purpose than to be 'right' and be broke.

[ricktas]

Fair enough if it is rubbish! I have said my bit and now bow out of this thread. You wanted us to answer your questions, with the limited information given, and then you dispute/refute our opinions. Over it!

[Kym]

And no, Kym, 'B' wasn't told not to publish his shots as you have wrongly assumed. He asked what 'A's' arrangement was with the publisher and how it worked and also had questions regarding peer protocol. With the benefit of hindsight, his arse should have been have kicked and be told to annoy someone else but many tend to give benefit of doubt till shown it's not deserved.

It's been like pulling teeth getting all relevant information in this thread.
But I stand by the statement the B is a free agent and the only possible legal issue is between A and P;
and that depends on an exclusive supply agreement (or not).
We still only have one of three sides, i.e. we don't know B or P's perspective on the issue.

[norwest]

I'm afraid that the way I see this ethical dilemma, is that P is being 'stitched up' here (or so to speak) because what this conversations amounts too could be considered as collusion!

In a free market there should be no 'handshake agreements' between suppliers of good and services to restrict or otherwise unnaturally inhibit the supply of goods or services to prospective clients.

That is, any agreement between A and B can be construed as an illegal business practice, and if I were P I'd not be asking A to do any more shoots for me.

P has a right to source the cheapest possible pricing for their goods, just as you have a right to sourcing the cheapest camera gear, or grocery shopping, or petrol prices .. without the suppliers coming to some agreement between themselves to provide a specific restricted amount of goods at a set price.



Thanks for comments, Authur, however, what you suggest would be correct if there was no agreement between P & A for A to be the sole supplier of shots from those events which he receives a work order and carries said order.
At the very best, or worst, depending on how you want to look at it, after questions from B, A was advising him on how and what might encourage P to break their agreement with A. From experience, it was known that not a great deal of encouragement was required.

- - - Updated - - -


It's been like pulling teeth getting all relevant information in this thread.
But I stand by the statement the B is a free agent and the only possible legal issue is between A and P;
and that depends on an exclusive supply agreement (or not).
We still only have one of three sides, i.e. we don't know B or P's perspective on the issue.

It's like pulling teeth keeping you blokes on track. For example, the only mention of B was regarding his ethics and in fact, the also the ethics of the client. Not any legal issue.

And no, you don't know B or P's perspective, they aren't members or perhaps they could give it. But I am and i'd think a little benefit of the doubt could be given to a fellow photographer and ap member, but it appears the preference is to insinuate this member could, just maybe, be telling fibs. That's the prerogative of anyone that wishes to do so.

BTW, you think you're going to hear the truth from a guy that has no qualms with befriending a working photographer, picks his brains and knowing exactly what he's doing, then gazumps him? You see, Kym, that was what the original question posed in the thread was all about. 'Ethics'. You know, those old fashioned ideas of honesty, morality and integrity. Not law, not legal issues, but good old fashioned ethics that many, based on their comments, obviously see little value in, be it the ethics of individuals like B or business houses like P.

Perhaps many live in glass houses and it's too much of a sore point to avoid degrading into a bun fight. Or perhaps not. Regardless, it's never fails to be an eye opener.

[virgal_tracy]

'A' is familiar with 'B' after 'B' introduced himself previously at an event 'A' was covering, with words to the effect of 'I'm glad to meet you after seeing your work for such a long time' and was full of questions, as is normal when someone has an interest in photography.



'B' wasn't told not to publish his shots as you have wrongly assumed. He asked what 'A's' arrangement was with the publisher and how it worked and also had questions regarding peer protocol. With the benefit of hindsight, his arse should have been have kicked and be told to annoy someone else but many tend to give benefit of doubt till shown it's not deserved.

The second quote provides more information on the behaviour of "B" that wasn't provided in the 1st quote.

"B" may not have acted "ethical" but that is a loose term in this sense as there is no business dealings between "A" & "B". "B" may well be morally in the wrong based upon information in the 2nd quote.

The main issue is the "ethical" behaviour of "P". With a contract / agreement in place, it doesn't matter if 1000 people supply free images to "P", because if "P" acts ethically / legally then they won't publish any images not supplied by "A".

There is still people out there that will act in a correct manner but they are becoming fewer & fewer as financial considerations start to take effect

[Tommo1965]

OP

if I was you mate..Id ring P..and ask him what the crack is.....Tell him your fed up and you thought you had a business arrangement ...

all too often in life people sell themselves short without knowing their true worth..as a employer of men..I know the worth of a good worker or reliable subby...also my employers know our worth as a small company as we supply a quality product at a reasonable price ..not the cheapest..but not the most expensive either { well almost ;)}

reinforce to the employer the possible repercussions his actions will have on the long survival of a pro Tog..he may be just pulling a crafty and hopes its not taken the wrong way by you..you need to tell them that it is indeed taken the wrong way ....

[norwest]

I think its a crappy act from "B" to shaft "A"..also from "P" to shaft them both..firstly by free-loading "B" images and being a prat to "A" for requesting he attends said events and not buying his images because some twit has offered them for free....what happens next time if "B" is unavalible and "A" says shove it...."c" is an unknown and not to be relied upon if your operating a business that requires regular images .

I think the problem is "B" doesn't see what "A" is doing as a real job and as such may not realise what impact he's having..I wonder if he would take kindly to "A" coming to his work place and offering to his boss to do "B" job for free !!


"P" is down skilling his subby group and will in the end not have anyone reliable because nobody will do Photography as a "REAL" job any-more due to the state of the industry because of the shafting that went on


I like taking images of sport...and if a pro tog asked me to think again if a newspaper asked for free images..then I would....its good ethics really ....and do unto others as youd like done to you ...:)

forget the fame and glory of being in a 12 hour then in the bin Rag !!

And that was the question. Ethics. The perception of what is morally right and wrong.

[Tommo1965]

BTW, you think you're going to hear the truth from a guy that has no qualms with befriending a working photographer, picks his brains and knowing exactly what he's doing, then gazumps him? You see, Kym, that was what the original question posed in the thread was all about. 'Ethics'. You know, those old fashioned ideas of honesty, morality and integrity. Not law, not legal issues, but good old fashioned ethics that many, based on their comments, obviously see little value in, be it the ethics of individuals like B or business houses like P.

.


quite agree....next time tell the enquiring amateur nothing....its a sad thing to have to do , but after this experience I don't see you have a choice ....

[norwest]

There is still people out there that will act in a correct manner but they are becoming fewer & fewer as financial considerations start to take effect

Agree, but why, vt? Today people have it extremely easy compared to decades ago, but people today appear to give far less of a damn about what they do and how they do it. Shafting someone would have seen broken noses a couple of decades ago, but now it seems it's OK if it's not illegal or if you can get away with it.

[norwest]

Meeting had this morning. Reasons given were, in a nutshell..

A realisation more shots required than received in original order, had others available, so used them.
Order was fulfilled as others used were after the fact of said order so responsibilities complete.
Not about saving money because others are supplied for free, but about keeping the sender of other shots happy, too.
An unreasonable expectation to expect a further order for shots instead of using senders.
Have no control over what sender of others does or how he gets his shots
We didn't know he would be there, we didn't know he knew you.
Learned that the sender of the shots is a friend of a member of staff.

Irrational excuses and a buttering up overflowing with over the top, sugar coated compliments re one's value to them.

With a realisation there'd be no alteration to attitude and practice, they were informed of a contrary opinion on the matter in clear and firm but polite terms and also informed that shots would not be supplied in the future in any way, shape, form or price. Matter closed.

[ricktas]

As this has been resolved with the OP stating 'Matter Closed', I will now close this thread.

[Longshots]

You simply cannot expect to be an exclusive photographer for an event, unless you are being paid. Not paid based on eventual usage, but commissioned before the event. And then the terms and conditions of entry to the event limit others.

Sure the ethics are less than acceptable. But You should take this experience and learn from it, and change your approach, or business model. As a professional, you cannot expect to have exclusive capture position at an event, based on a third party agreement between you and an editor that exists solely on payment amount based in selection of, and quantity based on usage. That's just not feasible in this day and age.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but the OP began this discussion asking for people to discuss the ethics, and actuallyt stated at one point that he wasn't looking for solutions but opinions. Just because he got bored, or changed his mind and then announces "case closed", shouldn't then close the discussion on the matter of ethics, IMO.

[norwest]

You simply cannot expect to be an exclusive photographer for an event, unless you are being paid. Not paid based on eventual usage, but commissioned before the event. And then the terms and conditions of entry to the event limit others.

Sure the ethics are less than acceptable. But You should take this experience and learn from it, and change your approach, or business model. As a professional, you cannot expect to have exclusive capture position at an event, based on a third party agreement between you and an editor that exists solely on payment amount based in selection of, and quantity based on usage. That's just not feasible in this day and age.

I never had nor expected to have what you say. The agreement was re the purchase for editorial use by one particular client, not exclusive rights as a photographer to an event. The agreement was instigated by the client and agreed to after previous methods of payment were found to be wanting by both parties, to protect the interest of both parties. They loved the reliability, availability and the quality of product provided but wanted to argue about payment for such things as travel, time spent ect. in a big, wide region.

I agree, in normal circumstances freelance payment per event or per hour would be preferable, but it was far from normal and quite peculiar circumstances in the peculiar circumstances of a very old fashioned and conservative agricultural country region. A very difficult area for any newcomer to gain acceptance until they have several generations of local family, with normal practice being I pat your back if you pat mine, but you first have to be a relative or friend of a friend and where accepted protocol, pay rates and the 21'st century are only for those silly buggers in the city.

Peculiar circumstances led to peculiar agreements.

[ricktas]

I have had a few members want this thread re-opened. I have decided to do so, with the following notice

RESPECT OTHER MEMBERS POINTS OF VIEW

If anyone posts belittling another persons point of view, attacking them in any way for their point of view, or breaching a site rule, they will be banned for 7 days!

[kiwi]

I think honestly mate you've thrown the baby out with the bath water by cutting your contract

It's pretty hard to find any publication that's willing to pay you these days

Anyhow, your business but I can't help feel that its a bad business decision

Now mr b will just have free reign providing free images

[norwest]

I think honestly mate you've thrown the baby out with the bath water by cutting your contract

It's pretty hard to find any publication that's willing to pay you these days

Anyhow, your business but I can't help feel that its a bad business decision

Now mr b will just have free reign providing free images

I know how it looks on the surface, Kiwi, but they were opportunistic today and tried to back me into a corner to remove the safety net, one that had already become more and more fragile. They didn't expect the result and didn't like it all but their disappointment quickly turned to nasty resentment when they realised i actually wasn't going to bend over with parted legs. The next line, I'll leave to your imagination.

B isn't the only one that does freebies, they have many, but he was the only one to stick in a knife. The guy must be an ego freak to go to those lengths for a name under a picture. But an ego freak that will give me a very, very wide berth in the future.

[Art Vandelay]

Yep, tell 'em to get stuffed. No point wandering around sports fields all day for a pittance.

[Mark L]

Think I agree with kiwi, though "A"'s ethics most dictate what they do (as seems to be done).
I've thought about going to our local "P", as I believe I have some better images than their local "A"'s that are published. Where to start? Ethics!
Thanks for starting this thread norwest.

[norwest]

Had a look at your local on the web, Mark. The general shots look very generic and the sports shots are very average, so it looks like a 'J' for journo might be doing them and be glad not to have to do it in the busy, jack of all trades schedule of a country journo. If they're like ours they'll have a 300D and kit lens on auto for point n shoot. Show them a web portfolio and give it a go, you should be far more capable than the existing, but don't give them an excuse to expect a lot for little. Or zero.

[welly]

Just my 2 cents worth. Actually - given that I've previously been a management consultant - It's probably about $300 worth. So what are the ethics of providing professional advise for nothing. DOH!

It's advice. I was briefly an English teacher. Going by today's pay for teachers, that's easily $40 of consulting fees. Cough up! :)

[geoffsta]

I think "A" needs to diversify. There are many articles in photo magazines about photographers who do just that, for the same reason that "A" is disgruntled. And generally find that they are far better off.
I can see with technology getting cheaper, that there will be many more "B's" around. All after their tiny bit of recognition.
How many "B's" do we see on here (Myself included) have added their own "WOW I've just been published" thread, and everyone including the "A's" giving them a pat on the back.
I'm no legal eagle, and I'm not sure whether an "Agreement" is the same as a "Contract". And will "A" be willing to go through a long drawn out court battle for breach of contract. Is it worth the hassle. :confused013


All in all this is a fantastic thread, with many points of view. And it shows how the "A's" of this world are finding it tougher and tougher to make a living.

[ricktas]

Ethically, B has got an obviously different sent of ethics and morals to A. B feels it is ok to use someone to get information and then go behind their back and get leverage from that.

Would I do what B did, NO!

But ethics and morals are funny things, we each have our own, but A, B, P, and mine are all probably different, under different scenarios. Society as a whole has a shifting tide of ethics and morals. What was done 20 years ago, is frowned upon now, and what was frowned up 40 years ago is now just accepted normal behaviour.

Remember when women had to have a separate bar the pub?

I think it is easier for most in this thread to dissect this and look at the legalities of agreements/contracts cause they offer hard proof of aspects of the scenario, and it is safer to discuss them that get into a discussion of where each of our moral judgement lies. Discussing morals and ethics is bound to raise the hackles and disagreement in this thread simply because if someone disagrees with what B did and someone else agrees that what B did is OK. It is just safer to stick to hard and fast facts.

[norwest]

I'm no legal eagle, and I'm not sure whether an "Agreement" is the same as a "Contract". And will "A" be willing to go through a long drawn out court battle for breach of contract. Is it worth the hassle. :confused013



Totally out of the question with little to gain but an empty pocket.



Remember when women had to have a separate bar the pub?

I have friends whom until only 30 years ago dealt with council bylaws preventing them from entering a pub at all. And the library and the pool and the bowling club and any other council run community amenity. 10 years prior to that, add the school to the list. The bylaws are gone, through gritted teeth (only through enforced government legislation) but to an appreciable degree the attitude that instigated them still remains.

[Mark L]

Had a look at your local on the web, Mark. The general shots look very generic and the sports shots are very average, so it looks like a 'J' for journo might be doing them .......
A large amount of the sports photos are provided by a local pro.. :scrtch:
The papers Real Estate section is full of terrible images also, though that would be the Agents fault (Mark puts thinking cap on, jeez that hurts).
How to be a B without being a B
Thinking out loud on AP. :)

[norwest]

A 'B' provides for nothing, earns nothing and sets a precedent for a continued expectation of nothing. You can be an 'A' without being full time if the product can attract payment.

There were some decent sports shots of footballers in St George like colours. Local too?

[Kym]

There is a RE agent AP member.
He joined to learn about photography ~2009 and does his own photos for his clients.
Went from a P&S to a DSLR and a 10-20 wide and an 18-55 and later some longer glass.
He has done some pretty decent landscapes as well.
I've seen his RE shots, they are very good.

Is he 'robbing' a pro tog? He is not getting paid more as a RE for the photos.

If you were selling your house and he said he would not charge for photos and that he could show how photos help sell your house what would you do:
Choose him or someone else?

[norwest]

Seeing as all the agents i know locally get their own shots for listing a home as an an acting agent and are obviously very well compensated in their commission as selling agent, perhaps more so if the shots assist in gaining a higher price, how is he providing a free service?

By the way, what's the similarity with freebies for no return or commission and/or intentionally removing income from an existing contracted other?

And, as he is the agent, he is acting for himself as part of his Re agent service when obtaining the sales shots and is free to do as he pleases, as a anyone free to choose if they shoot their own event, family, kid playing sport or use the timer and shoot themselves. So to speak.

[jasevk]

I'm not having a go here, but I think your energy would be better spent if you forgot about this thread right now and got to work on diversifying and adapting your business to the current climate. All the best.

[norwest]

I'm not having a go here, but I think your energy would be better spent if you forgot about this thread right now and got to work on diversifying and adapting your business to the current climate. All the best.

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?108304-Who-needs-to-change-adapt

[MarkChap]

Every time I read this, I get the distinct feeling that you really have this idea that "B" robbed you of sales


By the way, what's the similarity with freebies for no return or commission and/or intentionally removing income from an existing contracted other?

He didn't, in my opinion, he didn't force the publisher to use his images, he provided images that they could use if they wanted to, if the publisher had operated as per the "agreement" they would not have used them.
So get off his back and direct your anger and malice towards those that deserve it, the publisher.

[norwest]

So get off his back

No


and direct your anger and malice towards those that deserve it,

It has


the publisher.

which includes him

[jasevk]

Norwest, you seem to be complaining alot and harboring plenty of anger ad frustration... It comes across that you're worried about the sustainability of your business. Therefore, the strategies you mention in the other thread you directed me to, may need to be revisited - are they really working?

This issue is not going away any time soon and is definitely not confined to rural areas... We're all dealing with it too... Put your blinkers on and don't fall into the trap of blowing up on your clients over it. Remember, you gave the client the option of buying only the images they want to use, rather than for your time - and they are under no obligation to buy ANYTHING from you.

You said that photographer B produced average work, so maintain your integrity and just get on with it... your client may realize this and come back to you.

[Wayne]

No



It has



which includes him
You seem to think you own the rights to be the exclusive photographer at these events, yet it seems you don't hold that right. If someone wants to give it away free of charge to your client, well tough luck for you. Deal with the fact that you have zero right to be the only photographer there, and that means anyone else can take pics and do with them as they wish regardless of whether you like that or not.

Competition is part of any business where you don't own a monopoly, and crying about it will get you nowhere. If I were person B, and you gave me a hard time, I would go out of my way by attending all I could and providing all I had free of charge in the hope you don't sell another image again.

[kiwi]

I don't think b has done anything wrong either really. He's no idea how you get paid, a lot for example get paid a flat rate to attend regardless of whether or how many pics are used, a much more certain model to move to.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[norwest]

You seem to think you own the rights to be the exclusive photographer at these events, yet it seems you don't hold that right. If someone wants to give it away free of charge to your client, well tough luck for you. Deal with the fact that you have zero right to be the only photographer there, and that means anyone else can take pics and do with them as they wish regardless of whether you like that or not.


NO, I don't and haven't claimed or insinuated such. Sole provider of shots to the particular client for particular events was mentioned, only.



Competition is part of any business where you don't own a monopoly, and crying about it will get you nowhere. If I were person B, and you gave me a hard time, I would go out of my way by attending all I could and providing all I had free of charge in the hope you don't sell another image again

If B was a stranger whom hadn't previously befriended me, picked my brains re relationship with the client so he was aware of the ins and outs, I'd have a problem only with the client and not the stranger.

Let me tell you a story. B initially met me while I was covering and event for the client involved.
A couple of weeks later I was covering an event for a couple of private clients and the paper of the visiting team. Events in this town I usually do not cover and do not cover for the publisher because the travel, time and cost is too great. B was at this event gaining shots for the local publisher (the client in question) and i was well aware of this from prior knowledge.

I sought him out immediately to inform him of my reasons for being there and I remember the gist of the conversation went. "Thought I'd let you know out of professional courtesy so that you wouldn't think i was standing on your toes that I'm not here for the 'publisher' and have no intention of supplying any shots from this game to them as I know they are aware you're doing this for them."

Later on after an important play and score he asked if I 'got' the shot and he saw me browsing a series of shots. He commented after seeing a particular shot that 'it' would be the back page next week and that he had missed the shot. I again confirmed that regardless of the shots I get I would not be supplying any shots for the reasons I stated earlier. All was quite cordial and friendly, as is normal for two people with a similar interest, particular when one displays courtesy towards the other.

Even if i didn't feel obliged to not stand on toes out of professional courtesy, in a small community doing so would not do my reputation any favours and I'd soon be frowned upon. B is relatively new to the region after moving from the city.



I don't think b has done anything wrong either really. He's no idea how you get paid, a lot for example get paid a flat rate to attend regardless of whether or how many pics are used, a much more certain model to move to.

He was well aware of the payment method, kiwi.

[Speedway]

Stop blaming everyone else, take up your agreement (You do have it in writing don't you?) with the publisher and then do the remaining shoots you have booked. Then renegotiate your terms to a more suitable system for you both. Don't get your nose out of joint and throw away a money earner out of spite.
Keith.

[jasevk]

the meeting will serve little purpose in gaining the trust required to believe that it won't continue in the future and 'A' will likely cancel about three weeks of future bookings with the client and advise them that enough is enough.



This would be a silly move to make, if it's not already too late, I'd back peddle from this approach quickly. Completely unprofessional - you need to develop a strategy to make your client realise that you are the best option for them in the future... ADAPT!

Think about it from their perspective, in one corner you have a photographer supplying them with images for free, and possibly extremely cheaply in the future - in the other corner they have a disgruntled full time photographer with perceived entitlement issues - be aware of the direction you're taking this relationship.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[norwest]

Two meetings were had and a further conversation while shooting an event on Saturday. I will not go into detail, however, despite frustrating efforts an agreement could not be reached that was not heavily weighted to advantage the client and all risk held by the photographer. It's one of those times when the wise thing to do is walk away.

[jasevk]

Two meetings were had and a further conversation while shooting an event on Saturday. I will not go into detail, however, despite frustrating efforts an agreement could not be reached that was not heavily weighted to advantage the client and all risk held by the photographer. It's one of those times when the wise thing to do is walk away.

When you find a business opportunity where you don't hold all the risk for its failure... Let me know - I want in.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[norwest]

When you find a business opportunity where you don't hold all the risk for its failure... Let me know - I want in.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

As I stated a long way back in this thread, they were opportunist. The new agreement touted held no up front minimum fee, no payment for time rendered and no guarantee of sales if product supplied for free by others. The question was asked of the client if he would spend the considerable time and costs involved in conducting a requested job or jobs in the knowledge there may not be any payment for said job on it's completion. The answer was, No. :hb: The question was then asked, why he thought I'd be naive enough to do it.

Do you now see what I meant by all the risk? I didn't say it lightly, jasevk, I meant it.

[MarkChap]

The answer was, No. :hb: The question was then asked, why he thought I'd be naive enough to do it.



He thought that, because from my understanding, you signed an agreement with him to do just that ?? didn't you, did I read that back up there somewhere

[kiwi]

Simply once again free conquers good.

Take up lawn mowing I reckon.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[enduro]

Can I get a person B to come and do my gardens and lawn?

I would also like a person B to build a small retaining wall too.

[norwest]

He thought that, because from my understanding, you signed an agreement with him to do just that ?? didn't you, did I read that back up there somewhere

No.


Simply once again free conquers good.

Take up lawn mowing I reckon.

And seriously, who wins? Those whom profit from gaining multiple products for free? Those whom supply the products for the benefit of seeing them on butcherer's wrappings, only?

[kiwi]

Who wins ? B of course, and the paper, who loses, us....who cares....no one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[arthurking83]

.....



And seriously, who wins? Those whom profit from gaining multiple products for free? Those whom supply the products for the benefit of seeing them on butcherer's wrappings, only?

I suppose it's time to ask yourself the question .. does it really bother you that one party(P) is taking advantage of another party(B) and that the other party, who in this case (B) appears to be accepting of this one way arrangement?

I'm sure B is thinking to themselves that this new arrangement is exactly what they were after and that they(B) are now the main photographer that P may rely on for images of this event type.
So B may be thinking that one day soon, they'll approach P and request a certain level of remuneration, to which B will ask too much and P will offer too little and the previous P-B putsch to oust A will transpire again with a new player to enter the fray one day.

More important to me is with what alphabetisation label should we place on this impending new player?
We already have A, B and P.. how about the new person being called O, this way the new saga can be labelled the 'BOP' saga which is slightly more catchy than anything I can come up with with the original three parties(BAP, PAB being the only two that made any sense at all).
You may be able to sell the rights to this story to Channel 9(or any of it's affiliates) and they'll begin with a light news coverage on the nightly news, followed by a brief report on ACA, and then a feature length in depth enquiry via 60minutes(or the latest incarnation of that now gone program).

Finally in a year or so, they'll make the 4 part mini series movie ...

[MarkChap]

No.



NO ??? :confused013



The long term agreement is to provide shots of events which are chosen by the client via website viewing of said event shots which are uploaded asap following the events. Payment is per shot provided, on a sliding scale according to quantity. (person 'A's preferred agreement after hassles with hourly rate payments)

That is from your opening post, so my guess is, yes. But that is just me

[norwest]

NO ??? :confused013



That is from your opening post, so my guess is, yes. But that is just me

Then, Mark, its simply a guess.

You forgot the agreement re sole provision, or do you think it has no relevance, which btw, is the the subject of the thread?
Do you also think they would do without shots for the weeks biggest social events and sporting events ect in two published papers? I know the average quantity of shots used on a regular basis, what type of events and what occasions require most and which event articles are always accompanied by several shots. But that is just me and what would I know?

[Mojo]

...

Do you also think they would do without shots for the weeks biggest social events and sporting events ect in two published papers? I know the average quantity of shots used on a regular basis, what type of events and what occasions require most and which event articles are always accompanied by several shots.
I think you should stop wasting energy dwelling on the ethics and whatnot. It's simply not going to turn out like you want it to. Anyway, print media such as newspapers are losing their market, and will likely cease to be viable sooner than many people realise. Within a year, the publisher will be unemployed and really pissed off that his job has gone to some intenet savvy marketing specialist.

Now, if I were you..... :D I would:

NOT shoot myself in the foot by spitting the dummy. I would wring as much work out of the publisher as possible, and do my best to out do the hobby guy with better or different pictures. I'd retain the rights to the pics, and publish thumbnails on a website. Of course, during the event I would have taken as many pics of the individual people as I could, prefereably in their finest moments. I'd even cunningly engineer some set up pics of guests with any willing VIPs. (Some VIPs like photo ops with the common folk because it's good for their image.) I'd have the website address printed on a card, which I'd hand out willy nilly. People will order hi-res images or framed prints if they're priced reasonably. Especially the women if you use your skills to make them look good.

NEXT I'd start networking with the event managers and coordinators. Never overlook the PAs - they organise stuff! I'd negotiate to be the official event photographer. There are many remuneration arrangements that could be agreed, but the strongest case is if they get something out of it. Then at the event, make sure you get a badge or something - it will make getting photos easier.

THIS will transition you into a professional field that will outlast the hardcopy newspaper publishing business. It helps that you are in a community where you're known, and you know what goes on (I'm assuming this). I don't know any professional photographers so I don't know if this is something they do, but if local, event based photography is how you earn your living, it makes sense to adapt and look beyond the current situation.

I'm sure I'm oversimplifying, but there's no point beating the track you want to take - it goes nowhere in the long run.

[norwest]

I'm just answering questions, Mojo, with the threads original questions seeming to have been buried. The only way you can outdo a freebie re the press is to provide freebie. All done, all over and moved on.

The rest you mention is all done and has been for quite some time with the press work being only part of the whole but an appreciable part. Thanks for the comments.

[Mojo]

Ok. Like I said, I don't know much about professional photography so I apologise if I sounded like an upstart offering suggestions. I do know a reasonable amount about media convergence though, and I think you're going through a lot of angst over something that has happened, and will likely continue to happen until the medium disappears. No point in being a Gerry Harvey bleating about an unfair business situation - you have to get a step ahead and value add to compete.

[kiwi]

I'm yet to sell pics of any volume to anyone over 10

[Mark L]

An aside.

.... Anyway, print media such as newspapers are losing their market, and will likely cease to be viable sooner than many people realise. ......

norwest lives in a rural area, and from what I can see, less than quality rural "newspapers" seem to still sell very well. It's no biggy in the larger scheme of things. But it seems people outside big cities still find some community engagement via their local "newspapers".

[mikew09]

I was person B at a major horse event some time ago. I new person A and new they had be paid a min payment to attend (travel & meals) and releid on income for the weeks activites. I spoke with her and acknowledged that I would not provide any photos I took at the event to anyone with the exception the photos of my horse being evented by my daughter at the time. Didnt see any point paying for photos of my own horse.

I thnk that was fair and stuck to my word, and yes I was asked by friends to take photos for them but politely said I couldn't. I think that was fair enough.

- - - Updated - - -

I was person B at a major horse event some time ago. I new person A and new they had be paid a min payment to attend (travel & meals) and releid on income for the weeks activites. I spoke with her and acknowledged that I would not provide any photos I took at the event to anyone with the exception the photos of my horse being evented by my daughter at the time. Didnt see any point paying for photos of my own horse.

I thnk that was fair and stuck to my word, and yes I was asked by friends to take photos for them but politely said I couldn't. I think that was fair enough.

[norwest]

and stuck to my word, .

To me, Mike, that's still the measure of a man, regardless of why or to whom you've given your word. Credit to you.



norwest lives in a rural area, and from what I can see, less than quality rural "newspapers" seem to still sell very well. It's no biggy in the larger scheme of things. But it seems people outside big cities still find some community engagement via their local "newspapers".

Agree. They love seeing whom is up to what in the local. If the country areas are as slow moving along with the rest of Australia as they usually are, local rags could be around and strong for a couple of generations yet. ;)

[Lianne]

Sorry I am a late comer to this thread, but does the below quote mean that "A" freely advised "B" on what it would take to get "P" to break the contract.


At the very best, or worst, depending on how you want to look at it, after questions from B, A was advising him on how and what might encourage P to break their agreement with A. From experience, it was known that not a great deal of encouragement was required.

Now that is ethically interesting.

[norwest]

Now that is ethically interesting.

Perhaps you could elaborate.

[Lianne]

At the very best, or worst, depending on how you want to look at it, after questions from B, A was advising him on how and what might encourage P to break their agreement with A. From experience, it was known that not a great deal of encouragement was required.

I just find it ethically challenging that "A" would provide "B" with knowledge to encourage "P" to break a contractual agreement. Sounds like "A" was setting up "P".



1 - 'B' being well aware that 'A' earns his living from his work and is the regular photographer requested to carry out the event work orders for the particular client, but ignores this knowledge and still provides, free of charge, shots of those events for publication.



It would appear that he did not "ignore the knowledge" as you stated originally, rather he listened intently to what "A was advising him on how and what might encourage P to break their agreement..."

[norwest]

I just find it ethically challenging that "A" would provide "B" with knowledge to encourage "P" to break a contractual agreement. Sounds like "A" was setting up "P".



He was actively encouraging P to break an agreement? What brings you to that conclusion?
To the contrary, A had assumed that B, with the knowledge provided, might be discouraged to do so, particularly when he had no reason to assume otherwise.

Why, Lianne, would he want to set up a client to break an agreement? What would the benefit be? You surely must have a motive in mind to suggest such a premeditated action.



It would appear that he did not "ignore the knowledge" as you stated originally, rather he listened intently to what "A was advising him on how and what might encourage P to break their agreement..."

Obviously he didn't ignore it. As obvious as my original statement, 'ignore the knowledge', was referring to paying no heed to the consequences to A of doing so.

[Lianne]

Your original wording "A was advising him on how and what might encourage P to break their agreement..." sounded like encouragement.


Why, Lianne, would he want to set up a client to break an agreement? What would the benefit be? You surely must have a motive in mind to suggest such a premeditated action.

Why - don't know; benefit - don't know; motive - just commenting on what was written.
I have no investment in the outcome - just commenting on what I read.

[norwest]

Why - don't know; benefit - don't know; motive - just commenting on what was written.
I have no investment in the outcome - just commenting on what I read.

I didn't suggest you had a motive, i was referring to what motive there could be for such premeditated action.

I assure you in the strongest terms, there was no such set up, absolutely no reason for such a set up and no encouragement for what transpired.