PDA

View Full Version : SPINOFF: Event photogs charging to view proofs online.....



eventer80
Nov. 24, 2009, 03:02 PM
Check out the discussion going on here:

http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=232738

Do the photogs at your shows charge to view proofs? If so (or not) what are your opinions............

mjrtango93
Nov. 24, 2009, 03:11 PM
2 of our local photog's do charge to view proofs. They I believe are a $20 & $25 dollar deposit. That is applied to any purchase you make though, so say you buy 3 photos and its $60 then you only pay the difference from the deposit. One of the photog's will refund if they don't get any really good shots you like, but they have to agree there is nothing worth purchasing. Not sure how that works. The other one will only give a refund if they literally do not get any photo's of you.

Couture TB
Nov. 24, 2009, 03:17 PM
I have never been at an event that the photographers have charged to view. My fav one is xpress foto. They do a fantastic job, they are the funnest people and always seem to remember you. They do not charge to view the photos. I think they do charge a bit extra for you to use them for sales photos and such and you have to say 'photo by xpress foto' but I have no problem with that. I wouldn't pay to view my photos before buying. The photos cost enough as it is, which I am more then happy to pay but most people can only afford so much.

lizajane09
Nov. 24, 2009, 03:19 PM
Personally, I haven't encountered a photographer that does so, and I would not want to purchase from one that did. It seems to me akin to a store that would charge you an entrance fee just to go in the door and look at the merchandise to see if you wanted to buy anything - pretty ridiculous.

Trixie
Nov. 24, 2009, 03:31 PM
As a photographer, I wouldn't. If I am commissioned to do a shoot for a specific person, I'll charge an hourly rate because it'd be highly rare to make enough on prints to make it justifiable. However, when doing that many people, it generally balances out just fine if my shots are of any level of quality.

As a consumer, I forked over my money most happily to the photographer who offered up to 150 images on a CD for $60. He got about 40 of my horse, so it was well worth the cost. Not all of them would have been worth purchasing, however, but since it was digital, it wasn't exactly costing them per shot.

I'll obviously pay more for quality. Peggy Smith got some GORGEOUS ones of my horse at a jumper show, I paid quite a bit for them but LOVE the photo I bought. The light is perfect in a way that a lot of our smaller photographers locally haven't been able to capture, and I'm paying for that level of skill.

I don't have the disposable income to pay just to look, I don't think. Unless my horse was particularly awesome on a given day.

caevent
Nov. 24, 2009, 03:32 PM
Personally, I haven't encountered a photographer that does so, and I would not want to purchase from one that did. It seems to me akin to a store that would charge you an entrance fee just to go in the door and look at the merchandise to see if you wanted to buy anything - pretty ridiculous.

Hey, that store you describe is Costco! I too find it absurd. Won't give those people my business, period. I understand that there's an incredible amount of work that goes into getting shots of every rider at a show, but still. I need to see proof before I fork over the money.

gold2012
Nov. 24, 2009, 04:11 PM
I like the idea of charging a deposit. Perhaps if people would stop stealing her pics from the internet, and using them, she wouldn't have to do that.

As for the other photographer you guys mentioned....I have paid for pics that were never mailed...

Terri works hard, and there have been a TON of pics that have been stollen. You can't build those costs into this. Another option that might have to be done is her billing hourly to stand in the heat, the rain, at a show, to the organizers, who charge way more for a stall then I think they need to. Take some of that money, and quit expecting someone to standing in texas and sweat bullets for that person to go steal what they want.

Another I would think is for PhotoReflect to start working on a better security system to keep this from happening.

Firefox
Nov. 24, 2009, 04:21 PM
Do what others do, stamp proof across the front and although it can still be stolen, it is not much use with that across the picture! I would rather not pay to see proofs, that defeats the purpose of "proofs"

Couture TB
Nov. 24, 2009, 04:23 PM
There are ways to make them not able to be stolen, not only stamping proof on the front, but you can also set up your site with enough security that no one can click on a photo and save it and if they try to print it off the website it will print an x or black box. Why does she just not do that?

Trixie
Nov. 24, 2009, 04:29 PM
I like the idea of charging a deposit. Perhaps if people would stop stealing her pics from the internet, and using them, she wouldn't have to do that.

Perhaps if she'd watermark them or use a secure photo server, this wouldn't happen... :winkgrin:


As for the other photographer you guys mentioned....I have paid for pics that were never mailed...

File a complaint with the Better Business Bureau. This is a small industry, if word gets around, they won't stay in business.


Terri works hard, and there have been a TON of pics that have been stollen. You can't build those costs into this.

You can prevent it from happening in the first place. Further, if you discover someone still managing to do this, you can file a lawsuit.


Another option that might have to be done is her billing hourly to stand in the heat, the rain, at a show, to the organizers, who charge way more for a stall then I think they need to. Take some of that money, and quit expecting someone to standing in texas and sweat bullets for that person to go steal what they want.

Unfortunately, that's what the job IS - standing in the heat, rain, snow, whatever. Heck, I know big hunter shows frequently charge photographers a vendor fee. It's unlikely that any horse event is going to pay a photographer to make money off their event, when the show itself doesn't gain much benefit from the photos.

GotSpots
Nov. 24, 2009, 04:35 PM
I don't care if the photographer slaps big "PROOF" all over their photographs online, but I'm not paying to look at proofs, and I'm not paying to buy photos I can't see first (cough-SporthorseStudio-cough). I go out of my way to support photographers, and in general am sufficiently in love with my ponies that I will buy photos of them almost anywhere, though I generally wait until the end of the season to do so.

Love GRC's approach; ditto Red Horse, Shannon Brinkman, Amy Dragoo etc. Happy to support good photographers but I'm not paying for the privilege of purchasing their wares.

Shrunk "N" Da Wash
Nov. 24, 2009, 04:52 PM
Photographers are getting a bit pushy it seems... I'm brining my own camera :lol:

bambam
Nov. 24, 2009, 05:22 PM
There is only 1 I have come across in eventing that charges just to look at proofs- there may be more.
I personally will not pay for the opportunity to decide if I want to buy your photos. Sorry. Unless it is some spectacular event (i.e. AECs, my trip around Rolex :winkgrin:, etc), I have enough opportunities to view proofs and buy photos that I have decided I actually want that I will just wait until the next HT if you want to charge me to look at proofs.

NeverTime
Nov. 24, 2009, 05:37 PM
It raises my ire, too, but 15 mintues on Facebook and I can COMPLETELY understand why they are starting to do this.
Can't tell you how many FB pages I see that have album after album of professional photos copied off the internet. Many have the "proof" stamp across them; that doesn't matter to a rider bursting with so much pride and enthusiasm she just HAS to show her friends (but not quite so much pride and enthusiasm that she feels the need to open her wallet).
And even though many sites are now set up to prevent you from downloading a copy of the picture, I'm not sure that many have the technology to prevent you from doing a screen-grab.
Bugs me to pay sight unseen, but I can't say that I blame them.

Couture TB
Nov. 24, 2009, 06:21 PM
Anyone can set it up so you can not do a screen grab, copy pictures, save pictures, print pictures, etc. It just comes down to one of two things: Either they are able to do it themselves or they pay for a computer geek/web hoster to do it for them. Now before you say that it costs extra money to do this, which if you can't do it yourself it does, the question would be : why wouldn't they do it? If they are loosing money to people doing that then spending a bit to stop it and keep their potential PAYING clients happy is worth every penny.

TXnGA
Nov. 24, 2009, 08:25 PM
:no:

I would NEVER pay to view my proofs from a show, event, etc. I view them to see if there are any photos that I would like to purchase. Sometimes I am disapointed in the jump/ angle that the photographer chose to shoot from.

Plus, the reason I have not been purchasing pics from shows/ events lately is because the prices are OUTRAGEOUS!!!!! My dad is a prof. photographer and charges way way way less for his proffesional pics from hunter/ jumper shows in Wellington. Lets get real here, from the photographer from the last event I went to, they wanted $30 for a 4x6- a 4x6!! Yeah, that is right. A 5x7 was $35. It takes 50 cents to have them printed (I know this for a fact). That is like a 6000% mark up. I understand they need to make a living off of their pictures- but they would sell a lot more photos and I would buy a lot more photos if they were priced more reasonable!!!

So, I used to buy on average 4-8 pictures from and event, now I buy 0 unless it is very very very good. :D

enjoytheride
Nov. 24, 2009, 08:41 PM
No I would never pay to view proofs I had no idea were good or not.

Every single photographer's website I have been to uses click protection. Smugmug is used by ammy photographers and it uses this technology so it can't be that hard.

People will steal, you can prevent that easily without accusing everyone in the entire area of doing it.

archieflies
Nov. 24, 2009, 09:30 PM
People will steal, you can prevent that easily without accusing everyone in the entire area of doing it.

To be fair, it was Gold2012, not Terrie herself, who addressed Area V as a whole as being thieves. :) I suspect other issues...

Meredith Clark
Nov. 24, 2009, 10:34 PM
It raises my ire, too, but 15 mintues on Facebook and I can COMPLETELY understand why they are starting to do this.


I don't really believe in paying for proofs (I think the photographers should use better security to prevent thief)

BUT.. I can't believe the balls people have posting stolen pics all over their facebooks or webpages. ESPECIALLY when they are using as a sale picture..ie let ME profit off of this picture but not you.

classless

SkipChange
Nov. 24, 2009, 10:47 PM
There are ways to make them not able to be stolen, not only stamping proof on the front, but you can also set up your site with enough security that no one can click on a photo and save it and if they try to print it off the website it will print an x or black box. Why does she just not do that?

There are ways even around that. You can use a "Print screen" key that basically takes a "picture" of everything on your screen. Paste it into Word and crop and voila! there's a printable version of the photograph you just stole from the photographer.

Would I pay to view proofs online? Probably not. But i can understand the theory behind it, that doesn't mean I agree with it. If they had a tent/booth/trailer set up on the grounds and I saw that I got some good shots of me and just didn't have time to order on the grounds I would probably pay a viewing fee if it counted towards purchase and I KNEW I would buy something.

citydog
Nov. 24, 2009, 10:57 PM
No way would I pay to look at proofs.

There are plenty of security measures that can be used to prevent stealing, and if you keep them on the small side and have a more opaque watermark you can cut back on the usefulness of them to people who steal them via screenshot.

Ajierene
Nov. 24, 2009, 11:26 PM
If I had to pay just to view pictures, I would not even bother.

I have gone back and viewed, thought about it, viewed again...especially with GRC, you can buy a year later - and I have waited several months or until the end of the season and picked the best of the season.

One venue in particular, I was looking forward to the pictures and they all were not bad in quality, but none really grabbed me as good shots. Good thing I didn't waste $20 just to find that out!

If a company like GRC, where I know there will be several shots and several angles of one jump, I may pay a deposit. Another photographer that I did not know (like the one mentioned above), I would not pay at all.

EventingJ
Nov. 25, 2009, 06:57 AM
I would probably not ever pay to view proofs.... Remember the day when they used to send you a 4x6 in the mail of your proofs?? There are definatly ways around getting pictures "stolen" off the internet - small pictures for example, watermarks, etc. Also, what if you possibly wanted a picture for your birthday, sent a link to a family member.. THEY have to pay again? thats sort of silly.

avezan
Nov. 25, 2009, 07:20 AM
Remember the day when they used to send you a 4x6 in the mail of your proofs??

heh heh. I remember the first time I got proofs in the mail. Before I understood what was going on, I thought someone was stalking me! Pay me the money, or you and horsey are goners! haha. I was amazed that they would look you up by your pinney. I always sent the proofs that I didn't buy back to the photographer, but that must have cost a lot and they must have lost a ton of money that way!

I would never pay to look at proofs. I have seen some proofs that I had no interest in buying. I wouldn't take the chance unless, as someone said, I was riding at AEC's or Rolex (uh, not in this lifetime)...

Catalina
Nov. 25, 2009, 09:39 AM
I would not pay to look at proofs either, unless it was really inexpensive, like $1.00 or something. I have bought several pictures in the past, but I don't know what happened this year- I went to a lot of events with two horses and I didn't get one picture that I felt was worth buying. Either the timing was off, the angles were wierd, or, most commonly, I looked like a trash bag stuffed with garbage on the back of my horse. I would be extremely irate if I had to pay a bunch of money to preview proofs for pictures that were just eh.

gold2012
Nov. 25, 2009, 11:20 AM
I never accused the entire area of being thieves "Archieflies". I am simply saying that there are a lot of people both in area and out who do what Terrie is talking about.

Actually, the eventers in Area 5 are very honest. We have constantly left very expensive tack in the isles and can say not one single thing has ever been stollen. Not by fellow eventers.

However, as someone mentioned, I do think kids don't think it's wrong to use proofs that have the persons proof on them on facebook.

As for technology, I know there are programs you can use that will go in and hack a site, and take any pics you want...

Terrie, I asked my hubby, and he said, put a poor quality resolution onto your pics. While it won't stop this behavior, it will certainly cut back on it. If one takes a picture, and reduces it, then when it is blown up, it becomes grainy, and a little out of focus, people won't be as likely to try to use it on facebook. He said to contact us if you need help, and he can show you some tricks.

I don't like having to pay for proofs either. It's not a good thing. But I think that people should realize they do make thier living out there.

Boy I miss those proofs they use to mail you. Those were fun.

Trixie
Nov. 25, 2009, 11:38 AM
Plus, the reason I have not been purchasing pics from shows/ events lately is because the prices are OUTRAGEOUS!!!!! My dad is a prof. photographer and charges way way way less for his proffesional pics from hunter/ jumper shows in Wellington. Lets get real here, from the photographer from the last event I went to, they wanted $30 for a 4x6- a 4x6!! Yeah, that is right. A 5x7 was $35. It takes 50 cents to have them printed (I know this for a fact). That is like a 6000% mark up. I understand they need to make a living off of their pictures- but they would sell a lot more photos and I would buy a lot more photos if they were priced more reasonable!!!

Photographers are not exactly raking it in.

Overhead costs are quite high. A couple of several-thousand dollar digital cameras, probably a few thousand extra in lenses. Back ups for each because they can and will break inconveniently. Computer, photoshop software (very expensive), CD’s, gas to events, food at events, memory cards, etc. Cameras will need to be cleaned thoroughly every few months, replaced every couple of years – horse dirt wears on them like no other. Ditto for lenses. Hotel for a more than one day event, if all of them aren’t in your backyard.

If it rains, you’re basically screwed – no one is going to buy those pictures. If the light is bad, they won’t be as nice. A good photographer can improve this, but not change it. Also, there’s absolutely nothing you can do about the fact that Sparky doesn’t jump like a grand prix horse and his rider doesn’t want to pay for shots where his knees aren’t even. You’re at the mercy of nature, and of the horse.

Also, there are probably about 6 barn moms standing on the fence with their digital SLR’s giving away what you’re selling for free. You’re also not getting compensated for your time on an hourly wage – pretty much ever.

It’s not “like a 6000% markup” when you factor in all the costs. You need to educate yourself on the business plan of a photographer before you blithely say such things – “I know this for a fact.”

And yes, in spite of all this, I think it will only incense your clientele to make them pay for proofs. Remember, your competition is the six barn moms with their cameras.

TXnGA
Nov. 25, 2009, 03:10 PM
Photographers are not exactly raking it in.

Overhead costs are quite high. A couple of several-thousand dollar digital cameras, probably a few thousand extra in lenses. Back ups for each because they can and will break inconveniently. Computer, photoshop software (very expensive), CD’s, gas to events, food at events, memory cards, etc. Cameras will need to be cleaned thoroughly every few months, replaced every couple of years – horse dirt wears on them like no other. Ditto for lenses. Hotel for a more than one day event, if all of them aren’t in your backyard.

If it rains, you’re basically screwed – no one is going to buy those pictures. If the light is bad, they won’t be as nice. A good photographer can improve this, but not change it. Also, there’s absolutely nothing you can do about the fact that Sparky doesn’t jump like a grand prix horse and his rider doesn’t want to pay for shots where his knees aren’t even. You’re at the mercy of nature, and of the horse.

Also, there are probably about 6 barn moms standing on the fence with their digital SLR’s giving away what you’re selling for free. You’re also not getting compensated for your time on an hourly wage – pretty much ever.

It’s not “like a 6000% markup” when you factor in all the costs. You need to educate yourself on the business plan of a photographer before you blithely say such things – “I know this for a fact.”

And yes, in spite of all this, I think it will only incense your clientele to make them pay for proofs. Remember, your competition is the six barn moms with their cameras.


I do know what I'm talking about because as I stated earlier that my dad is a professional photographer, so I do know the ins and outs and facts and costs. He does the photography at wellington of all places for the hunter jumpers and thinks what our photog.s charge for photos is ridiculus (sp). I do understand the overhead and other factors going into the photographer, my point is that if they would like to sell more pictures, and I would sure as hell buy them if they were more reasonable priced. a 6000% increase is stupid to me, and all it does for the photographer is sell less photos that you so wanted to account for all his time, etc things they do. I would think that a client buying 4-8 photos at 8-10 dollars a piece is a better sale than a maybe client purchasing no photos at 30- 35 dollars a piece. Do the math- If at the 30-35 dollar price the photog. will sell maybe one photo or at 8-10 dollars they sell 4-8 photos.......

perhaps this is why a lot more people are bringing their own cameras so they don't have to pay the astronomical prices for the professional ones. :yes:

Trixie
Nov. 25, 2009, 03:58 PM
Maybe his overhead is less than that of others. I know around here, cost of living is extremely high, which is an important factor. Maybe his profit margins are less than most photographers around here - its variable. Further, you’re not the one running his business – and yet, you’re saying things like “6000% markup” as if it only costs $0.50 to produce a photograph. Which is not only some interesting math, it shows a lack of knowledge of what actually goes into being a professional photographer, and what exactly that print actually costs to produce (hint: it’s not just paper and printing costs).

Some local photographers have experimented with charging less for images and found that they actually don’t do as well – because there are a lot of people that aren’t going to pay ANY money for a lesser photo, which I totally understand. The key is to know what your clients want, and produce that. Speculating that they're totally going to buy more if they're cheaper is just that - speculation.

When I paid $60 for a CD of 150 images, they were on par with those six barn moms and their digital cameras. They were OK, but they didn’t begin to compare to the one $40 Peggy J Smith print that I gladly paid dearly for. That’s the one that is framed on my wall.

This may help you understand it better:

http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=75252&highlight=PROFESSIONAL+PHOTOGRAPHER

Page four explains some viewpoints of pro photographers and why your business model has not worked for them.

Ajierene
Nov. 25, 2009, 06:27 PM
It is all about marketing. Let's start with the reality for a budding photographer:

Digital Camera $1000
Extra Lens = $500 x2= $1000
Memory cards = $40 x 3 = $120
Tripod = $100
Printer = $500
Software = $100
TOTAL = $1820

100 at competition, one picture each = $18.20/picture

But your not going to recoup in one show. Charging $10 per 4X6 will allow you to break even at 182 pictures - basically two shows. Possibly three. Then you have another year or two before incurring more large company expenses (such as a camera).

I just checked two sites.

Company A - 40 pictures of me and $15 for a 4X6
Company B - 20 pictures of me and $20 for a 4X6

Company A also offers packages, company B does not.

Which one do you think I am more likely to buy from?

I am currently self-employed and am well aware of the additional costs. You have to balance your costs with your clients needs. That's how the companies got big - marketing abilities.

JWB
Nov. 25, 2009, 06:44 PM
No, I would not pay to look at proofs. If the work is high enough quality, I'll pay for it. If it's not, I won't.

I know there are plenty of ways to screen grab a copyrighted image... I've done it but only when waiting for my CD-ROM of pictures to arrive. Stamping PROOF across it would work better... preferably right over the horse and/or rider's face.

I am generally happy to pay around $15-25 for a digital image (no copyright) but I rarely purchase prints these days since most of my pictures live on the computer anyhow.

It bugs the heck out of me to see people putting up stolen proofs. If law enforcement would treat this as what it is, a theft, then photographers would not have to go through all of this.... That said, charging to look seems over the top and I imagine it will bite them in the a$$ in the long run.

evntr
Nov. 25, 2009, 07:14 PM
I've never had to pay to view proofs. That's about as bad as Sport Horse Studio making you purchase your photos without seeing what you're getting!

Trixie
Nov. 25, 2009, 09:57 PM
Digital Camera $1000
Extra Lens = $500 x2= $1000
Memory cards = $40 x 3 = $120
Tripod = $100
Printer = $500
Software = $100
TOTAL = $1820

This isn't very accurate. A very good digital camera can run between $3000-6000, depending. High quality telefotos are expensive. I'll give you memory cards and tripods, not that much. I prefer to send my prints out for processing because I feel that's better quality than what I can do with an inkjet, and I want to give you something that will last.

Software at $100? Adobe Photoshop CS4 - the basic version - is $700. Creative suite is about $1800.

You need a computer that can handle a high volume of high resolution images. Add an additional several thousand dollars.

Cameras and lenses need to be replaced every few years. Photoshop needs to be updated every year or so at the tune of several hundred dollars. Computers die, you need a backup system. You may need to pay a second photographer or even two or three if an event is large and more than one thing is going on at a time. You'll also need to be able to continue your education, because not all of these programs will stay viable forever - technology is changing all the time.

The point is to offer you something better than your parents will shoot with their Canon Rebel. Sure, you can start small and build up - and there are a lot of photographers out there running lesser quality establishments with lesser equipment and offering okay prints. But realistically, for quality equipment that lasts, it's going to cost you.

flea
Nov. 25, 2009, 10:25 PM
If you buy the picture are you then able to use it on facebook? Can one usually get permission to use a bought picture in sales flyers?

Redline Guy
Nov. 26, 2009, 10:48 PM
Anyone can set it up so you can not do a screen grab, copy pictures, save pictures, print pictures, etc. It just comes down to one of two things: Either they are able to do it themselves or they pay for a computer geek/web hoster to do it for them. Now before you say that it costs extra money to do this, which if you can't do it yourself it does, the question would be : why wouldn't they do it? If they are loosing money to people doing that then spending a bit to stop it and keep their potential PAYING clients happy is worth every penny.

With all due respect, You have absolutely no freakin' idea what you are talking about! You have made this assertion several times. And you are flat out WRONG!

The bottom line is: If I can see it on my screen I can have it saved on my machine in less than 3 seconds, period. End of discussion.

Redline Guy
Nov. 27, 2009, 01:09 AM
As some might have guessed, this is a subject that is near and dear to me.

First I must say, I love reading the opinions of people who speak (or write) authoritatively about a subject that they are clearly unfamiliar with. $1000 for a DSLR body? I wish! $500 for a lens? Double or triple that! (this ain’t consumer gear). Printers? Sorry mine only print documents. My customers get real photos from a photo lab. Tripod? Hahahahaha. Yeah try shooting a show with one of those!

But seriously.

Due to the ridiculous level of image theft, I stopped posting my photos online last year. This year I decided to start charging a $10 deposit to view proofs online. This was a direct response to the comments from our customers who lamented the loss of this convenience. Interestingly, the only negative responses that we have received have been from people who’s names do not show up in our customer database. Existing customers seem to have had no problem with this. Hmmmm.

Now some background.

When we shoot a show, I bring out a well finished, nicely outfitted dedicated trailer, not an RV or something that looks like “Foreman’s basement”. A trailer that is tailored to serving my customers, with viewing stations, that is manned with paid staff. There my customers may view my photos of them (for free). Considering my trailer, its contents, the cameras, lenses, back ups, and back up for the back ups, we roll into an event with over $50K of equipment. And that’s just what we bring to the show/event. It doesn’t include the editing machines back at the office, software, or 4Tb of storage we use to house these images.

You might also consider that it’s not free for photographers to post their photos online. Somebody pays for that hosting and bandwidth and maintenance.

Last week I had facebook remove 20+ watermarked images that had been lifted from my website by 2 people. One of these people is a very well known media figure, who can clearly afford to buy the photos. This person had these images on their facebook page merely to garner compliments from their friends.

The revenue I lost to this one person alone was over $300 in gross sales. Additionally, my trailer assistant lost income since I pay on an incentive based system. Further, the photo lab I use lost income. The state lost revenue from the sales tax from both my sales and the photo lab’s sales to me. And the post office also lost revenue because there were no photos for me to mail to this person. In short this one person caused a (albeit very small) ripple in the struggling economy.

I assume most of you have jobs, and I also assume that when you do your job, you like/expect to get paid for the work you did. Why should a photographer not have the same expectations?

I realize that paying a deposit to view proofs is a non-starter for many, and I understand that. But please understand this. It’s not free for us to take these photos. Aside from the costs cited above, we frequently pay vendor’s fees, sponsorship, and other forms of support to these events and shows. And you had a chance to view them for free at the show/event.

I take all reasonable measures to prevent image theft. Look at my site. There are warnings all over the place. Even ISP monitoring. The site I use to sell online disables the right click function of the mouse, and in fact pops up a copyright warning when the mouse is right clicked. Those measures must be circumvented to copy an image from my sites. The people stealing images know they are stealing them.

If someone decides to not pay a deposit to view my proofs. Fine. Then maybe they can make it to my trailer, to view them for free, next time. Or view/buy them at a future show.

Sadly, it is not as someone commented just the “kids”. There are a few who have weighed in on this thread, who have also posted images, on these very boards, that were lifted from my website.

Photographers trying to make a living are not the problem. People stealing our work is. It would be awesome if when riders saw this occurring, they chastised the thieves rather than foisting compliments on them. A little peer pressure could go a long way.

two sticks
Nov. 27, 2009, 02:10 AM
Thank you Redline Guy for the excellent post!

I'd like to add another perspective, I just graduated from photography school (with a BA). So, add to those above mentioned costs another, oh, almost 100K in education, so that my photos are a different level of quality than those 6 moms on the sidelines with their cameras. My plan was always equine photography. Now that I've graduated and talked to folks in the industry, it seems like it is impossible to make a living doing equine photography and shows. And it seems like a big cause of this is the digital camera/internet. Most of the show photogs. I have talked to say their show business is down 50 -60 % in the last few years. Theft of images is a HUGE problem, especially for those trying to do this to make a living, not just on the side for fun.

For those of you saying well I bought a print can I use it in a sales ad? No. Most photographers have specific prices or rules for what you need to purchase in order to be able to use that photo in a sales ad. Think that's unfair? How much are you asking for that horse? Your trainer gets a commission for helping to sell your horse, but the photographer that took the shot that makes Doodlefluff like the next GP star doesn't see a cent. Is Redline Guys pro photo going to show off Doodlefluff in a nice, professional way with lighting, positioning, and backgrounds that flatter your horse? Absolutely. And thats why you want to use your pro show picture to sell your horse, not something your mom/friend/whoever with a point and shoot took.
When you buy a print from a horse show photographer, you are paying for THAT print. You are not, unless specifically agreed upon, buying the copyright or any reproduction rights to the image. That means scanning, printing, copying, whatever, of that image is ILLEGAL. It is theft. Photographs are sold based on licensing and usage. If you want to be able to use your print to promote yourself, your business, or your sales horse, you should pay for it in the same way you would pay for any other professional service that is helping to promote you and your business/horses/etc. Hope that makes sense!

Ajierene
Nov. 27, 2009, 07:51 AM
This isn't very accurate. A very good digital camera can run between $3000-6000, depending. High quality telefotos are expensive. I'll give you memory cards and tripods, not that much. I prefer to send my prints out for processing because I feel that's better quality than what I can do with an inkjet, and I want to give you something that will last.

Software at $100? Adobe Photoshop CS4 - the basic version - is $700. Creative suite is about $1800.

If you are spending the same amount of money as the big guys and cannot afford to be competitive with their prices, then you need to revisit your business plan. You may need to spend less and adjust your prices accordingly to bring in customers to allow you to have the money to spend more. Though if you sell 50 5X6's at $10, from an event, you have just made $500 for say $20 of work (assuming a one day show). That's $25 an hour. Minimum wage is about $7 an hour.



As some might have guessed, this is a subject that is near and dear to me.

Due to the ridiculous level of image theft, I stopped posting my photos online last year. This year I decided to start charging a $10 deposit to view proofs online. This was a direct response to the comments from our customers who lamented the loss of this convenience. Interestingly, the only negative responses that we have received have been from people who’s names do not show up in our customer database. Existing customers seem to have had no problem with this. Hmmmm.

You situation is a little different. I have never seen a trailer for photography viewing at any show I have been to. So, I have to wait until they are available online.

I know with video, someone asks ahead of time if you want video of your cross country course - usually about $60 paid ahead of time. Then you go to their trailer later in the day to pick it up/view it.

If I cannot see the pictures ahead of time and do not know if I want to buy, I will not pay to see them later. Especially not $20 that I may lose.




The revenue I lost to this one person alone was over $300 in gross sales.

How much of your total sales for the year was this? In retail, 3% shrink (loss of sales due to damage, theft or inventory issues) is allowed. I worked at one of the smaller stores of a large chain and we brought in about a million dollars per day. That means if we lost $30,000 in sales revenue PER DAY, we were acceptable. The high end of acceptable was 5%. If we were under 3%, it was great. This is gross sales, not profit - that million in sales per day went to pay employees, pay for lease of property, electric bill, maintenance costs of equipment (including vehicles for delivery), etc.

So, if you make $10,000 in gross sales for the year and this was your only loss. Then you are doing great. If you are only making $10,000 per year, then you have much more to worry about than some stolen photographs.

As a first year photographer, I would expect a gross of about $10,000, but not with everything that you say you do.

Trixie
Nov. 27, 2009, 10:05 AM
If you are spending the same amount of money as the big guys and cannot afford to be competitive with their prices, then you need to revisit your business plan. You may need to spend less and adjust your prices accordingly to bring in customers to allow you to have the money to spend more. Though if you sell 50 5X6's at $10, from an event, you have just made $500 for say $20 of work (assuming a one day show). That's $25 an hour. Minimum wage is about $7 an hour.

I think that you are mistaking profit with income.

And my point was, that you were ignorant on the actual costs of doing business. If you think you can wrap up a professional setup into $1800 and pay it off in two horse shows, you are extremely mistaken. Not if you want to offer up a quality higher than that of soccer moms, which I thought was the point of a PRO.

My prices are competitive - but I don’t frequently work as a horse photographer, because there are HUGE loss margins. Shooting the occasional party pays for my equipment.



So, if you make $10,000 in gross sales for the year and this was your only loss. Then you are doing great. If you are only making $10,000 per year, then you have much more to worry about than some stolen photographs.


How are you excusing this? The margins in this industry are higher than 3%. Just go look around face book.

Redline Guy
Nov. 27, 2009, 11:24 AM
That's $25 an hour. Minimum wage is about $7 an hour.

You are not taking into account any of the other time involved in preparing for an event. Much less the time required for post production on the images that were sold, and need to be sent to the lab. Which is typically several days of editing time. Again, for pro level results I can't/won't just upload a plain image file to the photo lab, and hope it looks OK. Also you are referencing unskilled labor. How much to you have to pay a plumber or electrician? In the DC metro area, it's about 3X that $25/hour you've quoted.





How much of your total sales for the year was this? In retail, 3% shrink (loss of sales due to damage, theft or inventory issues) is allowed. I worked at one of the smaller stores of a large chain and we brought in about a million dollars per day. That means if we lost $30,000 in sales revenue PER DAY, we were acceptable. The high end of acceptable was 5%. If we were under 3%, it was great. This is gross sales, not profit - that million in sales per day went to pay employees, pay for lease of property, electric bill, maintenance costs of equipment (including vehicles for delivery), etc.

You're comparing apples and oranges here. This is not a retail business such as you've described. We don't get "inventory". The warehouse does not send us 50 v neck sweaters, and 100 pairs of argyle socks, where we can then run our reports at the end of the day, then simply count the sweaters and see how many were stolen.

On the web, there just is no way to track how much we have lost to image theft. I only know about what I stumble across, or what is reported to me by customers and other photographers who recognize my watermark. And I can assure you that what I find out about is only a drop in the bucket. Why do I think this? Because of all the people who comment to me about seeing stolen examples of my work, but don't want to out a friend.

I know this is unrealistic, but how is any level of theft acceptable?

I just read a survey on MSN claiming that roughly 1/3 of equestrians can expect to have tack stolen at a show, at some point in their riding career. So, next season when you come on to CoTH upset that someone stole your saddle, should I just throw up my hands and say: Oh well, must've been your turn in the barrel? No! Because theft, while it will continue to occur, is wrong. And remember, this thread was not started by a photographer asking why all the mean equestrians were stealing our work. Nope, it was started by a rider wondering why they were seeing this growing trend.

(OK, I made that survey up, but it makes my point)

Ultimately, you are right. There are larger problems and market forces at play here. This is one reason we have cut down on the number of shows/events we shoot per year, in favor of shooting more lucrative opportunities.

flea
Nov. 27, 2009, 07:35 PM
TWo STicks...thanks for answering my question about using the picture in a sales ad. What percentage of the sales price does a photographer usually charge for use of a picture in an ad or on a flyer? Or do they just usually say no.

two sticks
Nov. 27, 2009, 08:42 PM
TWo STicks...thanks for answering my question about using the picture in a sales ad. What percentage of the sales price does a photographer usually charge for use of a picture in an ad or on a flyer? Or do they just usually say no.

From what I have seen the pricing for use in a sales add varies. I've seen them priced anywhere from $50-$250. Some photographers have a set price for using an image to sell a horse, others require you to purchase certain size prints. Many of the show photographers have the pricing on their websites if you look around, and I'm sure would be willing to give you their specific rates through email if you can't find it on the site. I doubt that they would say no, especially to those who have enough integrity and respect to actually inquire about getting an image for a sales add rather than just stealing one off line or copying a print!

Hope that helps =)

InstigatorKate
Nov. 27, 2009, 09:37 PM
I also was surpised by redline's new policy. My "baby," a 6yo horse I raised from a weanling, did his first BN at Full Moon last week with the little girl who's leasing him. I couldn't go because I had to work. I'm dying to see the pics, and would happily purchase a good one. But, potentially wasting $10 on the chance they got something decent, or anything at all, isn't worth it. I'd think you'd lose potential customers that way. IMHO.

Redline Guy
Nov. 27, 2009, 09:48 PM
I also was surpised by redline's new policy. My "baby," a 6yo horse I raised from a weanling, did his first BN at Full Moon last week with the little girl who's leasing him. I couldn't go because I had to work. I'm dying to see the pics, and would happily purchase a good one. But, potentially wasting $10 on the chance they got something decent, or anything at all, isn't worth it. I'd think you'd lose potential customers that way. IMHO.

I imagine your surprise is probably similar to my disappointment whenever I find my stolen images posted online.

Interestingly, I've already had more online sales this year, from that event, than I had last year or the year before. AND I've minimized my exposure to theft.

Somehow I'm just not seeing the downside here.

Ajierene
Nov. 27, 2009, 09:53 PM
You are not taking into account any of the other time involved in preparing for an event. Much less the time required for post production on the images that were sold, and need to be sent to the lab. Which is typically several days of editing time. Again, for pro level results I can't/won't just upload a plain image file to the photo lab, and hope it looks OK. Also you are referencing unskilled labor. How much to you have to pay a plumber or electrician? In the DC metro area, it's about 3X that $25/hour you've quoted.

Your right, a master plumber will rake in some good money. A plumber starting on his own or an apprentice will get about $10/hour. This is fact derived from working with a lot of small businesses about two hours north of DC. Also, with working with a lot of small businesses, the ones that have good marketing and business sense are the ones that are still doing well in this economy. The ones that are changing attitudes and getting more bitter with the economy are the ones that are failing now.


You're comparing apples and oranges here. This is not a retail business such as you've described. We don't get "inventory". The warehouse does not send us 50 v neck sweaters, and 100 pairs of argyle socks, where we can then run our reports at the end of the day, then simply count the sweaters and see how many were stolen.

Your right, it is completely different. The way retail works is that the company buys something for a price, then sells it to the distribution center for a price, which sells it to the store for a price.

So, Abercrombie and Fitch buys a sweater for $10. The distribution center buys it for $15. That extra $5 pays for operating costs such as paying the CEO and paying to ship the sweater. The distribution center sells it to the individual Abercrombie stores for $20. Again, that extra $5 pays for operating costs. The store sells the sweater for $30. Five dollars goes to operating costs and $5 goes to profit. Any shrink that happens at the distribution center eats into the bottom line of the distribution center. So if 20 sweaters came in, and only 19 went out - the distribution center still has to pay for 20 sweaters. Same with the store. If the distribution center sends over 20 sweaters and one gets stolen, the store still has to pay for 20 sweaters.

Now, say that person that stole that sweater was never going to pay for it. They did not lose revenue from that customer, but they did lose revenue from someone else who would buy that sweater. That sweater is also in 'wear ready' condition.


So, you spend say 10 hours putting 100 pictures up on the website. Someone steals their picture. Say that person was never going to buy any pictures anyway. Well, you did not lose any money because the likelihood of someone else buying that picture (except for a few incidents, such as trainers, owners or previous owners of horses, proud family members or the occasional purchase of a big name rider) is pretty low.

Even if someone does steal those pictures, unlike the stolen sweater, someone else can also buy the pictures because the person just illegally copied an image.

Also, whether or not anyone buys any pictures, you would have (if this is your business practice) put pictures up online anyway. So that person's image theft did not even lengthen your processing time.

Also, the image that is illegally copied is not 'wear ready', meaning it is not an image that would be put in a frame and hung on a wall - not with PROOF written across the center of it.

So, unlike the stolen sweater, you actually lose nothing by posting your images online.

If you are still worried, you can do what a photographer at a local event did. I had to e-mail her for a password and can only see my pictures. It cuts back on people taking images (the images also say 'do not steal' on them), because it is like someone KNOWS who is looking at the pictures.

This is similar to a social psychology study that determined people who felt they were being watched were less likely to steal. This experiment used a poster with eyes on it. Unlike your survey, this is real and unlike your survey, proves my point.
http://crimepsychblog.com/?p=1075

Redline Guy
Nov. 27, 2009, 10:18 PM
Your right, a master plumber will rake in some good money. A plumber starting on his own or an apprentice will get about $10/hour. This is fact derived from working with a lot of small businesses about two hours north of DC.

Sorry, hon. I worked in the trades doing outside sales and marketing for electrical, hvac, and plumbing contractors in the DC suburbs for 11 years prior to starting Redline. I know what we charged commercial and residential customers, and I know what we paid the men. And your numbers are waaay off from even 2001 pay scale. And I'm talking journeymen, not masters. Which I would surely be after shooting shows for 7 years now. You clearly again do not know where of you speak. This negates any other "facts" you might try to quote.

I find it amusing that every time I shoot down your points, you triangulate, and/or change the parameters of the discussion, or simply choose to defend the points you think you can while ignoring the rest. So, I've decided to do the same this time.

I'm not here to have a pi$$ing match with you. Someone raised a point, and started a discussion. I simply attempted to voice our side of the discussion.

I will however leave you with one final thought.

My attorney who is also an equestrian, and a participant on these boards (so I'll likely hear about this thread) likes to say: "Nothing ticks me off more than people who can afford to show every weekend, but steal pictures from photographers who shoot on spec.

Peace out, have a nice life.

Trixie
Nov. 27, 2009, 11:28 PM
Ajierene, it certainly sounds like you're suggesting that photographers don't deserve to earn much at all. I'm sorry you feel that way - and that's why horse sports are losing talented and capable photographers who would otherwise love to shoot horses.

If folks justify that I should totally accept $10 a photo because they think I should earn around the minimum wage, they're insane, and I'm taking my skills elsewhere. And I’m one that would love to be shooting horses, but I can make four times as much shooting events and not have a clientele that thinks that my experience and education fall under the category of unskilled labor, because they flat have no clue what goes into my business. Further, they don’t try to justify stealing my work.

So, many photographers trying to make it in this industry will take their skills elsewhere. Horse folks will wind up with photographers shooting the quality of the Butt Shot King. Fine. If that’s what you want.



Also, whether or not anyone buys any pictures, you would have (if this is your business practice) put pictures up online anyway. So that person's image theft did not even lengthen your processing time.

So, unlike the stolen sweater, you actually lose nothing by posting your images online.


Why do you continue to justify stealing?

That person has just not only stolen my work, but has stolen my time. They’ve stolen my experience and my eye. Time is money, there are plenty of things I’d prefer to be doing than spending 8 hours to edit and upload photographs so that folks can steal them and then justify it as OK because it didn’t actually cost me anything. Thinking that it doesn’t cost me anything - that is a huge problem, and its offensive and ignorant to boot.

Unfortunately, we’re clearly going in circles trying to explain this to you.

arnika
Nov. 28, 2009, 12:16 AM
by Redline Guy:
Sorry, hon. I worked in the trades doing outside sales and marketing for electrical, hvac, and plumbing contractors in the DC suburbs for 11 years prior to starting Redline. I know what we charged commercial and residential customers, and I know what we paid the men. And your numbers are waaay off from even 2001 pay scale. And I'm talking journeymen, not masters. Which I would surely be after shooting shows for 7 years now. You clearly again do not know where of you speak. This negates any other "facts" you might try to quote.

I find it amusing that every time I shoot down your points, you triangulate, and/or change the parameters of the discussion, or simply choose to defend the points you think you can while ignoring the rest. So, I've decided to do the same this time.

I'm not here to have a pi$$ing match with you. Someone raised a point, and started a discussion. I simply attempted to voice our side of the discussion.

The bold above is my emphasis.

You know, I don't condone copying pics without purchase and I have purchased a bunch over the years but completely aside from this I don't think I would buy photos from you just because of your incredible condescension. I see that your username is Redline Guy which fits since you come across as a total chauvenist. Disagree, argue, make your point. It's all good but leave the "pat on the head, little woman" BS off the board please. Right now I'm more than slightly annoyed based on the "barn moms", "soccer moms" comments as well. If you want credit as a professional, then act like one when you're dealing with your customers. And that goes for the other photogs complaining about their customer base as well.

arnika
Nov. 28, 2009, 01:10 AM
I received this lovely PM from Redline Guy a short while ago in response to my reply up above. In response to your request for an apology, I'll give you one for the "barn moms, soccer moms" as you are correct, they were posted by another. However, an apology for the chauvenist title will not be coming. Neither will one regarding professionalism. I'm not sending my reply via PM back to you because I don't ever say anything that can't be said in public. Too bad the same cannot be said of you.

All the below bold emphasis is from the original poster, not mine.


PM from Redline Guy:
Dear arnika, Re: photographers thread

First, let me suggest you read the entire thread before you start getting on your "I'm sooo offended high horse"!

If you read the comments of the person to whom I was responding there was an abundance of condescension and veiled put downs directed at me from that individual. The condescension I threw back was intentional and deserved.

Additionally, I was NOT the person to make any "barn moms", "soccer moms" comments ". Some of my best customers are those people.

Also, I am NOT complaining about my (or anybody else's) customers. Customers actually buy stuff. Thieves are not customers.

You have a vagina. I get it and I'm not impressed. You're obviously one of those people who are just waiting to be offended by SOMETHING. And honestly, that's one of the things that's screwing this country up.

Your post added NOTHING to the discussion. If you had an issue with something I said, or how I said it you should have the courtesy approach me in private. As I am you.

I think you owe me an apology, and need to retract your venomous attack and contribute to the discussion, or bugger off.
__________________
You can only fish for so long before you've gotta throw a stick of dynamite in the water.

Ajierene
Nov. 28, 2009, 08:31 AM
That person has just not only stolen my work, but has stolen my time. They’ve stolen my experience and my eye. Time is money, there are plenty of things I’d prefer to be doing than spending 8 hours to edit and upload photographs so that folks can steal them and then justify it as OK because it didn’t actually cost me anything. Thinking that it doesn’t cost me anything - that is a huge problem, and its offensive and ignorant to boot.

There are two issues I have with some special skilled labor. One is the idea that they deserve to get more than $10/hour. If you are good, and you can sell photographs for $20 and more a pop, then I am sure you deserve it, but buying over $5K in equipment does not automatically make you deserve it. I do not know the photographic skills of either you or Redline Guy. No one deserves to make anything, you earn that money. You earn the money with skill and customer service.

The second is the idea that you actually lose something. What time did you actually lose? You were going to put those pictures up online whether or not that person purchased them. The person who illegally took the proofs would certainly not have bought pictures with 'proof' stamped across them anyway.

So, while taking the pictures is illegal and not right, from a business standpoint, how does it justify charging people money just to step in your virtual door? Would you go to a retail store that suddenly started charging for you to merely step in the door?

Redline Guy does have an alternate, with the trailer at the show, but for people like InstigatorKate and myself (who does not make decisions in one day), it is very difficult. Now maybe you have enough customers that it does not matter to you, or your sales are fine without catering to people like myself. That's fine, just don't say you had to because of theft.

To me, this is right up there with the illegal music downloading issue.

flea
Nov. 28, 2009, 09:50 AM
I sure don't know what the answer is. I am very respectful of copyright. There is a photo on my home page of us at an event but I bought that photo. No one has answered if that is illegal. I work at a tack store and we were putting up pictures of the employees riding. Our event photographer said he would sell another copy of the one I bought at half price for me which I will do. I fully understand there is a problem. But we are so strapped at this point for money I guess I would not look at the pictures. I have a few of the horse I am riding now but if I saw a really cool one I would buy. I cannot pay to check and see. Is this fee just to see your pictures or can you check out other's pictures also?

Redline guy-I guess you don't really offend me but do really irritate me. I am not offended easily, I have been raised with brother, boy cousins, worked on the ranch, etc. So calling people hon is condescening and I thought your PM was distasteful. Not going to get all uptight about it but if I had a choice of photographers you wouldn't be it. If I didn't I would have to just live with it. There are a lot more important things in the world.

Trixie
Nov. 28, 2009, 10:56 AM
I see that your username is Redline Guy which fits since you come across as a total chauvenist.

So now being a GUY is on par with being a “chauvenist”?

I’ll own up to the barn moms, soccer moms comment. My point was that the competition for most photographers these days is people who AREN’T educated in photography but have a DSLR with a speed setting. Most of the time in these situations, it’s someone’s parent. Since technology has improved, anyone with a thousand bucks to buy a Canon Rebel is suddenly a pro. Yes, including, FWIW, my dad. :) And also the Butt Shot King.

I personally thought the poster to whom Redline was responding to was extremely condescending - and further, highly ignorant about what goes into our business. In this thread, she's degraded our skill set and informed us of what she believes that we make. I completely understand why she got the response she did.


There are two issues I have with some special skilled labor. One is the idea that they deserve to get more than $10/hour. If you are good, and you can sell photographs for $20 and more a pop, then I am sure you deserve it, but buying over $5K in equipment does not automatically make you deserve it. I do not know the photographic skills of either you or Redline Guy. No one deserves to make anything, you earn that money. You earn the money with skill and customer service.

I do earn that money because I do deserve it. My point was that because of theft and the fact that horse people are very picky - if the horse hangs a knee, they're not purchasing it - I easily make a lot more in another industry. And frankly, that's where people are going to go if folks tell them they're not worth paying for.

Ultimately, YOU as the customer will purchase what YOU think is worth paying for. If you don’t think my work is worth it, don’t bother.

However, what we were doing was trying to explain to you WHY things cost what they do. You do not get to make up your own price list and inform us that because you think it costs something, or because you think you know what my overhead is, it does. Your opinion simply doesn’t make it true. You also don’t get to tell me that people taking my work doesn’t cost me anything - because it does. I know how that makes me feel - you don't.

And yet, you’re still justifying stealing. I’m out of ways to explain it to you.

FWIW - I’m not one that advocated making people pay to see photos. That’s not my practice.

Trixie
Nov. 28, 2009, 11:26 AM
Also, FWIW, the Motion Picture Association of America launched a campaign about how "copying is stealing." The Recording Industry of America agreed.

arnika
Nov. 28, 2009, 12:50 PM
Barring any other post directed straight at me, this will be my last post on the subject. As I posted on the thread already, I don't agree with illegal copying of pictures and always purchase mine and have for many years. LOTS of pictures. Photographers are perfectly free to charge what they wish just as customers are perfectly free to not purchase if they don't wish to pay.

Everyone on this board has the right to post their own opinion, whether it is to say pros should be able to charge for looking at proofs or that they may lose business by doing so. They can even say that photographers are charging too much per picture, don't really have that much overhead, etc. Even if they are wrong.

My earlier post was just to say that one should be able to disagree with someone, especially if it is on a public board without being offensive.


So now being a GUY is on par with being a “chauvenist”?

Not being a Guy per se, but it fit that it was a man who made the derogatory comment "hon". I didn't read any pejorative name-calling from anyone else. Except the below which I;ve already mentioned.

I’ll own up to the barn moms, soccer moms comment. My point was that the competition for most photographers these days is people who AREN’T educated in photography but have a DSLR with a speed setting. Most of the time in these situations, it’s someone’s parent. Since technology has improved, anyone with a thousand bucks to buy a Canon Rebel is suddenly a pro. Yes, including, FWIW, my dad. :) And also the Butt Shot King.

Actually just because it is a mom or other person taking shots doesn't always mean they don't understand photography. Sometimes people have quite a bit more interest in a subject than you might think. Possibly even training in that area, they just don't make a living at it. However, I can understand why photographers would not like the competition. Which is why I support photographers by buying their pics, I like to have them at shows. But I will choose who to purchase from and support based on their professionalism, private and public. As well as, of course, the quality of their work.

I personally thought the poster to whom Redline was responding to was extremely condescending - and further, highly ignorant about what goes into our business. In this thread, she's degraded our skill set and informed us of what she believes that we make. I completely understand why she got the response she did.

As I said above, you can disagree with someone without being rude. If you think she/he doesn't understand, fine, inform her. If you do and she doesn't listen, give it up, everyone else reading the thread will get it.

Trixie
Nov. 28, 2009, 03:44 PM
I guess I just don't find "hon" that offensive when someone has undermined someone else's entire business. Particularly since Redline has taken so much time to explain his reasoning.



Everyone on this board has the right to post their own opinion, whether it is to say pros should be able to charge for looking at proofs or that they may lose business by doing so. They can even say that photographers are charging too much per picture, don't really have that much overhead, etc. Even if they are wrong.


They're allowed to post their opinion, but it's reprehensible to present their guesstimates as fact when they aren't even close to the facts.

Redline is also, in fact, correct that you didn't come onto this thread and contribute a thing prior to posting insults directed at him. I also don't think it's very good manners to post private conversations.

archieflies
Nov. 28, 2009, 03:53 PM
Ayayay! This si starting to get ridiculous. Obviously, neither of you are going to change the other's opinions... Let's all go eat leftover pumpkin pie...

Redline Guy
Nov. 28, 2009, 04:28 PM
I sure don't know what the answer is. I am very respectful of copyright. There is a photo on my home page of us at an event but I bought that photo. No one has answered if that is illegal. I work at a tack store and we were putting up pictures of the employees riding. Our event photographer said he would sell another copy of the one I bought at half price for me which I will do. I fully understand there is a problem. But we are so strapped at this point for money I guess I would not look at the pictures. I have a few of the horse I am riding now but if I saw a really cool one I would buy. I cannot pay to check and see.

Most likely no one has answered because there is no definitive single answer. In the strictest sense, if the photographer retains copyright (and most do) then it is illegal to copy it and or republish it, particularly for commercial use. That said, it depends on the individual photographer and their policies. I have one colleague who charges nothing for use rights. But this is a side gig for them so they are not depending on the income. I have another local colleague who charges $250 for six months limited use rights, and $500 for unlimited use rights. So your best bet is to contact the photographer and see what their policy is.



Is this fee just to see your pictures or can you check out other's pictures also?

My policy so far has been to grant access to the entire show. However, that may change depending on how much of my work starts to show up online from those events. As I said earlier, I started doing this as a response to requests from my customers. Last year we stopped posting online altogether, because THAT is the only sure way to prevent them from being stolen online. I specify online because I haven't even mentioned, in this discussion, the several people we've had to ask to leave my trailer because they were trying to photograph my pictures on the viewing stations. But that's a whole other story.


Redline guy-I guess you don't really offend me but do really irritate me. I am not offended easily, I have been raised with brother, boy cousins, worked on the ranch, etc. So calling people hon is condescening and I thought your PM was distasteful. Not going to get all uptight about it but if I had a choice of photographers you wouldn't be it. If I didn't I would have to just live with it. There are a lot more important things in the world.

It's fine that I irritate you. Irritation provokes thought. I personally enjoy being irritated by my friends with differing viewpoints. It makes me question my positions and values. Just like this discussion. I enjoy hearing other people's views and having the chance to explain to them, the other side of the story, as it were. And I don't mind educating people about what we do. In fact members of this community often ask me questions (both in threads and in private) or seek my help in the areas where I have some knowledge. And I frequently seek their help as well. What I don't appreciate is someone speaking authoritatively about subjects they are unfamiliar with (while claiming to KNOW the facts) especially when it's in my wheelhouse.

I understand that my private message, to that lovely lady in FL, was distasteful. It was written that way for the intended audience. And I'll add that in this geographical area "hon" is not necessarily a pejorative. Especially in the Baltimore area. If it were, then I've been insulted hundreds of times by customers at the shows. (I'll assume that women aren't the only ones allowed to be offended by the gender non-specific term "hon". To assume otherwise would be sexist, right?)

What I do find interesting is: That while you found the content of my private message distasteful, you seem to have no problem with someone entering the discussion solely for the purpose of attacking me. She did not and still has not contributed a shred of thought to the discussion. Also I notice you voiced no problem with that person posting a private message publicly. Personally I think that kind of behavior is also distasteful. Which is why in my PM I stated, if she had an issue with me she should have addressed me privately. Rather than attempting to turn a relatively civil discussion into a trainwreck.

Finally, if Ajierene found my comments condescending, I'm quite sure he/she is capable of defending him/herself. Who appointed that lovely lady in FL the protector of wimmenfolk everywhere?

Personally, I find her behavior more condescending to women, in general, than my comment was to one individual, with whom I was having a disagreement.

Finally, for those interested, Redline Guy is what most of the kids at the shows, and many of our customers call me. It has nothing to do with appendages, and seemed like the best user name at the time.

As Trixie said (sort of): I've explained my side, everything else at this point is rehash.

alval23
Nov. 28, 2009, 08:07 PM
i just think if your a photographer... its a fast way to shoot yourself in the foot and piss off a lot of your potential clients. (as we all can tell from the strong opinionated posts) there are better ways.

if its the principle of things... then your fighting your battle against the wrong people. you say you have seen it (people stealing photos to sell horses) then confront them.. or file a law suit. dont punish the whole group b/c of the few bad apples.

and terrie takes good pictures .. no doubt.. but her prices are more expensive to begin with.

i know i numerous occasions ive wanted to purchase pictures pictures and i liked the terrie pictures more but they were 5-10 bucks more.. so i bought it from jim stoner because i could afford it..

and yeah 5-10 buck is not a whole lot but it is when your a college student barely being able to afford going to the show in the first place.

and i know someone has already said it but $12 is not a lot to view your picts but x that by what 8-10 shows a season.. 96-120 bucks a year.. that photos i could be buying .. or more shows i could be going to.

personally ... i wont pay for it. and i normally buy several photos from her each year... now shes loosing my 120 viewing fee and my 200+ a year in buying photos.

again.. better ways to go about it.

Bogie
Nov. 28, 2009, 08:50 PM
Most people just don't get the fact that when a photographer takes a picture, that photographer owns the copyright. The person who buys that print (or digital image) owns the print. Some of the abuse is unintentional; other people know quite well that they are essentially stealing.

As a writer I am incensed when I find something I've written has been co-opted by someone else. I can't imagine how photographers feel to find their photos plastered over Facebook, on websites being used to sell horses, and on and on.

Okay, I don't own the words ;) but I do own the way they were assembled. When you buy a photograph from a professional you are buying their experience, their eye and their commitment to being at an event to take your photo. I would never think that person should be paid minimum wage. I guess not many of you out there have hired photographers for events . . . or bought stock photos . . . $10 doesn't buy you much.

Way back in this post someone suggested that peer pressure is one way to stop online photo "theft". I agree. I find it profoundly irritating to go to someone's web site and see images with "proof" written on them. Call these people to task. Help enforce copyright laws and perhaps the photographers will not feel that they need to charge to view proofs.

FYI, I wrote this awhile back.

Who owns that photograph of your horse? (http://equineink.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/equine-photography-who-owns-that-photo-of-your-horse/)

flea
Nov. 29, 2009, 10:33 AM
You are right Redline Guy...the poster should not have posted the PM. That also was inappropriate.
I also understand the problem and sure don't know how to solve it except be sure me and mine don't add to the problem. Photos are expensive which is why I can't buy many. But even then they don't reflect the labor put into them. I do art work and would be irate if someone started making reproductions of my drawings on a copy machine, which is probably much the same thing. I only do drawings for gifts since I can't charge enough to make it worth my while and honestly am not talented enought to make a living from it. My brother is always asking how long did it take for you to do that, I really can't answer, too much goes into it. But I amsure I would make more at Walmart!

Couture TB
Nov. 29, 2009, 11:40 AM
With all due respect, You have absolutely no freakin' idea what you are talking about! You have made this assertion several times. And you are flat out WRONG!

The bottom line is: If I can see it on my screen I can have it saved on my machine in less than 3 seconds, period. End of discussion.

Yes I do know what I am talking about when I say there is a way to make it so NO ONE can copy your photo. My husband is a very highly paid IT guy who does programing and most other IT work and is flown to Europe and all over the US for the company he works for. He in fact set up the website that the photographer for my wedding had so that no one was able to do screen shots, prints, save photos, or anything else. It took him 7 hours to do and more to test. He did it as a favor to the photographer so did not charge him. If he had charged him it would have been close to a $1,000 billed. There is a way. You just have to hire the right person. As you know more about photography then I will ever know, and I have never clamied to know, my husband knows more about how computers work then and how to design programs to PREVENT everything this discussion is about then a photographer would know.

Redline Guy
Nov. 29, 2009, 12:31 PM
Yes I do know what I am talking about when I say there is a way to make it so NO ONE can copy your photo. My husband is a very highly paid IT guy who does programing and most other IT work and is flown to Europe and all over the US for the company he works for. He in fact set up the website that the photographer for my wedding had so that no one was able to do screen shots, prints, save photos, or anything else. It took him 7 hours to do and more to test. He did it as a favor to the photographer so did not charge him. If he had charged him it would have been close to a $1,000 billed. There is a way. You just have to hire the right person. As you know more about photography then I will ever know, and I have never clamied to know, my husband knows more about how computers work then and how to design programs to PREVENT everything this discussion is about then a photographer would know.

I will concede, I am not an IT guy, and know barely enough to get by (if that). I know that protecting our work is a frequent discussion on many photography BBS', both pro and amateur alike. Frequently a photographer will start bragging about his high zoot website where the images are absolutely safe, and cannot be lifted. In those cases I publicly ask the individual for permission to see if I can lift and post an image. Being confident, they always agree. Sadly, usually someone else beats me to it. This has happened numerous times and it hasn't mattered if the site is html, flash, aspx, etc. I don't do it because I'm a jerk (well, I may be, but that's not my motivation) I do it because I don't want these guys and gals living with a false sense of security.

I will concede too, that your husband may have developed something that is impervious to image theft (for now). And I'm sure we photographers would welcome such a development.

What I'd like to propose is: If your husband AND the wedding photographer are game, I'd like permission to give it a go. All I'd ask is, an e mail from your husband and one from the photographer giving me permission, and immunity from copyright infringement for one image. And the normal access ie; links and passwords, that a normal customer would receive. Just shoot me a pm, and I'll give you my contact info.

This is an instance where I would love to eat crow.

Couture TB
Nov. 29, 2009, 12:52 PM
Redline- I will shoot off an email to the photographer. I know my husband would have no problem with it. That was part of the test process was having other people try to 'steal' the photos (I say 'steal' since it was a test and they were told to) and even a few of the IT guys he works with failed. If the photographer is game then I will let you know.

Redline Guy
Nov. 29, 2009, 12:58 PM
Most people just don't get the fact that when a photographer takes a picture, that photographer owns the copyright. The person who buys that print (or digital image) owns the print. Some of the abuse is unintentional; other people know quite well that they are essentially stealing.

As a writer I am incensed when I find something I've written has been co-opted by someone else. I can't imagine how photographers feel to find their photos plastered over Facebook, on websites being used to sell horses, and on and on.

Okay, I don't own the words ;) but I do own the way they were assembled. When you buy a photograph from a professional you are buying their experience, their eye and their commitment to being at an event to take your photo. I would never think that person should be paid minimum wage. I guess not many of you out there have hired photographers for events . . . or bought stock photos . . . $10 doesn't buy you much.

Way back in this post someone suggested that peer pressure is one way to stop online photo "theft". I agree. I find it profoundly irritating to go to someone's web site and see images with "proof" written on them. Call these people to task. Help enforce copyright laws and perhaps the photographers will not feel that they need to charge to view proofs.

FYI, I wrote this awhile back.

Who owns that photograph of your horse? (http://equineink.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/equine-photography-who-owns-that-photo-of-your-horse/)

Hi Bogie,

Thanks for your comments. Very good article! I'd like permission to link to it, as I may want to post it in few places.

LexInVA
Nov. 29, 2009, 01:03 PM
I'll believe it when I see it. I haven't found any media site or content provider on the Internet whose content was impossible for me or anyone else at my level to take. If it comes up on my screen, it can end up on my machine. Whether it's stored in memory, in my computer's encrypted cache, or played off a filtered content provider network, there are tools and methods to get anything from the Internet onto my computer. Sure you can mix things up a bit using different networks for hosting, address filtering and redirection, and streaming plug-ins to prevent Joe Ignorant from copying things but all that stands between them and what they want is a software download or two from the Internet to rape the content from your website.

bambam
Nov. 29, 2009, 01:10 PM
I am surprised that in the eventing context charging to view prints is an economically viable business model. It apparently is so far for Redline Guy and the other photographer I have come across who does this. Most of the eventers I know will not pay to view proofs unless it is a special event but maybe my friends and I are disproportionately cheap ;)
Redline Guy- I don't think you can go by complaints received to determine that your former customers do not object or that you have not lost sales (although I may be misinterpreting what you have said). I am a former customer and won't pay to view proofs. I would not bother complaining to you because you are of course free to have whatever policy you want. I am more likely to note on my event evaluation form to the organizer that I wish they would use a photographer that did not have that policy- I have no idea if organizers care or not.
I am obviously not defending theft of proofs- it is flat out wrong but a policy addressing it that punishes legit customers is obviously not the approach that I prefer.

Couture TB
Nov. 29, 2009, 01:13 PM
I will let you guys know if the photographer agrees. All I know is that no one has been able to pull it off yet. What my husband did is not what is usally provided from any content provider or media site. The reason why he does not offer this service is that it would start at about $1,000 for him to do as it take many hours of work, testing, more work, more testing, etc and he bills at $100/hr.

Ajierene
Nov. 29, 2009, 05:28 PM
Yes, in my area, apprentices get paid about $10/hour. It might be the difference of living in the city for you, Redline Guy. I live not that far away, but this is a lower income area and much more rural. In this economy, I know people that were laid off from a good job and now do the same job for half the price for another company.

I stated it before - if you can get that money for what you do, then great. If Gallentquest's husband was out of work and charging $100/hour with no bites, then he needs to adjust his amount charged, no matter how talented he is, or get real friendly with Ramen Noodles.

I do not see where there is a direct loss of money or time, due to theft, where charging just to view proofs makes financial or business sense. As I stated before, one photographer has a password protected site. You have to e-mail and ask for a username and password.

I do not think theft is right and would never take a proof off of a website, or anything from any website, but I would also never pay just to look at pictures. Unless you decide to be like Costco and have such awesome deals that the cost is beneficial, no way. I am hoping enough people say something so that this does not become the norm. If it does, my friends and family are just going to be pressed into service more often.

Ja Da Dee
Nov. 30, 2009, 01:42 PM
While I would find it difficult to pay to review the proofs, I totally understand the reasons behind it.

I wonder if a slightly better model would be to offer small 1x1 inch view of a proof sheet for free to give people an idea of what they are looking for, then charge to view larger, removing that fee from their first order?

Theft sucks.

gold2012
Dec. 1, 2009, 04:53 PM
JA DA DEE....I agree. I wonder why they don't do that too. There is a photographer, but I can't remember who, that has a 1x1 inch pic of picture. You can blow it up, but when you do, it's so fuzzy you almost wish you hadn't. I think that would be an option.

My husband is an IT person too. He too said it "can" be done, protecting them, but that it would take someone a lot of time and enrgy, and that unfortunately, if someone really wanted to get it, they probably could. Remember, there are hacks out there who can get into government files...do we really think the photography pro's are better equipped? Not likely.

I feel bad that photographers are having to deal with this at all. I guess it's a sign of the ages. Mostly what cracks me up about the whole thing, it's not like it's not obvious they are doing it on facebook. Perhaps a bit of peer pressure...

Anyway....JA DA had to tell you I thought it was a good idea.

CapturinYerRide
Dec. 2, 2009, 06:11 PM
I always get a kick out of these threads! We can all go back and forth arguing about who knows more about how to run a photography business, the customers or the clients.. It really doesn't matter. We equitogs must be masochists, as even after a year like this past one, as far as sales are concerned, we just go right ahead and sign up for yet another year!

I think its been a year now since I first caught on that my images were being stolen by the screen-capture method and up on Facebook. In my case it was actually a trainer who was teaching her clients how to do it and openly bragging about it on Facebook. My initial reaction to that was not pretty, and it didn't deserve to be, but in the end the only change I've made has been to make sure I have proof signs on my galleries. Others are doing it other ways, but my closest friend in this business just makes you sign a release that you know and understand copyright laws before he then gives you a password to your gallery. I just haven't taken that step yet in my business..

I much prefer to take the "embrace them" tack, that is, to just keep trying to take better pictures than all of the barn moms, try to find products and combos that they will want to buy.. Do I always succeed? Certainly not. Why just this past weekend I did actually miss on one shot!:lol:

GaellentQuest, I'd sure love to have just a link to this gallery that you speak of. It sure sounds like part of the way to go about it is to keep anyone from every seeing the gallery in the first place! I bet it could be capped. I'll give you a free 8x10 if I can't cap it. You have to figure that Smugmug (my gallant host and great heroes) Photoreflect, PrintRoom, Exposure Manager, etc... All of those print services are working hard with some pretty good IT people on their sides to try to protect the images of their clients. None of them have figured out how to prevent the screen-cap. Fact is, if it's on a computer screen, it can be copied out of the video memory.. If your husband can really do what you say, he could make a lot more than a simple $1,000 on this programming. So would you please, please, please, send him to Smugmug first? After that he can visit any of the others he wishes!!!

Happy Holidays all!
Mark:cool:
www.HoofClix.com

piaffeprincess98
Dec. 3, 2009, 07:12 AM
While I would find it difficult to pay to review the proofs, I totally understand the reasons behind it.

I wonder if a slightly better model would be to offer small 1x1 inch view of a proof sheet for free to give people an idea of what they are looking for, then charge to view larger, removing that fee from their first order?

Theft sucks.

GRC Photography used to do a proof sheet, "back in the day". I think it just got too expensive to send them out in snail-mail. Then they went to digital/online stuff.

Ja Da Dee
Dec. 3, 2009, 11:11 AM
You should be able to post proof sheets/thumbnail view online, and not give people access to view larger without payment- password protect or something? My husband has a photo sight on SmugMug, and he would love it if they could 100% protect the pictures from screen capture, but I know I can use snagit and pull them off all day long. IMO, capturing the thumbnails would be useless though.

ETA, I can see where pulling proof sheets would get costly, separating riders is time consuming too.

LexInVA
Dec. 4, 2009, 03:37 PM
Digital proof sheets are very easy to do. I use the same process I use for making Contact Sheets. Only takes a little bit of effort.

evntr
Dec. 12, 2009, 05:31 PM
Why not document who is posting unpaid for pics online and, in the future, charge them to see their proofs? That way the honest people aren't charged and the abusers are.

LexInVA
Dec. 12, 2009, 06:03 PM
Well, it's not always as easy as pointing the finger when you see someone doing that. It can be hard to identify someone from pictures if you haven't much of a clue who they are to begin with. Photographers take thousands of random images a year so it's a huge effort just to look at a picture that you know you took and discern just who/what it was you were photographing if it's not fresh in your mind. It's also not unheard of, in fact it's quite common, for people in the horse world to use other people's show pics so you might easily incorrectly identify the person you have a grievance with and take action against the wrong party. Far more trouble than it's worth.

RoeVee
Dec. 14, 2009, 05:44 PM
Informative thread if nothing else. I was one of those clueless people that didn't think about copyright infringement when I posted a photo on facebook that I had purchased in the '90s (no option at that time to purchase the 'digital rights'). Was just excited to share my 'life' with friends. I have since taken it down.

I'm not sure if all photographers are doing this yet - but when I purchased photos from Christy C - she sent a 'bonus' format of the photo for use on facebook (and it says it on the photo - "bonus photo for facebook" at the bottom). Thought that was seriously 'genius' on her part and smart from a business standpoint - she understands her customers.

Obviously, doesn't help the people that are posting 'proofs' on their facebook page. How embarrassing. But I can say I have never viewed someone's facebook with a 'proof' on it?

enjoytheride
Dec. 15, 2009, 06:25 AM
I have also never seen a photo stamped proof among my friends on facebook although I have seen them send a link to the photographer's site. The only photos I see are those that have been purchased. My friends are mostly adults and seem to know better.

CapturinYerRide
Dec. 15, 2009, 11:56 AM
About a year ago, it was rampant on Facebook to see cap'd pictures in various galleries. I was one of those who didn't proof my on-line galleries, so they were getting taken and would look pretty much like normal. I caught on when I happened to see my daughter floating through some of her friends' galleries, and I saw my images there and knew for sure they hadn't been purchased. A quick call to the mother of this rider and that one was corrected. From then on I have put proof marks on my images.

As enjoytheride alludes, this problem is not really from adults who know better, but predominantly from kids who either don't know better or who simply don't care. There is the "if-it-can-be-done-I'll-do-it" mentality. I might add that, as far as my situation looked, it was a whole lot more prevalent amongst Hunter riders than in Eventing, and practically non-existent in Dressage. I think that it's mostly gone away in a year because of the collective actions of the whole equestrian photography community.

This has been a tough thing to try to curb on-line theft while at the same time maintaining an open relationship with you our clients. We're not like the music industry that could organize to bring big money to bear against a kid as an example while bringing down Napster. While there were many conversations amongst us to figure out what would be the most effective thing to do, we each had to figure out what we would do individually. Some great suggestions above, but the days of mailing printed proof sheets are gone, with most of us having on-site view systems that go along with uploading them to our sites to view after the show. All of us want you to keep buying so we'll stay in business, so other thinks like providing Facebook images are no-brainers.

I think also that those of you commenting in this thread are not the problem we are trying to solve. Sorry that you have to pay the price for what others have done, but as long as you are reasonable, I think you'll find that we are too!

Happy Christmas everyone!

btw, Sumgmug is still waiting to hear from you super-programmers on how to stop screen capturing! They have a big check, like a reward, for whomever solves the problem!

bornfreenowexpensive
Dec. 15, 2009, 12:28 PM
Informative thread if nothing else. I was one of those clueless people that didn't think about copyright infringement when I posted a photo on facebook that I had purchased in the '90s (no option at that time to purchase the 'digital rights'). Was just excited to share my 'life' with friends. I have since taken it down.

I'm not sure if all photographers are doing this yet - but when I purchased photos from Christy C - she sent a 'bonus' format of the photo for use on facebook (and it says it on the photo - "bonus photo for facebook" at the bottom). Thought that was seriously 'genius' on her part and smart from a business standpoint - she understands her customers.



Absolutely...and if they now gave a cheap ditgital alternative to just buy them ditgital...I would buy more photos. (one photographer did...and that is the photo on my Facebook page that I purchased).

gold2012
Dec. 15, 2009, 12:36 PM
Mark yer cool. You sound intelligent, but what you say is true. MY hubby is an IT guy, and he says, basically, if it's on your screen, it's on your computer. He too would like to kow how the gentleman that is married to one of our cothers is doing it. Same goes. You can do that, you can get rich real quick. It's happening across the board with photographers.

I wish they would go back to sending us proofs...I sure did like that.

Trixie
Dec. 15, 2009, 01:09 PM
Absolutely...and if they now gave a cheap ditgital alternative to just buy them ditgital...I would buy more photos. (one photographer did...and that is the photo on my Facebook page that I purchased).

That's always a conundrum. I wouldn't mind offering a low-res digital photo were I shooting horse shows, but offering a high res one means that you can print as many copies of it as you want very easily. Not that you couldn't manage that with a scanner, but nonetheless. And honestly, I don't have a problem with facebook unless it's being used as an ad for the horse. Those are your friends and family, and that's the point of a photograph - to share with you friends and family and hold onto a memory.

Danielle DeLapp offers that option. She sends out a lower-res "web file" with each print order that allows you to:

*Personal or Business websites
*Online Sale Advertisements
*Social Networking sites such as Facebook and Myspace
*Home computer use
*Share them with friends/family via E-Mail

I really liked her approach. This way it doesn't prevent you from sharing it with the folks you care about but she still gets paid. She's fairly lenient, but a lot of photographers really aren't.

SOOO not going back to mailing proofs. I liked them too, but such an unbelievable pain.

CapturinYerRide
Mar. 18, 2010, 10:38 AM
I am bumping this up from the cellar because the subject is causing me a lot of grief this season.

I am facing more "Facebook theft" than ever after this season. I'm finding a lot of it on my own, but yes, other friends of mine are also linking me to infringers' galleries. I had set up a system of passwording my galleries back in January, but as I was to be off net for most of February and March, I decided not to put it into play, as with all of the galleries I create in those months, I just didn't think I could keep up with all the requests. What a mistake I made!

Thus far, 27 people I have now caught screen capturing my images to put them on their Facebook pages, and I am sure there are many, many more. They have been juniors and adults alike, but really, mostly juniors. I deal with juniors and adults differently, but basically I can no longer afford to take the "nice" path when I find this.

How I handle it from here on out is on my blog page, but rest assured, if I find my diagonal watermarks in any Facebook galleries, I will showcase that person until such time as I am paid fairly for what has been stolen!

Some of you might think that I am being harsh about this, but what, I ask, would you do with your kid if they want to the Bit-of-Britain trailer and pocketed a pair of bell boots?

VIEW "FACEBOOK FIENDISHNESS" BLOG ENTRY HERE (http://hoofclix.blogspot.com/2010/03/facebook-fiendishness.html)

Sdhaurmsmom
Mar. 18, 2010, 10:48 AM
There are ways to make them not able to be stolen, not only stamping proof on the front, but you can also set up your site with enough security that no one can click on a photo and save it and if they try to print it off the website it will print an x or black box. Why does she just not do that?

This!!

Any photographer who doesn't use security on their online proofs is extremely naieve/clueless/unprofessional. Charging clients to LOOK at proofs is no way to cover up the fact that you don't know how to manage your online content:cool:

If screen capturing is an ongoing problem, make your watermarks more obtrusive - instead of a subtle watermark, use one in red! Desperate times call for desperate measures.

I'm interested to know if clients really stand for being charged to view proofs. I guess if the market will bear it, it will work. I just know I wouldn't do it. What if none of the shots are worth buying?

LexInVA
Mar. 18, 2010, 10:59 AM
Make the watermarks as obtrusive, ostentatious, and offensive as possible to make the photos worthless to anyone who wants to get them. As far as security goes, you can forget it. It's just not possible. Just by filtering script activity or monitoring my browser cache files, I (and anyone else using plug-ins that are available to anyone) can take any content I want from anything that displays on my screen.

CapturinYerRide
Mar. 18, 2010, 11:19 AM
Any photographer who doesn't use security on their online proofs is extremely naieve/clueless/unprofessional.

"Master Threadkiller," eh?? I am just sure you are not calling me naive/clueless/unprofessional!!:D

This isn't about protecting galleries. I do all I can to protect them, and there is a certain obtrusiveness about size on the watermarks that makes it hard to decide if you want a picture.. In my case, I use a watermark that would be extremely hard to remove, but also, it is diagonal. Any other orientation means that I have given permission, except for very old galleries that have a large "proof" in the middle.

This is about screen capturing, something that only honesty can stop, unless I just don't put them up there. That.. will simply put me out of business..

edited in:
Shawn McMillin, an HJ photographer in Aiken, charges people a $25 deposit to view his galleries. He also gives them 14 days to use it or lose it. Also, he has a fan page, and if you want to see his galleries, you must maintain an open friendship to his fan-page so that he can monitor if you are capping his shots. I know this is working out very well for him, but I doubt very seriously that eventing would take to it...

dixiedolphin
Mar. 18, 2010, 12:00 PM
CapturinYerRide, I completely understand your frustration. I've only shot equine events on a hobby level, but I worked professionally as a concert photographer for years and dealt with this kind of madness constantly. As a matter of fact, I STILL come across photos of mine used without permission on band websites, facebook/myspace, and elsewhere. I used to pursue them through the hosting sites, but it was very time consuming to go through the process for hundreds of photos.. which the thieves would repost shortly after the hosting site removed them anyway. So, it's a serious pet peeve of mine and still kindles my rage.

So, I can understand why some photogs might be charging to view their proof galleries.. because honestly, for anyone with a drop of html / computer experience, stealing photos on the internet is incredibly easy--even with those silly 'no right click' deterrent scripts and whatnot. Heck, even if you've got the photos set up in a flash swf, there's still the screen-grab problem.

I'm not sure that charging for viewing the proofs is the best solution. It's not particularly customer friendly, especially to the lower-end price bracket. But I can see that being used when it comes to higher-end photogs.

A better solution might be a login system, with galleries only viewable to the individual rider (who must register for a login to view them). At least then you know exactly who is looking at them and can track them down easily. Also, it gives one the opportunity to add a terms of use agreement page, where they must acknowledge the terms (ie: no stealing, thanks!) during registration and before viewing. That takes time and code knowledge (or money to pay for someone who can do the coding) to set up, however.

But, either way... I fully understand and sympathize with other photogs who are frustrated at image theft.

Bogie
Mar. 18, 2010, 12:10 PM
I can capture any photo on any site using Control-Shift-4. (Mac)

I'm sure there's something similar for PCs.

Redline Guy
Mar. 23, 2010, 05:48 PM
"Master Threadkiller," eh?? I am just sure you are not calling me naive/clueless/unprofessional!!:D

This isn't about protecting galleries. I do all I can to protect them, and there is a certain obtrusiveness about size on the watermarks that makes it hard to decide if you want a picture.. In my case, I use a watermark that would be extremely hard to remove, but also, it is diagonal. Any other orientation means that I have given permission, except for very old galleries that have a large "proof" in the middle.

This is about screen capturing, something that only honesty can stop, unless I just don't put them up there. That.. will simply put me out of business..

edited in:
Shawn McMillin, an HJ photographer in Aiken, charges people a $25 deposit to view his galleries. He also gives them 14 days to use it or lose it. Also, he has a fan page, and if you want to see his galleries, you must maintain an open friendship to his fan-page so that he can monitor if you are capping his shots. I know this is working out very well for him, but I doubt very seriously that eventing would take to it...

Hi Mark,

I too am finding the "Charge a deposit for access" policy to be working out pretty well thus far. While our website traffic is way down our sell rate is way, way up. And I have yet to see any photos from these events posted on any of the social networking sites. (Probably just jinxed myself by saying that) I should add, I do like Shawn McMillin's idea of using an open relationship with our fan page. That adds an extra level of security. That said, I really don't have time to actively go looking for instances of theft.

Charging a deposit may be more difficult for you to implement, since it seems the bulk of your work is Horse Trials, and you may only see a particular rider once or twice a season. We, like Shawn, do mostly H/J's so we tend to see our customers several times throughout the season. If they don't purchase at the show, and don't want to pay the deposit, they can always view and order their photos in my trailer for free at a later date.

I wouldn't get too worked up about the comments to which you were responding to. They clearly were made out of ignorance.....:no:

looseringsnaffle
Mar. 23, 2010, 06:18 PM
I know I am a small voice in a large crowd, but the only (and I mean ONLY) problem I have paying for proofs is that sometimes I like to see a course or a horse and rider that I can't be at that event to view in person. It's nice to be able to pop onto a photog's site and glance at the images quickly, just to see what I need to see. That's my only beef with having to pay for proofs.

poetaperegrinus
Mar. 23, 2010, 06:20 PM
Watermarks needs to be annoying to work. Suggest: "I stole this pic". :)

Redline Guy
Mar. 23, 2010, 08:10 PM
I know I am a small voice in a large crowd, but the only (and I mean ONLY) problem I have paying for proofs is that sometimes I like to see a course or a horse and rider that I can't be at that event to view in person. It's nice to be able to pop onto a photog's site and glance at the images quickly, just to see what I need to see. That's my only beef with having to pay for proofs.

Sure, I understand this. And certainly don't mean caustic or a jerk by asking this. But I have to ask.... Why should the photographer who is not paid anything to shoot the course, rider, or horse, and in fact frequently has to pay not only vendors fees to the venue, but also additional shooters, trailer staff, and web hosting fees, continue to offer a "free service" like this? My point is, it's a business. It's not free for the photographer to do these things, and I know that when most people do work, they like to get paid.

Again, not trying to to start a fight, just asking a sincere and honest question.

ETA: I'm frequently told by friends that I sometimes tend to be too direct. So please, don't think I'm aiming my comments at you snaffle, I'm just trying to provoke thought and get some input.

DressageFancy
Mar. 23, 2010, 10:04 PM
Personally, I haven't encountered a photographer that does so, and I would not want to purchase from one that did. It seems to me akin to a store that would charge you an entrance fee just to go in the door and look at the merchandise to see if you wanted to buy anything - pretty ridiculous.

You mean like Sam's Club??

looseringsnaffle
Mar. 24, 2010, 12:45 AM
Sure, I understand this. And certainly don't mean caustic or a jerk by asking this. But I have to ask.... Why should the photographer who is not paid anything to shoot the course, rider, or horse, and in fact frequently has to pay not only vendors fees to the venue, but also additional shooters, trailer staff, and web hosting fees, continue to offer a "free service" like this? My point is, it's a business. It's not free for the photographer to do these things, and I know that when most people do work, they like to get paid.

Again, not trying to to start a fight, just asking a sincere and honest question.

ETA: I'm frequently told by friends that I sometimes tend to be too direct. So please, don't think I'm aiming my comments at you snaffle, I'm just trying to provoke thought and get some input.


Oh, no worries! I'm a very direct person, too!

And I totally understand what you are saying. I also think it's a little B.S. that photogs have to pay vendor fees. I think that's totally and utterly insane.

piaffeprincess98
Mar. 24, 2010, 07:17 AM
Watermarks needs to be annoying to work. Suggest: "I stole this pic". :)

I actually saw that on one photogs' pictures. It said something along the lines of "if you are viewing this photo, it was taken without permission from X"

Joan from Flatlands
Mar. 24, 2010, 07:42 AM
The watermark on my proofs specifically say "Used Without Permission". Starting last year I made my watermark less opaque as so many of the proofs I found that had been stolen, the watermark was so faint it was hard to see. Now that I have the new watermark which lists both my business name and Used Without Permission, you would be amazed the number of people that I dont even know that contact me about stolen photos.

If the rider cant see part of the photo due to the watermark, I am happy to send them a blow up of the part that is hard for them to see. As for those stealing proofs from my site, I just stop posting their proofs once I find that they have stolen images from me.

Joan Davis
Flatlandsfoto.com

eventer80
Mar. 24, 2010, 09:08 AM
I will have to admit that prior to this thread, I used electronic images of the photos on FB, etc..... I didn't even realize that it was "stealing". Now, I do not use photos unless I have permission of the photog or have purchased them.

I do have a question though:

After recently being in two weddings, I have been emailed the album. When viewing the pics there is a choice to download the photo or post to FB. Why would the photog (two different photogs) allow this? Free advertising?

I guess since the sessions were already paid for it works out better.

Thoughts?

Trixie
Mar. 24, 2010, 09:56 AM
After recently being in two weddings, I have been emailed the album. When viewing the pics there is a choice to download the photo or post to FB. Why would the photog (two different photogs) allow this? Free advertising?

I guess since the sessions were already paid for it works out better.

Exactly. Many wedding photographers create a package deal with whomever is paying up front, and you the bride and groom can specify what they want. When a photographer knows they're going to be making a decent amount of money (likely a few thousand) up front for an event, they tend have the ability to be a little more generous with the rights of the photos.

A horse show photographer, unfortunately, gets paid by the photo, and only for the good ones. The wedding photographer is paid up front.

Carolinadreamin'
Mar. 24, 2010, 09:59 AM
Mark, I've seen your proofs used in a few online for-sale horse ads, although not lately. The pictures even had your diagonally oriented "proof" mark on them. I thought it was pretty brazen and reflected poorly on the seller.

Redline Guy
Mar. 24, 2010, 10:13 AM
Mark, I've seen your proofs used in a few online for-sale horse ads, although not lately. The pictures even had your diagonally oriented "proof" mark on them. I thought it was pretty brazen and reflected poorly on the seller.
I've not specifically seen Mark's watermark on Dreamhorse.com, etc. I have seen my own, and generic "proof" watermarks tho. I've also seen one trainer, who participates on this very board, using watermarked photos on her website to advertise her services. :rolleyes:
ETA: I would've made the photographers aware of the above use, but they used the generic "proof" watermarks.

ThirdCharm
Mar. 24, 2010, 12:28 PM
I like Mark's Horizontal watermark on paid-for pix (so I don't have to remember to put credits!) and think "This is a stolen picture!" would be a great watermark!

Jennifer

CapturinYerRide
Mar. 24, 2010, 08:19 PM
My new password request form has just one simple question:

Who was "Barney?"

Anyone answering that he's the Deputy of Mayberry get's my less offensive diagonal watermark. Anyone answering that he's a purple dinosaur get's also a diagonal watermark, just one that has a whole lot of other legal warnings on it.. (I credit my wife for this clever question!)

But seriously, this is a Junior problem pure and simple. It's also a national problem that I believe will soon be looked at by our national organization as something that they can help with.

We'll see how it all goes! Stay tuned...

Sdhaurmsmom
Mar. 25, 2010, 02:20 PM
Once again, I'm posting in haste, and repenting at leisure...:rolleyes: when will I learn?

I had no idea how easy it was to just screen capture things. The last time I paid attention to these issues, this problem wasn't rampant, and was easily addressed in html coding - a method that I guess is sadly ineffective now.

I stand corrected. The people who suggest more opaque watermarks/sarcastic watermarks, including photographer contact info, seem to be on to something.

Good luck - I hope you can find a solution!:)

looseringsnaffle
Mar. 25, 2010, 04:04 PM
I stand corrected. The people who suggest more opaque watermarks/sarcastic watermarks, including photographer contact info, seem to be on to something.

Good luck - I hope you can find a solution!:)

What about watermarks with photog's contact info, sarcastic remark, AND "__% discount to whoever turns this thief in!" ?

Wait...maybe that's internet vigilante justice. Or at least rewarding for internet vigilante justice. :D

tm
Mar. 25, 2010, 06:50 PM
What about watermarks with photog's contact info, sarcastic remark, AND "__% discount to whoever turns this thief in!" ?


Then you'd just get a bunch of conniving friends who get together, heist their photos, turn each other in and get a reward for being thieves.

looseringsnaffle
Mar. 25, 2010, 10:37 PM
Then you'd just get a bunch of conniving friends who get together, heist their photos, turn each other in and get a reward for being thieves.


Haha, good point, good point!

two sticks
Mar. 26, 2010, 07:14 PM
My event watermark also says "this image is being used WITHOUT PERMISSION" and has my ©. I still see my images used even with the watermark on facebook, etc.

blu day
Sep. 29, 2010, 09:40 PM
Hey, that store you describe is Costco! I too find it absurd. Won't give those people my business, period. I understand that there's an incredible amount of work that goes into getting shots of every rider at a show, but still. I need to see proof before I fork over the money.

Please see the definition for intellectual property. Photographers are not selling groceries.... for example, do you pay to see the movie after you see it and if you like it?

blu day
Sep. 29, 2010, 10:00 PM
I gave it every cent and every drop of sweat I had. It was my dream job while it lasted. I pray selling my horse will keep us eating. No hard feelings, I will love eventing and eventers for eternity.
Terrie

Small Name Trainer aka SNIT!
Sep. 30, 2010, 12:25 AM
http://www.facebook.com/#!/album.php?aid=2347267&id=1510625 shes not a junior and certainly has a wide variety of copyrighted and proofed pictures on all 3 of her personal and FAN CLUB sites...yeah, a great role model for our young riders on many levels....:mad: yeah, for those of you not seeing the many proofed photos here,,,its because they were removed sometime in the last 23 hours.......maybe just outing those that steal and drive up the prices for those that don't will work!!!!!!!!!! there were copywrite of at least 4 different photographers on that one page alone......not an islolated occurance....grrr!

Bogie
Sep. 30, 2010, 07:24 AM
Shame on her.

retreadeventer
Sep. 30, 2010, 08:34 AM
...
I find it amusing that every time I shoot down your points, you triangulate, and/or change the parameters of the discussion, or simply choose to defend the points you think you can while ignoring the rest. So, I've decided to do the same this time.
...

Hahaha, that's not a common occurence on THIS board....

Seriously....I am also a "professional photographer" in the sense that I do have to use a camera for my day job. Images of you don't belong to you, just because you're the subject of the image. I think that is a big point of confusion. Mona Lisa doesn't own the painting of her. When I take a picture of a street, intersection, or driveway, it doesn't belong to the city or municipality. It belongs to my company.

I also think that the internet is really the bottom-line culprit in hurting many commercial photography outfits. Lots of stuff out of our control, actually. Redline Guy has outlined the extensive ways he's tried to arrange use of the internet around his photos, and I sympathize with his costs and time and effort in getting this arranged. Folks, one thing I know -- at least one very prolific event photog outfit is about ready to give it up because of internet stealing. We are looking ahead to a time when it will be VERY hard to see and buy good sports photos, because a lot of photographers are saying the hell with it and doing weddings and stuff like that instead. The music industry cracked down and got serious about internet stealing; I think photography is going that way too. I thnk the free days are numbered.

archieflies
Sep. 30, 2010, 09:32 PM
http://www.facebook.com/#!/album.php?aid=2347267&id=1510625 shes not a junior and certainly has a wide variety of copyrighted and proofed pictures on all 3 of her personal and FAN CLUB sites...yeah, a great role model for our young riders on many levels....:mad:


What am I looking at here? I admit to not having clicked on every picture in the album that you linked to, but from the ones I did click on, and from scanning the thumbnails, I'm not seeing any obvious watermarks...

Bogie
Sep. 30, 2010, 09:34 PM
What am I looking at here? I admit to not having clicked on every picture in the album that you linked to, but from the ones I did click on, and from scanning the thumbnails, I'm not seeing any obvious watermarks...

scroll down

archieflies
Sep. 30, 2010, 09:39 PM
OK, I do see something on Photo 69... but placing the text across the actual photo and not the edge might have prevented that. Maybe i'm missing more.

enjoytheride
Sep. 30, 2010, 10:03 PM
Don't see anything, and I'm not sure why such a big name would need to steal photos. Lovely way to bump a thread though.

LexInVA
Sep. 30, 2010, 10:13 PM
Don't see anything, and I'm not sure why such a big name would need to steal photos. Lovely way to bump a thread though.

You just have no idea what you are looking at. There's cropping galore on many of those images so you can't see where the watermarks/logos would have been. Most photogs haven't wised up yet and don't put their watermarks/logos in the right place on a proof which is right over the horse and rider.

Dr. Doolittle
Sep. 30, 2010, 10:42 PM
My 16 year old daughter is taking some eventing photos now; puts her watermark right over the middle of the horse/rider (not that she is doing this professionally. Or would even WANT to, what with the rampant image thievery. :()

Agree with Bogie. Shame on all of these asshats who are "devoid of consciences". I hope they enjoy sharing their stolen images with their friends and family, and I wonder what their parents think of ths behavior. It's all ego-driven; there is NO excuse for it, other than laziness, cheapness, and self glorification--not to mention that mainstay--rationalization! Hey, everyone ELSE is doing it, why can't/shouldn't *I*?!? If this is YOU, stop making mealy-mouthed excuses: man up and PAY for your photos! If you keep this crap up, there may not BE any more photos...

I have tried to dissuade my own students from doing this by nagging them about it and laying on the guilt trip (they post them mainly on Facebook); I think I have managed to reduce it a bit, but I still feel like I am fighting a losing battle. Apparently the modern way is "shameless self promotion" and no sense of decency, appreciation, or respect for the people who sit out in the elements, all day, pay for the equipment, set aside their entire weekend(s), put the time and labor-iintensive effort in--and and do all the hard work so that the riders can have these precious photos of themselves and their horse that will eventually (should eventually) become precious keepsakes. I don't have the heart to "rat them out" behind their backs, though someone PMed me awhile ago with that suggestion.

One of my student's moms (with another full-time job) has recently started to shoot with GRC (to help defray the cost of her daughter's horse, and vet bills), and I'm afraid it will not even be worth her while if this sort of thing continues.

Maybe I am old-fashioned (or feeling especially menopausal tonight ;)), but I find this particularly exasperating and inexusably rude and self-serving--and, alas, all too symptomatic of "modern times". :sigh:

gldprimr
Oct. 1, 2010, 03:17 AM
I just encountered the practice of paying an access fee to view photos taken at an event & frankly found it offensive. Granted I've not been at a show for 15 years so am out of touch with current practices. Basically, I don't care to be charged when there is not a reasonable assurance of a deliverable. I don't pay other vendors on that basis.

I'm not stealing photographers products, but am accustomed to paying for a good product, not just for someone to cover their overhead.

My personal distaste for the practice aside, I can sympathize with the need for the photographers to do something to deal with rampant theft. I simply don't think this is the best method, though I do not have a better one to offer.

I did pay the fee, but will only purchase a couple of photos from that event & photographer. I spent 4x that with another photographer for the same event who did not require the access fee. That will be my practice in the future or perhaps I'll simply not purchase any from the business charging the access fee. I suspect that is more likely.

My business is not enough to make a difference, but this practice will definitely reduce the number of prints I pay for in the future. That is of no consequence to the photograher relative to the loss by theft, but it is a fact.

akor
Oct. 1, 2010, 07:23 AM
This thread really shows the attitude about professional work these days and that people want it for free.

Disturbing as my living comes from copyrighted work.

And, I don't care what anyone says, younger people have much less respect for original work AND they are also used to having everything handed to them. For "free" either from the internet or from mommy and daddy.

To think that you are going to get a professional photos at an event for really cheap is delusional.

maudie
Oct. 1, 2010, 03:43 PM
I take pictures of my friends all the time at shows, with my own camera (nice little Canon Rebel) to make a few extra bucks. I post the pics on face book and ask for credit if it's taken off of my page. Since I've started I've gotten a few customers:

Person 1: gives me $20 for 2 8x10 pics that are printed on my photo paper
Person 2,3,4,5: used my picture as her profile picture with credit to me
Person 6: constantly uses my pictures all over the freaking place with no credit.

It's frustrating to lost potential customers because someone decides that they don't need to pay.

Also, the photog at the AEC's had watermarks on her pics that said "don't post on FB", because you had to buy online rights.... Guess where I found that pic?

Seriously though, stealing pictures is completely classless. If you have 1k to shell out for a show, you have $10 to buy the pic

Bogie
Oct. 1, 2010, 04:04 PM
God help you if you were trying to make a living with that. When the best you can hope for is that someone will pay $10 per 8x10 you know that you're in trouble.

I used take photos at shows and sporting events when I was in college and I made more than that 25 years ago!

Sadly I see something like this happening in the world of professional writing where you see "writing mills" paying $5 or $10 for a 250 or 500 word "article." These are mostly used on blogs or other online pubs where someone wants to see words.

I'll tell you what you get for $10: crap, filler, and drivel.

I take pictures of my friends all the time at shows, with my own camera (nice little Canon Rebel) to make a few extra bucks. I post the pics on face book and ask for credit if it's taken off of my page. Since I've started I've gotten a few customers:

Person 1: gives me $20 for 2 8x10 pics that are printed on my photo paper
Person 2,3,4,5: used my picture as her profile picture with credit to me
Person 6: constantly uses my pictures all over the freaking place with no credit.

It's frustrating to lost potential customers because someone decides that they don't need to pay.

Also, the photog at the AEC's had watermarks on her pics that said "don't post on FB", because you had to buy online rights.... Guess where I found that pic?

Seriously though, stealing pictures is completely classless. If you have 1k to shell out for a show, you have $10 to buy the pic

archieflies
Oct. 1, 2010, 09:51 PM
[quote=LexInVA;5130732]You just have no idea what you are looking at.quote]

Yes, but isn't it the job of these photographers to make sure that I *DO* know what I'm looking at? I mean, I agree that what she did is wrong if she stole and cropped, but... well, Walmart keeps the iPods in locked cases for a reason. If they just leave them sitting out on a shelf in the housewares aisle, someone shifty will come along and take them. Watermarks go across the main part of the image. There's not much room to complain for those who aren't doing what they can to portect themselves. Doesn't make thievery right, but sheeesh, lock your doors.

As far as those who do protect themselves and still get screwed, I don't know what to say. I don't like seeing "proof" across images on facebook either.

Phyxius
Oct. 2, 2010, 12:02 AM
As both a photographer and a rider I can see positives and negatives to both sides of this.

This summer I rode in a show that was photographed by big name photographer. I was excited, yay! Until I found out that no proofs were visible at all until you gave up a $35.00 deposit. :no: This was a Breast Cancer benefit show and the entry fees cost me $300 which is a heck of a lot more than my lowly self usually pays to show. If there was a good photo in the bunch I would've bought it but, I'll never know.

I post all of my photos up for everyone to see. Then, I'll grab a couple lower res images with my watermark along the bottom and upload them to Facebook. If I know the people (and usually I do) I'll tag them. Yeah, that's putting the image up there for free but, it's also driving other participants of that event to my site so in a way it's free advertising.

I also post photos on forums and because of that I've made some phenomenal international contacts with Olympic and World Cup riders and trainers that I would not have been able to contact otherwise. In a world where who you know is pretty important those contacts are invaluable. Maybe I didn't get a $30 personal use fee but I got to start a relationship with one of the 10 riders in the world. I can deal with that.

I know what it's like to be the official photographer at a show and to stand out in the hot sun or the cold rain and then just sit by and hope someone buys your photos. Then, to see those people and it's usually the ones with the most expensive horse, nicest rig, etc. just steal the images and post them online yeah it stinks. I took a bit of a break this year and I've only done commission work. Boy, oh boy is it nice to not have to stand around all day. :) Luckily I have a day job that I love, love, love and oh yeah it's only around because of other photographers.

As others have mentioned screen grab programs and even disabling javascript will get you around right click protection. Watermarking only stops the honest people. There is no 100% sure fire way to prevent image theft other than not posting them online but there are steps photographers can take to help prevent it. However, it'd be nice if people just didn't think it was okay to steal 'em.

5fornow
Oct. 19, 2010, 08:49 PM
Just to give all of you a heads up . . . there is NO WAY to keep people from stealing pictures from your website or any website. Did you really think that photographers don't know about the "right click"? There are more programs than you can shake a stick at that will allow someone to "lift" any picture from anywhere online. The websites that host photographers don't seem to be much help either. It happens to all photographers at every level.
As a professional equine photographer I can tell you that we have tried contacting USEF about the problem and they don't seem too interested in helping either. If people were stealing at horse shows from venders or other riders you can bet that USEF would step in and do something about that. But they don't seem to mind having professionals and amateurs alike stealing from the photographers that were asked to be at the show.
Sometime in the future there won't be any pictures in the USEF magazine or the Chronicle because there won't be anyone left in the business to take them. Every photographer I talked to this year is looking into bailing out and doing weddings.

maudie
Oct. 19, 2010, 08:55 PM
God help you if you were trying to make a living with that. When the best you can hope for is that someone will pay $10 per 8x10 you know that you're in trouble.

I used take photos at shows and sporting events when I was in college and I made more than that 25 years ago!

Sadly I see something like this happening in the world of professional writing where you see "writing mills" paying $5 or $10 for a 250 or 500 word "article." These are mostly used on blogs or other online pubs where someone wants to see words.

I'll tell you what you get for $10: crap, filler, and drivel.

I'm not making a living on it at all, I just take the pictures when I'm not riding or when I'm jump judging to practice focus, shutter speed, depth, etc. The $10 just covers the ink and photo paper. It's not top quality, but it looks nice :).

And I hope you're not calling my photography crap when you haven't seen it....

archieflies
Oct. 19, 2010, 08:58 PM
Completely off topic, but if everyone's going into weddings... I know like 40,000 people who are wedding photographers... the only reason there's enough weddings is because everyone's getting divorced and remarried over and over. My sister has employed half the wedding photographers in the Greater Houston area. So why not double the market and pioneer the new field of divorce photography?

Bogie
Oct. 19, 2010, 10:43 PM
I'm not making a living on it at all, I just take the pictures when I'm not riding or when I'm jump judging to practice focus, shutter speed, depth, etc. The $10 just covers the ink and photo paper. It's not top quality, but it looks nice :).

And I hope you're not calling my photography crap when you haven't seen it....

I was referring to the quality of the copywriting that you get for $10.

My point about the photography is that professional photographers make their living by selling their experience, their eye and their skill. Add into that the cost of their equipment and their commitment to standing around all day and they can't survive on a $10 print.

Eventually the pros will go away because so many people want to pay $10; then riders will have to hope that they have friends standing around who get a decent photo of them because that will be their only choice.

JumpingBug
Oct. 19, 2010, 11:00 PM
"Ajierene
Digital Camera $1000
Extra Lens = $500 x2= $1000
Memory cards = $40 x 3 = $120
Tripod = $100
Printer = $500
Software = $100
TOTAL = $1820" :confused:


HARDLY
I have started to take photos on the side for pleasure and professionally and just camera and lenses were about 4,000. Have you seen what they shoot with??? Most now have 2-3 people out taking pictures.

Now on another note: I think it is ridiculous that some are charging to view pictures online. The biggest complaint I heard form the photogs in California was DAMN KIDS PUTTING THEM ON FACEBOOK, yes and they look terrible as they have a BIG PROOF over them and guess what they were not going to buy them in the first place. SO I have stopped buying from those that force me to pay before I see them, they end up losing as a lot of people are not going to put in a credit card unless they know they are buying.

maudie
Oct. 19, 2010, 11:10 PM
I was referring to the quality of the copywriting that you get for $10.

My point about the photography is that professional photographers make their living by selling their experience, their eye and their skill. Add into that the cost of their equipment and their commitment to standing around all day and they can't survive on a $10 print.

Eventually the pros will go away because so many people want to pay $10; then riders will have to hope that they have friends standing around who get a decent photo of them because that will be their only choice.

I just eeread my post. The $10 I was talking about at the end was the cost for the eight to post the picture on the Internet. The actual prints were much more expensive at the show.

Hope that clarifies things a little bit.

maudie
Oct. 19, 2010, 11:12 PM
Another thing, have any photogs set it up so you enter a credit card to view pics, and if they catch the pic on your Facebook page they charge you for it? No immwdiate charge, and more incentive to be honest.

Bogie
Oct. 20, 2010, 12:19 PM
This whole thread still bothers me. Once again, I'll use my own profession as an example so no one will feel that I'm impugning their skills.

Most everyone can write a sentence. Not everyone can write copy that communicates concepts clearly and effectively. Or copy that sells products.

Do I need to justify my rates based on my investment in my equipment? I don't think so! People don't hire me because I have the latest, greatest computer. They hire me to manage projects or write copy because they want the quality of work I can provide.

I also don't set my rates based on the fact that there are people (all over the world) who will sell their services for pennies. Just because they can mostly write sentences with subjects and verbs doesn't mean that they are good writers.

Now, every client has the option of hiring an amateur (writer, videographer, photographer). That's their choice. If the quality is sufficient for their needs, that's okay by me. I'd love to find a great photo of me and my horse for $10 but I won't write a $10 article. Heck, I've spent more than $10 of my time on this posting :lol:.

In all professions there are "pros" who don't do great work and there are "amateurs" who are very talented. However, since the amateurs aren't doing this to support themselves, they may not be around when their clients need them. I do a lot of last minute emergency work for clients that stretches into the wee hours (probably akin to standing in a horse show ring during very hot or otherwise nasty weather for three days) that many people who don't need to support themselves would pass on.

Eventually, there won't be professional photographers at horse shows. That's the way this is moving.

Skills are being devalued because people are willing to settle for a good or decent photo for short money and because their friend or colleague took that photo today. That's not necessarily wrong, but it isn't because professionals are gouging the public; it's because the public has decided that they don't want to/can't pay for professional work.

Dr. Doolittle
Oct. 20, 2010, 10:47 PM
This whole thread still bothers me. Once again, I'll use my own profession as an example so no one will feel that I'm impugning their skills.

Most everyone can write a sentence. Not everyone can write copy that communicates concepts clearly and effectively. Or copy that sells products.

Do I need to justify my rates based on my investment in my equipment? I don't think so! People don't hire me because I have the latest, greatest computer. They hire me to manage projects or write copy because they want the quality of work I can provide.

I also don't set my rates based on the fact that there are people (all over the world) who will sell their services for pennies. Just because they can mostly write sentences with subjects and verbs doesn't mean that they are good writers.

Now, every client has the option of hiring an amateur (writer, videographer, photographer). That's their choice. If the quality is sufficient for their needs, that's okay by me. I'd love to find a great photo of me and my horse for $10 but I won't write a $10 article. Heck, I've spent more than $10 of my time on this posting :lol:.

In all professions there are "pros" who don't do great work and there are "amateurs" who are very talented. However, since the amateurs aren't doing this to support themselves, they may not be around when their clients need them. I do a lot of last minute emergency work for clients that stretches into the wee hours (probably akin to standing in a horse show ring during very hot or otherwise nasty weather for three days) that many people who don't need to support themselves would pass on.

Eventually, there won't be professional photographers at horse shows. That's the way this is moving.

Skills are being devalued because people are willing to settle for a good or decent photo for short money and because their friend or colleague took that photo today. That's not necessarily wrong, but it isn't because professionals are gouging the public; it's because the public has decided that they don't want to/can't pay for professional work.

And this is a sad state of affairs...

Redline Guy
Oct. 20, 2010, 11:13 PM
Ahhh, this thread. The gift that keeps giving. :P

Much has happened for us in the 6 months or so since I last posted here.

I took many of the comments and suggestions to heart and attempted to implement them.

Several people here said, they’d rather pay a small sitting fee at the show to guarantee the photographer got photos of them, rather then pay a deposit towards purchase to view them after the fact. So I tried that. A $5 sitting fee to be shot, and no charge to view online (again, there is no charge to view them in my trailer at the show)

The result: We had numerous people at the show tell us; They better be some damn good pictures if I gotta pay him $5 to take them! Either those exact words or something to the same effect. (Dirty little secret: If the rider does their job, they will be some damn good pictures)

Then I tried password protected galleries, with no deposit, but I physically had to reply to each request, so I could screen them to prevent known image thieves from gaining access.

The result: An irate e mail from a “customer” who had to wait nine minutes late on a weekday evening for the password.

Then I automated the process so customers would get the password instantly and not have to wait for me to personally respond. Even though this once again made my hard work vulnerable to the thieves.

The result: People entering bogus information into the request form. Image theft reoccurring. And one complaint that the form was too much trouble to fill out!

So from where I stand, the exhibitors in my area don’t want to pay (a deposit) to view proofs. Contrary to what was said on this thread, they do not want to pay a ($5) sitting fee to guarantee they will be photographed. They don’t want to wait for a free password. And some can’t even be bothered with filling out the form (accurately, or at all) to request the password.

Some other things have happened too in those six months.

I shot a wedding and even though I lowballed it, because it was a friend of a friend, the price was well above what we typically gross in a weekend shooting shows. And I got 3 more referrals from that wedding. And we got fed. Good food!! ETA: I should clarify, I have shot several weddings as a second. This was the first one that was shot exclusively as a Redline job.

I’ve done senior portrait sessions, private sessions, and engagement sessions. All of them have netted me many times per hour what I make shooting horse shows.

Also, in each and every instance of these new endeavors I was treated like a professional. The clients all spoke to me respectfully. They all even said please and thank you! Something I’ve rarely heard while shooting a horse show on spec. In none of these cases were any of us talked down to, or treated like we owed anybody anything.

As it stands now, my only interest in shooting shows after this season will be as an advertising vehicle to market these new services. Once things are busy enough, I’m outta there.

I know there will be someone to fill the breach. I’ve already seen that happening at some of the shows we’ve dropped. And they do not bring the skill, quality of shots or quality of prints I provide. Much less the onsite viewing experience we offer.

mybelle
Oct. 21, 2010, 04:05 PM
This is all very interesting. The disrespect that occurred on this thread is incredibly uncalled for and makes me sad.

I do understand why photographers charge so much and the plight of Redline guy. I jump judge twice a year and I have hung out with a photographer or two on those days. Nice people and I do kind of feel bad for them. I get to hang out with my buddies and jump judge and they're all by their lonesomes. Luckily, I was there to keep them company :)

I took my new horse to 2 events (our first together) and while I loved the professional pictures of us, I simply could not afford the costs. I'd been out of competing for a few years and noticed a marked increase in prices. Again, apparently justified, but with my personal costs in getting to the show, lessons, coaching, entry fees, ect ect the photos would have been an added benefit, but I had to decide against purchasing them. I know there are many much more affluent people who compete who can afford to pay those prices.

In those 2 cases, I had to settle for the less wonderful pictures taken by friends, but I would've much preferred the high quality shots taken by the pros.

On another note, I did contemplate purchasing a CD of all my pictures (my personal favorite option) but I was confused by the photographer's description & explanation of what was included and what was allowed to be done with the CD of pics. So I emailed them. No response. So, who knows, but it was still so much money that I took that as my excuse not to follow up and save myself some money.

I have bought a print from Redline, back in the day. It must've been when the proofs were still online and it was a lovely shot! So thanks and the horse world is sad to lose you

PRS
Oct. 21, 2010, 04:38 PM
We have used the same photographers for the last several years at our state show. The entire federation has been so happy with their photography, cost, ease of ordering and friendliness of their employees that they have been declared the permanent official show photographer. :yes: They come with several photographers to get different angles, they have a trailer with many monitors where many people at once can view (for free) and order their photos right there on the show grounds within minutes of their class being over or you can buy a CD with all your photos for an affordable $125. They also post on their website where the right click is disabled for copying photos and they put huge water marks across the photos. I don't know who would want to steal those. Here is their website. http://www.glossyfinish.com/mp_client/pictures.asp?eventid=0&eventstatus=0&categories=no&keywords2=no&groupid=1725&bw=false&sep=false They are based in Florida so I don't know how far they travel. Our state show is held in Perry, GA. so I know they will come at least this far.