Thieving Scumbag Facebook shoplifters- Rant follows

[spidge]

Lots of photographers have joined H&H just to follow this thread and a good many have posted. I'm sure the tons of great suggestions and feedback will filter back into their business to allow them to decide what works best for them and their customers. Without this dialogue togs might just be sitting around moaning that business is slow and customers moaning that the togs are cr*p, too expensive, too slow, too outdated etc. I have implemented several changes, such as backdating the option to download £3 Facebook suitable images to my entire 2010 back catalogue of over 100 events, I am in the process of changing gallery providers and I have announced a Facebook amnesty and the offer of potentially 1000's of images as giveaways to push my point home that a decently edited and processed image even just for £3 for FB is better than a shoplifted, watermarked screen print or worse still camera phone snap of the print or image on screen complete with flash bulb.

You can rest assured that we as photographers although we are in competition can also set aside those differences to work together to protect our own interests.

 

[aregona]

ok, so, deep breath..........at risk of needing to run away from here after posting this i would like to know yor thoughts so here goes....

at the bottom of the page are my images. the one to the far left anf far right were taken by my mum.
the ones in the middle are pro pics WHICH I BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. so how do pro's feel about images been used like this after they have been paid for as i do understand by law i am still breaking it and these images still belong to the pro. do you mind seeing images like this?????

I pay for LOTS of photos as i compete 3 horses BE and youngsters and usually buy photos. i have an album which probably cost me over £500 aver the years. I dont not regreat buying any of them as the horse i have the most of (the mare in the pic left od the middle) was retired suddenly last month and i have some amazing pics of her.

your thoughts please?????? **now i run and hide**

 

[George Michie]

so how do pro's feel about images been used like this after they have been paid for as i do understand by law i am still breaking it and these images still belong to the pro. do you mind seeing images like this?????

Doesn't bother me at all You've bought it and if you want to make it part of your sig then that's fine by me.

 

[spidge]

I can't speak for all other togs only myself. Technically yes I think in fact you are in breach of copyright but if you had purchased the image, frankly I don't care. Pictures are meant to be enjoyed. not hidden in a hard drive.

Do I get then get upset if you then tell me later at a show as a competitor did this week that the (her words) absolutely stunning picture I took of her chestnut showjumper had been scanned and blown up to a poster size print. Did I lose revenue? Yes. Did I smile and ignore it? Yes.

Life's too short.

 

[Santa_Claus]

if you had asked permission i'm sure most togs wouldn't have an issue, if you hadn't would be miffed, even me a amateur would be miffed if a photo was taken (i openly post them on facebook no copyright majority of time as just like to share them) and then used in such a way.

Had they asked me very quickly "do you mind if I use for xyz" I would say no problems go ahead, takes all of 10 seconds to type and send such a message on facebook for example and when buying a photo at an event even less time.

On the rare occasions (as previously mentioned why ) when I buy pro pics at events I always without fail ask if I can post them online on facebook and here and the like and not one tog has ever said no provided I give them credit which I always do

 

[figbat]

Not only are you breaking the law but also the rules of this very forum. As has been said, in many cases if you take the time to ask for permission, it may be granted (perhaps with the request for a credit to be included). However, without this permission you have commited theft and are liable to the consequences. Strictly speaking, if your mother didn't give your explicit permission to use her pictures, then you are violating her copyright too, although I understand that in most cases such permission amongst family is implicit and would be gladly given.

What you can't and shouldn't do is assume that if one photographer is relaxed about it, they/we all are - this is why it is polite to make sure first.

 

[MrFigjam]

...although I understand that in most cases such permission amongst family is implicit and would be gladly given.

Stuff that!!! I Made Figjam buy her first images from me that she wanted printed for her desk at work!
I told her that she was "helping the cause"

I then Found out she'd used my money from the joint account, but it was the principle of the thing! lol

 

[ch70]

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

Nope.. I'd be asking for Canon!

 

[lizzie_liz]

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

.

That is not what I am saying as you would have to be stupid to think you could ask Nikon if they would sell you £4000 worth of equipment for £1. I am saying do photographers really know what customers want and are actually willing to pay for a photo. I am sure many of us would agree that a printed picture is worth more than £5. But when 7x5 pictures are more than £10 then I am sorry but I won't buy the picture, unless it was a special event I was at.

We all appreciate photography equipment is expensive and that you need to sell photos to make a living. However if togs are not selling photos they have taken, you have to ask yourselves, why is not selling? Any business would do this.

Based on what people have said on this thread, I am interpreting the following. People would be willing to pay £1 for a photo suitable for facebook and if they were they would buy all photos taken that day. This in the long run could become more profitable as it would attract more people to buy photos in the first place. Instead of only 10% of competitors buying photos the number buying would rise significantly. But togs could perhaps have a deal that if you only buy one FB photo you pay £3/4 but the more you buy the cheaper each invidual photo becomes, or 5 FB photos for £10.

 

[aregona]

thanks for you views, that is certainly a question i will be asking from now on with any purchases made with the possibility of using them online.
As for my mum, im prity sure it goes without saying that she has taken them for my use and considering the 2 horses belong to her.......i can't see there being problem

 

[MegaBeast]

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

ditto this... FB images are an option I've not yet seen available.

I think it would be great if you could pay maybe £15 to get a 7x5 print but included in that would be all the pics taken of you that day as lowish quality digital files. Quite often I'll look and think yeah they're okay, but there isn't one I'd particularly want however it's nice to have some momentos even if not great.

Showground Photography (Mount Ballan) do a really nice option which is a montage, you select five photos you like and they produce one large print, with a pic in the middle and one in each corner plus wording of your choice across the bottom. Think it costs £30.

The togs who've contributed to this thread do seem to think more innovatively and offering more affordable options, however I feel they're in the minority as all the ones I've come across to date at shows just offer the normal £10+ per print

 

[aregona]

ditto that one megabeast - all mine have been printouts, iv seen a cd or memory stick - never the option of facebook images.

 

[Kat]

Stuff that!!! I Made Figjam buy her first images from me that she wanted printed for her desk at work!
I told her that she was "helping the cause"

I then Found out she'd used my money from the joint account, but it was the principle of the thing! lol

Love it! My DH made his own mother pay for a print! And it was nearly her birthday - tight bu99er!!!

 

[MrFigjam]

That is not what I am saying as you would have to be stupid to think you could ask Nikon if they would sell you £4000 worth of equipment for £1. I am saying do photographers really know what customers want and are actually willing to pay for a photo.

Yeah, that was a little too sarcastic of me. Apologies.

The thing is, every person wants everything for as little money as they can get it for. Think about how we haggle when we go to buy a car or something similar.
When we buy a car, we are not concerned about the garage or whether they can afford to sell it at that price or not, we want it as cheap as we can get it. I think customers have to be listened too, but not as far as price is concerned.

If you are not in the photography industry then there's probably a lot of costs that are unknown. Some of the comments that are here are just not realistic.

Even if you sold double the amount by offering cheap facebook images you are still going to struggle to make money.
On Saturday I spent 11 hours at Hopetoun and then spent around 4 hours editing images afterwards. 15hours all togther. If you take off petrol money, depreciation of camera gear, broadband costs, insurance costs, showground refreshments, payment to organiser etc. then I would probably have to earn minimum £120-140 to cover my costs and make minimum wage (around £5.50ish per hour).

If you sell the majority of your images as "Facebook Images" then you are going to have to sell a hell of a lot to earn as much money as a paper boy.

Would you work your butt off for 15 hours if someone was going to steal all your profits? I'm glad I do it as a supplementary income because I certainly couldn't support myself on that.

This is why images are so expensive. If only 10 people or so buy an image per event then the cost has to cover the outlay. Simple demand and supply. If loads of people bought images then the photographer could afford to price themselves lower because they would still have the volume.

It's a Catch 22 situation. Nobody will buy images because they are too expensive, and photographer can not lower prices as nobody is buying images.

 

[EquineImage]

That is not what I am saying as you would have to be stupid to think you could ask Nikon if they would sell you £4000 worth of equipment for £1. I am saying do photographers really know what customers want and are actually willing to pay for a photo. I am sure many of us would agree that a printed picture is worth more than £5. But when 7x5 pictures are more than £10 then I am sorry but I won't buy the picture, unless it was a special event I was at.

We all appreciate photography equipment is expensive and that you need to sell photos to make a living. However if togs are not selling photos they have taken, you have to ask yourselves, why is not selling? Any business would do this.

Based on what people have said on this thread, I am interpreting the following. People would be willing to pay £1 for a photo suitable for facebook and if they were they would buy all photos taken that day. This in the long run could become more profitable as it would attract more people to buy photos in the first place. Instead of only 10% of competitors buying photos the number buying would rise significantly. But togs could perhaps have a deal that if you only buy one FB photo you pay £3/4 but the more you buy the cheaper each invidual photo becomes, or 5 FB photos for £10.

Hello,

Yes my camera's have cost £££ however its my bussiness & i want to produce the best to sell & show my work.
I believe we have to move with the times, i'm selling more & more digital jpeg's for digital frames, full-size jpegs & now offer FB & Twitter pictures at £1, I find customers buying pictures & all the FB jpegs, they seem happy & i'm happy

 

[JazzmanII]

i have to say, i think the £1 or £3 facebook image is a really really good idea. Where i am based, the photographer at most shows is very good, but according to all the prices on here seems v expensive. I almost always buy photos from him at £15 each or like 5 for £70 and at one 5 day show we brought 21. But this price means i can only buy the very best, and often there are photos you like but not enough to buy, but would happily pay less than a fiver for. so i hope this idea comes more common!!

 

[Kat]

How about buy one print and get ALL of the rest of the images of you at facebook size for £1 each. To compliment the £3 facebook image? I bet lots of people would go for that and it would boost levels of sales.

 

[JazzmanII]

How about buy one print and get ALL of the rest of the images of you at facebook size for £1 each. To compliment the £3 facebook image? I bet lots of people would go for that and it would boost levels of sales.

think this a very good idea, even 2 quid would still be fine

 

[mike weeks]

I think it would be great if you could pay maybe £15 to get a 7x5 print but included in that would be all the pics taken of you that day as lowish quality digital files. Quite often I'll look and think yeah they're okay, but there isn't one I'd particularly want however it's nice to have some momentos even if not great.

Would probably have to be sent on by email if it was at my event

Showground Photography (Mount Ballan) do a really nice option which is a montage, you select five photos you like and they produce one large print, with a pic in the middle and one in each corner plus wording of your choice across the bottom. Think it costs £30.

What size print is this?

The togs who've contributed to this thread do seem to think more innovatively and offering more affordable options, however I feel they're in the minority as all the ones I've come across to date at shows just offer the normal £10+ per print

There are a lot of us that regularly talk about how we can offer different product/services but here is the catch, whatever we do it must make us a profit - all of these stolen images are our profit.

Mike

 

[EquineImage]

i have to say, i think the £1 or £3 facebook image is a really really good idea. Where i am based, the photographer at most shows is very good, but according to all the prices on here seems v expensive. I almost always buy photos from him at £15 each or like 5 for £70 and at one 5 day show we brought 21. But this price means i can only buy the very best, and often there are photos you like but not enough to buy, but would happily pay less than a fiver for. so i hope this idea comes more common!!

I can't speak for other photographers & i won't but i can tell you, if a customer asked me for all their pictures i'd be more than happy to do a deal, to be honest i like to provide a service i'm in this for the long haul & my customers are buying prints & facebook images with a small copyright & (ok facebook) on the image.
Yes i could leave the equestrian photography & just go with the Wedding stuff, but having horses myself & so many lovely customers plus i'd miss the horses ! lol

 

[Kat]

I think actually most photographers would rather do a deal and get a sale than miss out completely but in the UK people are very reluctant to haggle.

It is frustrating being at shows with my husband (an artist) and someone asks you a price, and then just walks off. Especially if they have been umming and ahhhing over two images.

You always wonder whether if it had been a few quid less you might have got the sale. I would rather someone said if they can't afford something and you can see if you can work something out.

Maybe we have a smaller cheaper version in the back, or can do a deal on a version we have where the packaging is damaged. Particularly at the end of a show when there aren't likely to be any other sales it is worth asking (although don't take the pee). And with commissions it is certainly worth saying ok so your quote is £500 my budget is £300 is there anything you could do to fit my budget. We'd rather sell something for less than miss a sale all together.

So if you are looking at your photos and you can't decide between three ask the tog if he can do a discount for buying all three, or can chuck in digital images if you buy one print.

 

[ch70]

I can only add my thoughts here and not those of my employer!

Running a photography business is no different to any other. The money coming in has to be more than the money going out, end of. If you are selling all your photos at a loss, then you're not going to be around a very long time.

Now some would argue that selling a photo for a pound is a good idea (especially the buyer) and is better than nothing. I don't really agree on the whole. What you are doing in effect is devaluing your product. Now when times are hard, as they are now, people will do pretty much anything to make a few pounds extra, however, when things pick up again the customer is going to expect the prices to continue at that rate.

Lets say we have 4 photographers out on an event plus a couple of people manning the fort taking orders and doing prints. That's 6 people we have to pay. In addition, the cost to get to the venue, the cost of paper we use, ink (wow we use a lot of yellow this time of year!), incidental costs during the day. You would need to sell a lot of images to break even let alone make any money. Let's add to the equation that the weather turns bad half way thorugh the day and no one hangs around after they have competed, how many photos do you think we would sell that day? It's a risk we have to take.

I think the customers believe that photographers earn a lot of money, infact the opposite is true unless you are one of the handfull of people who have been lucky. Most of us scrape our way through and do in part do this job due to enjoying it!

We have an even harder job these days as every Tom, Dick and Mildred (Harry has retired) thinks they can turn up with a compact or consumer range DSLR and suddenly take awesome photos. It isn't going to happen. What differentiates a professional from an amateur is consistency and knowing how to use the equipment. With a compact you might get 1 or 2 hits out of 10 that look OK, with a low end DSLR you might get 5 assuming you have good reactions and know what to shoot. Professionals expect to get 9 or 10 out of 10 on the money, we have to otherwise we won't sell them.

With regard to us in social networking sites such as facebook, if the person has bought the original photo from us and has asked if they can use it then generally there is no issue. If they don't buy anything then continue to use the image online without permission, that would be an issue.

This turned into a slightly longer post that planned!

 

[EquineImage]

I can only add my thoughts here and not those of my employer!

Running a photography business is no different to any other. The money coming in has to be more than the money going out, end of. If you are selling all your photos at a loss, then you're not going to be around a very long time.

Now some would argue that selling a photo for a pound is a good idea (especially the buyer) and is better than nothing. I don't really agree on the whole. What you are doing in effect is devaluing your product. Now when times are hard, as they are now, people will do pretty much anything to make a few pounds extra, however, when things pick up again the customer is going to expect the prices to continue at that rate.

Lets say we have 4 photographers out on an event plus a couple of people manning the fort taking orders and doing prints. That's 6 people we have to pay. In addition, the cost to get to the venue, the cost of paper we use, ink (wow we use a lot of yellow this time of year!), incidental costs during the day. You would need to sell a lot of images to break even let alone make any money. Let's add to the equation that the weather turns bad half way thorugh the day and no one hangs around after they have competed, how many photos do you think we would sell that day? It's a risk we have to take.

I think the customers believe that photographers earn a lot of money, infact the opposite is true unless you are one of the handfull of people who have been lucky. Most of us scrape our way through and do in part do this job due to enjoying it!

We have an even harder job these days as every Tom, Dick and Mildred (Harry has retired) thinks they can turn up with a compact or consumer range DSLR and suddenly take awesome photos. It isn't going to happen. What differentiates a professional from an amateur is consistency and knowing how to use the equipment. With a compact you might get 1 or 2 hits out of 10 that look OK, with a low end DSLR you might get 5 assuming you have good reactions and know what to shoot. Professionals expect to get 9 or 10 out of 10 on the money, we have to otherwise we won't sell them.

With regard to us in social networking sites such as facebook, if the person has bought the original photo from us and has asked if they can use it then generally there is no issue. If they don't buy anything then continue to use the image online without permission, that would be an issue.

This turned into a slightly longer post that planned!

Very well said !

 

[SpottedCat]

I do think one of the major problems is that photographers see 'lifted' images as a decrease in revenue, but doubtless the person who lifts them doesn't because they never would have bought the picture in the first place - I suppose what I am saying is that if you came up with the silver bullet of gallery software which made it impossible to steal an image, then you wouldn't necessarily see your revenue go up. So therefore how about requesting people link to their images on your site on FB rather than lifting watermarked images? After all, FB (for me) is all about sharing pics with lots of people, and that works well too I think.

 

[spidge]

I do think one of the major problems is that photographers see 'lifted' images as a decrease in revenue, but doubtless the person who lifts them doesn't because they never would have bought the picture in the first place - I suppose what I am saying is that if you came up with the silver bullet of gallery software which made it impossible to steal an image, then you wouldn't necessarily see your revenue go up. So therefore how about requesting people link to their images on your site on FB rather than lifting watermarked images? After all, FB (for me) is all about sharing pics with lots of people, and that works well too I think.

It is a decrease in revenue because why buy it if you can steal it. Photographers who put "stolen" as part of their watermark see an increase in sales. Why is that?

Why do I need to rush home and spend 2 hours creating a gallery and uploading to my web site after an event ( which I very typically do so on the same day) because so many people want to see their pictures and relive the day or browse them in the office the next day. Oh yes Sunday night and all day Monday peak viewing time! What I could do is what for the enquiries to come in and just email some proofs after I've found the chestnut with the white
socks and the blue numbna that jumped before the gray and after the dun, or was it after the bay. Oh sorry I don't know the class.

Do you know if I factor in my time, ecommerce costs etc I dont know if there is any profit in a £1 FB image. Perhaps if the volume was there or there was a minimum order value imposed to make it viable.

 

[SpottedCat]

It is a decrease in revenue because why buy it if you can steal it. Photographers who put "stolen" as part of their watermark see an increase in sales. Why is that?

Do you know if I factor in my time, ecommerce costs etc I dont know if there is any profit in a £1 FB image. Perhaps if the volume was there or there was a minimum order value imposed to make it viable.

Do they really see an increase in sales? That's interesting, I am surprised by that - and if it is true why doesn't every photographer use that tactic - seems pretty simple to me.

If there is no profit in it, then there is no point, as you say. On the other hand, I do think (as I said before) that this is a really odd industry in that you pay the venue for the privilege of being there. I can understand a charge for stands etc, but having a photographer makes a competition more attractive to enter, so I don't really understand that part of the equation.

The weird thing about this whole thread is that the professional photographers seem to think they make little/no profit, which begs the question as to why you do it and how you pay the mortgage. I ask this seriously as someone who runs their own business, and whose rates are based on me only working 2.5 days a week billable time with 6 weeks holiday a year - I know I turn a profit, and I would go back to working for someone if I didn't!

 

[EquineImage]

It is a decrease in revenue because why buy it if you can steal it. Photographers who put "stolen" as part of their watermark see an increase in sales. Why is that?

Why do I need to rush home and spend 2 hours creating a gallery and uploading to my web site after an event ( which I very typically do so on the same day) because so many people want to see their pictures and relive the day or browse them in the office the next day. Oh yes Sunday night and all day Monday peak viewing time! What I could do is what for the enquiries to come in and just email some proofs after I've found the chestnut with the white
socks and the blue numbna that jumped before the gray and after the dun, or was it after the bay. Oh sorry I don't know the class.

Do you know if I factor in my time, ecommerce costs etc I dont know if there is any profit in a £1 FB image. Perhaps if the volume was there or there was a minimum order value imposed to make it viable.

I'm 100% behind what you've written above & i do the same people only see you at events they don't see the hrs we spent in Post on the road & office.
My £1 FB Image was a 30 day Trail which ends of the 16th i'm giving my report to a FB page.
I also send my images i want to protect to a website in the USA & they scan the web looking for my images, once they find the image they send me a report & then they ask for payment & we split the sale or the image is removed, FB will remove my copyright images straight away...

 

[ch70]

I do think one of the major problems is that photographers see 'lifted' images as a decrease in revenue, but doubtless the person who lifts them doesn't because they never would have bought the picture in the first place - I suppose what I am saying is that if you came up with the silver bullet of gallery software which made it impossible to steal an image, then you wouldn't necessarily see your revenue go up. So therefore how about requesting people link to their images on your site on FB rather than lifting watermarked images? After all, FB (for me) is all about sharing pics with lots of people, and that works well too I think.[/QUOTE

Here is the very problem, people do not see "lifting" an "image" from a website as theft because to many when it is online it is not a "physical" thing. Whether a person would have bought it or not is not the issue, they are making use of something they have not paid for and making it easier for them to do so is not going to make things improve for the photographers. It's like me walkng into Comet and walking off with a TV. I didn't want to buy it but it will look nice in my living room so I took it anyway.

There is no magic bullet for this unfortunately. Even if you stop right clicking and all those things, people can always take a screen print to the computers clipboard then crop the image and save it. All photographers can do is try to protect their investment by:

1. Making online images low res
2. Slapping big old copyright messages across them
3. Using third party companies who specialise in scanning the web for images and then approach any offenders with legal action if required.

The whole FB thing is a real issue (although it's actually any online use, not just facebook). If you allow people to link to your site and to a watermark free image then they will do that, more often than not they will never bother to buy a photo again and people will have nice big libraries of photos they can view that didn't cost them a penny and they are not paying to store.

There has to be some sort of charge and that has to be proportional to the cost of producing that image in the first place. Selling something for £1 is fine at a car boot sale when you have a nice jar of coins but online there will generally always be charges to pay so suddenly your pound becomes 75p.

regarding why I do this? A number of reasons:

1. I have a love for photography
2. I love wildlife and animals and as both my wife and 2 daughters ride I have been around horses for a looooong time!
3. I still get a buzz when someone buys one of my images and compliments me on the quality of the shot!

To be clear, like a lot of event photographers, I do this as a second job. I couldn't earn enough from this to feed myself let alone my family. I have been an IT consultant for the last 21 years which is why I know a lot about the internet!

 

[CinnamonChristmasCookie]

essentially the copyroght belongs to the phtographer but the IMAGE belongs to me it is me in the pic and as stated above I could buy that pic then tell the photographer to delete the images of me as the rights of the sunject. So if I have paid for an image it belongs to me.

I see your point (hi, Nikki!) but the image remains the intellectual property of the photographer. You have the right to post it if you bought it, obviously, but not the right to use it for other content.

It's a bit like plagiarism, I suppose. If you buy Harry Potter, it's your book, but you can't reproduce it elsewhere.

 

[CinnamonChristmasCookie]

Hey Frances, I would forget the £3 and report the picture on FB and speak to the girl's father re potential suing. Obviously, you're not going to sue her for that amount, but no harm in scaring the **** out of her.