Unauthorised usage of copyrighted images in for sale adverts

S

spidge

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 October 2009
Messages
225
Visit site
I don't know how many equestrian photographers we have on here but I would be interested to get some thoughts. I am happy to post my site address on here but I think even dear old Clousseau could work it out wthout help.

Check this out:

http://www.horsemart.co.uk/advert/13_yrs_1_mth_17_0_hh_chestnut_warmblood_kent/99811

One of my staff has been looking for a horse for a bit whilst her insurance claim drags on ( horse and rider injured by a careless motorist) and alerted me to the fact that images shoplifted from my web site frequently appear on for sale adverts in the south east region. Well I spent an hour this morning trawling through the south east region and discovered roughly 30 adverts using (paid for) images but more alarmingly 3 that had shoplifted images from my web site for use in their for sale adverts. Combined with another paper advert at a show center I attended at the weekend that's 4 in a week that I have come across.

I have become convinced this is a form of shoplifting for want of a better word. My new policy on this is to email the advertiser giving them 24 hours to purchase or remove the images, if no response then I will email the website owner to get the images removed from the advert. Zero tolerance! Added to that I will email any other photographers whose work I come across with the same example of shoplifted images to at least alert them to the issue. I felt if we all did this then word would get out to the equestrian world that this is unacceptable and wrong. Re-education of the horsey world may take a while but we have to start somewhere. We all know times are hard, I meet hundreds of riders, trainers, owners, venue owners and photographers etc every week, very few are immune to the current prolonged downturn.

Any thoughts?
 
I'm interested to know if it is ok to use purchased pictures? Don't you need permission from the photographer to use them too? Or am I wrong? I usually use links to a photographer's site if I want people to see my horse's pics- I'm interested to hear where the line should be drawn. Well done for taking a stand by the way!
 
It has always been made very clear on here that even if you purchase a photograph you are NOT buying the copyright and therefore may not reproduce the image without the photographer's permission....HHO are always pretty harsh on this practise.
 
Correct you are not buying the copyright despite many people having this impression. From a purely pragmatic point of view as I do a lot of BSJA photography I know that a lot of the images I sell will be used in adverts. Dealers regularly buy batches of images from me and this is with explicit approval to use for advertising. On my web galleries I offer the option to buy a 6x9 print plus an emailed version of the jpeg for FB, advertising etc for £15 so I don't see it as extortionate.

A lot of the images I sell are digital and not as prints. The world moves on and I am happy to supply the format that the customers prefer and find most useful.
 
Yes, I can understand you being angry if they are lifting form the website, but really as long as the image comes up on a computer screen there's very little you can do about stopping them getting it (if I can't cut and paste I can do a screen grab). Your watermark is already on the pics, so i would be more bothered about getting these ones taken off adverts.
However, when you've paid often around the £10 mark for a picture, you expect to do with it what you like once home. I can make a copy for my relatives. I think that as long as people put copyright of so and so then that should be OK. I think policing horse for sale ad's will only drive you mad! If your that intent on copyright then put your prices up and say that photos may be used for horses for sale pics as the price is built in.
I know it's a very annoying thing to happen, and as a freelance artist I was LIVID when one of my pictures was printed and used in an exhibition with out my knowledge (friend went by chance to the private view and called me), rather than having work pulled though I just asked for credit.
 
So Spidge, are you saying that it is not a problem to use purchased pictures in adverts? Or are you just saying that your company does not mind? Not being snarkey- just honestly wanting to know!
 
So Spidge, are you saying that it is not a problem to use purchased pictures in adverts? Or are you just saying that your company does not mind? Not being snarkey- just honestly wanting to know!

Each photographer has their own policy to be honest- my view is that my efforts of standing in the ring, cross country etc have at least been recognised and rewarded. My view if the picture is good enough to use on a for sale advert, then be courteous enough to pay for it. If it then goes on to be used for an advert I have no problem with that. It is the shoplifting that bothers me- don't even get me started on Facebook...
 
Thought you might be interested in this http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=107320439315339

I'm very lucky in the fact my local photographer will very kindly send me images of myself and horses via facebook and if I want to reproduce them on here for example he will just put a "signature" in the bottom corner of the image for me so that I can post it here :D

Communication is the key :D As I say I get on well with Neil and he does me the favour of sending me the images therefore I like to state that he took the photos etc and I'm more than happy with the "sig" at the bottom.
 
TBH for your website the best thing you could do is keep the watermark but make the images either smaller or a lower res. So people can see the picture but so its not worth lifting off the site.
 
Slightly off topic, but I do think the prices charged for photographs at events are pretty steep. our local event photographers charge £10 per photo.

To be honest, I don't even look - if they were maybe £4 each, then I would probably have no hesitation on spending £20 for 5 photographs, but £20 for 2? no thanks.

If you're covering a photographers daily rate - that's got to be the biggest overhead after the purchase of a camera, but both fixed fees - surely £20 is £20? regardless of how many pictures are taken, it can't cost more than a few pence to print them?

I know legally that when you buy the photo, you don't buy the copyright, but I think if you've bought the photo, you should be able to use it for whatever you want - I think the same about wedding photos as well.

Maybe I'm being unfair... waits to be shot down...
 
jonesds said:
Slightly off topic, but I do think the prices charged for photographs at events are pretty steep. our local event photographers charge £10 per photo.

To be honest, I don't even look - if they were maybe £4 each, then I would probably have no hesitation on spending £20 for 5 photographs, but £20 for 2? no thanks.

If you're covering a photographers daily rate - that's got to be the biggest overhead after the purchase of a camera, but both fixed fees - surely £20 is £20? regardless of how many pictures are taken, it can't cost more than a few pence to print them?

I know legally that when you buy the photo, you don't buy the copyright, but I think if you've bought the photo, you should be able to use it for whatever you want - I think the same about wedding photos as well.

Maybe I'm being unfair... waits to be shot down...
Click to expand...

I came across a for sale ad today that had 5 copyrighted images from another local photographer. His cheapest prints are £3. But the advertiser/rider (who at the show requested he take extra pictures please http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif ) hadn't bought a single print.

There are a lot more overheads to running an onsite photography business than you perhaps realise. My cameras, trailers, printers etc cost a fair bit more than a tea urn I can tell you.
 
jonesds said:
Slightly off topic, but I do think the prices charged for photographs at events are pretty steep. our local event photographers charge £10 per photo.

To be honest, I don't even look - if they were maybe £4 each, then I would probably have no hesitation on spending £20 for 5 photographs, but £20 for 2? no thanks.

If you're covering a photographers daily rate - that's got to be the biggest overhead after the purchase of a camera, but both fixed fees - surely £20 is £20? regardless of how many pictures are taken, it can't cost more than a few pence to print them?

I know legally that when you buy the photo, you don't buy the copyright, but I think if you've bought the photo, you should be able to use it for whatever you want - I think the same about wedding photos as well.

Maybe I'm being unfair... waits to be shot down...
Click to expand...

To be honest although £10 feels a lot for "just a photo" it is pretty reasonable when you consider the costs.

The photographer has to cover all of the following:

His wages and any staff or assistants
Purchase of the camera, multiple lenses, batteries, flash guns etc
Purchase of computer equipment
Purchase of the printer (and I'm not talking an £80 from argos jobby we can be talking four figures)
Purchase of the software (photoshop is really expensive - hence we are using a really old version)
Payments to the show organiser. It can cost in excess of £1000 for a plot on a showground at a big event.
Travelling expenses
Public Liability insurance
Insurance for the equipment
Employers liability insurance
Membership of professional organisations
Web hosting and domain name
Time or wages for maintaining the website
Advertising costs
Rent for the studio
Heating, lighting etc for the studio
Ink and paper for the printer
Mounting, wrapping and labelling the print
Book keeping or accounting costs
Banking charges
Merchant banking charges and the cost of hiring a credit card machine
Tax

Basically the photographer has to add up the annual cost of this lot and then divide it between the number of images he will sell. He may take 1000 in a day but only sell 10. Every person who thinks nah I'm not paying that I'll lift it off the website drives up the cost for others.

My husband is an artist so I'm pretty familiar with the sort of costs that go into running this sort of business. And it amazes me how many people haven't a clue about the costs businesses have, the goods you sell have to cover these costs it isn't all in the pocket of the artist/photographer. I get pretty cross when people sell at prices which must be making a loss as it makes it more difficult for others to sell at reasonable prices. I regularly see a guy selling original oil paintings that are so cheap they'd be worth buying just for the frame :mad: how does he eat!? :confused:

WRT wedding photos, most photographers these days will sell you copyright, some charge a lot which is daft because in fact the images are worth nothing to anyone but you. Our photographer "gave" us copyright after six months had passed. After that point he was reasonably confident that no one would be buying images (guests etc) and it isn't like you can sell the images to magazine or advertising companies or anything.
 
Thank you for that exhaustive list Katt, I thought if I posted something similar it would sound like I was whinging
 
spidge said:
Thank you for that exhaustive list Katt, I thought if I posted something similar it would sound like I was whinging
Click to expand...

Ha ha I am whinging! I get soooooooo sick of hearing comments about prices when I'm out at shows. Obviously you can't scream at the customers, "have you any idea how much this bloody plot is costing me" so a whinge on here before the next event is helping my stress levels!!! ;)
 
Well you might be whinging a bit but I bet your list made a few sit back and think oooh never thought of it that way.
 
spidge said:
I came across a for sale ad today that had 5 copyrighted images from another local photographer. His cheapest prints are £3. But the advertiser/rider (who at the show requested he take extra pictures please http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif ) hadn't bought a single print.
Click to expand...

That is really not on - like you said, if the photo is good enough to use in a for sale ad, you should be prepared to pay for it


Katt said:
To be honest although £10 feels a lot for "just a photo" it is pretty reasonable when you consider the costs.

The photographer has to cover all of the following:

His wages and any staff or assistants
Purchase of the camera, multiple lenses, batteries, flash guns etc
Purchase of computer equipment
Purchase of the printer (and I'm not talking an £80 from argos jobby we can be talking four figures)
Purchase of the software (photoshop is really expensive - hence we are using a really old version)
Payments to the show organiser. It can cost in excess of £1000 for a plot on a showground at a big event.
Travelling expenses
Public Liability insurance
Insurance for the equipment
Employers liability insurance
Membership of professional organisations
Web hosting and domain name
Time or wages for maintaining the website
Advertising costs
Rent for the studio
Heating, lighting etc for the studio
Ink and paper for the printer
Mounting, wrapping and labelling the print
Book keeping or accounting costs
Banking charges
Merchant banking charges and the cost of hiring a credit card machine
Tax

Basically the photographer has to add up the annual cost of this lot and then divide it between the number of images he will sell. He may take 1000 in a day but only sell 10. Every person who thinks nah I'm not paying that I'll lift it off the website drives up the cost for others.
Click to expand...


Please don't think I'm trying to have a go - I do appreciate that there are large costs involved with running an onsite photography business, (and for the record I would never lift any photos off a photographers site to use for an advert)
But the only costs that are related directly to the number of photographs sold, are those for ink and paper to print on.
Do you think that if the photographs were cheaper, then the photographer might sell more photos? or is it not worth the time and effort of printing them?
Would it not be better for the photographer to have £8 from me for 2 photos, than nothing, because they are £10 each, and I don't even look at them?
 
I'm entirely with you on this (I have an e-commerce website, and take many of my own photos and Photoshop them to suit my needs, they're frequently lifted by other people for use on their sites and it's sickening when you consider the hours cutting backgrounds and grouping products together and all someone does is click and save...amusing to tell them they'd not noticed the mini logo hidden which is how I could prove it was mine, and to remove it)

We always make a point of buying from the photographer if we like the picture, and we rarely don't buy one.
 
We occasionally offer 6x4 prints at £10 for 3. Dog agility shows find this a very good offer.

We also offer 2 6x4 prints on a 6x9 sheet side by side so effectively 2 images for £10.

Obvious question is have I gained a sale I might not have had or lost an additional sale that I could have had?

You tell me!
 
As a wedding photographer we hear this argument all the time. Kat's list is pretty good and we also have to factor in around a weeks work after the wedding for all the processing, backing up etc.

We now only sell packages which include the high resolution images as people will copy and steal photos regardless of what the photographer does to stop them and any printed images and albums are on top if the customer wants them.

For some reason people seem to think that 'stealing' photos is ok if they are online but in fact they are breaking the law and could be prosecuted in theory.

I have been the photographer at a few horse shows and to be honest financially it is not worth it and then you get people moaning and stealing from you. I take my hat off to anyone who does it and makes it pay well!
 
ok, I do this in my 'spare' time and for those of you that think we overcharge consider the following.

I often drive 1-3 hours to an event.
I can spend up to 6/7 hours there.
It takes a few hours to sort and edit, upload etc
It costs alot in editing software, camera equipment, website costs
I don't get a fee for attending-its all on photo sales.
income tax
equipment devaluation


why should I do it for nothing? or less than minimum wage? There's a big difference between Uncle Ted getting a lucky shot of his niece on his super camera in a class than taking sellable photos of every competitor.If you factor in my time I am constantly running at a loss. A high quality picture by a qualified photographer has to be worth more than £4 or frankly, I will just give up.
 
I wouldn't use photos that I had not purchased, but on the other hand I would appreciate it if the photographers would give me the option to buy electronic versions. Some professionals seem to still live in the dark ages and don't offer you the chance to buy the right to display the photos electronically on Facebook, HHO, adverts and similar. Many professionals I have bought from recently don't even have a copyright statement on their website, so, as a client, you have no clue whether they would allow you electronic display of the photos you have bought.
 
Happy Horse said:
.

I have been the photographer at a few horse shows and to be honest financially it is not worth it and then you get people moaning and stealing from you.
Click to expand...

it really isnt-I 'specialise' in a particular discipline because I love it but this year I am taking a hammering due to decreased entries, poor weather and the recession. I could take it better if people didnt complain so much-plus some clubs/shows treat photographers quite badly and one recently tried to charge me £100 for just attending lol! And one local group breed show wonder why they can't get a photographer when they have repeatedly tried to rip off different photographers the last 4 years..
 
spidge said:
We occasionally offer 6x4 prints at £10 for 3. Dog agility shows find this a very good offer.

We also offer 2 6x4 prints on a 6x9 sheet side by side so effectively 2 images for £10.

Obvious question is have I gained a sale I might not have had or lost an additional sale that I could have had?

You tell me!
Click to expand...

Very good question! As a business, I'm sure you've thought about this a lot, and perhaps I will make sure to have a look at the photos for every event I go to from now on!

I'd be more than happy to pay £10 for 3 shots - that sounds very reasonable, ans 6x4 is plenty big enough for me!
 
jonesds said:
Do you think that if the photographs were cheaper, then the photographer might sell more photos? or is it not worth the time and effort of printing them?
Would it not be better for the photographer to have £8 from me for 2 photos, than nothing, because they are £10 each, and I don't even look at them?
Click to expand...

Well it really depends on the costs of production and at what point people are put off by the price.

For example we sell greetings cards with selected images on. They cost about £1 in materials alone. Then there is the time taken producing them (bagging them matching them to envelopes etc) plus the overheads. We agonise over the price to sell them at. They are £1.80 at the moment or three for a fiver. Cheaper than a lot of highstreet cards.

So if we sell one card at £1.80 that is 80p "profit". We could drop the price to £1.50 and we might sell more. But if we did and this persuaded you to buy two our "profit" would be £1 but we would have spent £2. In percentage terms it isn't very attractive really, we only make an extra 20p. Especially not when you consider that the "profit" isn't actually profit because you haven't accounted for all the overheads. We still have to pay those overheads how ever many cards/prints we sell.

Your photographer selling two photos for £8 may actually be making a loss in the scheme of things and may eventually go bankrupt. Eventually there will be less photographers covering these events as a result of this - they actually go out of business pretty quickly which is why you often see different faces each year. This is because it is difficult to be profitable.

Personally I would rather have £10 per photo and sell 10 in a day, than £5 per photo and sell 20 in a day. You take the same amount but your costs are lower and you are more likely to be able to pay the bills at the end of the month.

I admit it is a balancing act though and sometimes knocking a couple of quid off the price makes the world of difference to your sales. It is one of the most difficult things to get right in this type of business.
 
peteralfred said:
I don't get a fee for attending-its all on photo sales.
Click to expand...

On the contrary lots of shows will want to charge you for being there!

For stand space at show grounds you can pay exorbitant amounts in "rent" and don't get it back if the event is a washout.

Last year at Chatsworth HT all the traders of every type had paid for two days, probably around £300 minimum. The first day was wet, it is always the quietest and least profitable anyway but it was worse than usual due to the weather, the second day the event was cancelled and the traders all had to pack away their stuff and go home.
 
Katt said:
On the contrary lots of shows will want to charge you for being there!

For stand space at show grounds you can pay exorbitant amounts in "rent" and don't get it back if the event is a washout.

Last year at Chatsworth HT all the traders of every type had paid for two days, probably around £300 minimum. The first day was wet, it is always the quietest and least profitable anyway but it was worse than usual due to the weather, the second day the event was cancelled and the traders all had to pack away their stuff and go home.
Click to expand...

I don't take a stand, for the discipline I mainly deal with it wouldnt be very useful :) Printing onsite just wouldnt be viable for me but I do try and get galleries up within 36hours. There are obvious limitations to being a one man outfit like me but I've not seen any evidence to suggest that expanding would make more money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top