The only means of income for Person 'A' is photography, with an appreciable proportion of total earnings coming via freelance press work. Person A is requested (by press) by both phone call and email, as is normal policy, to cover a handful of events over a weekend. He confirms his attendance by email and phone call, as is also normal policy. The events are all in the home town of person A.
The long term agreement is to provide shots of events which are chosen by the client via website viewing of said event shots which are uploaded asap following the events. Payment is per shot provided, on a sliding scale according to quantity. (person 'A's preferred agreement after hassles with hourly rate payments)
Person A attends and shoots all events requested and at four of theses events he notices a hobby photographer, person 'B' is present and shooting, with person A aware that person B is also a team member whom provides shots of his team to the press, free of charge and for accreditation only, when his team travels out of the region for away games. (it can be up to five hours travel)
'A' is familiar with 'B' after 'B' introduced himself previously at an event 'A' was covering, with words to the effect of 'I'm glad to meet you after seeing your work for such a long time' and was full of questions, as is normal when someone has an interest in photography.
'A' receives an order for shots immediately following the weekend and notices the order quantity is unusually small for the amount of events covered and the shots requested didn't appear to tally with the covered events, but puts it down to perhaps, tightly restricted allocated space provision.
He purchases the relevant papers the following day and as is normal, checks his published shots. 'A' immediately notices that shots provided by 'B' have also been published, with name accreditation included. Approximately double the amount provided by 'A', which enables A to realise the actual reason behind such and unusually small shot order from the client.
Now, this brings two separate instances into question regarding 'ethics', both personal and business.
1 - 'B' being well aware that 'A' earns his living from his work and is the regular photographer requested to carry out the event work orders for the particular client, but ignores this knowledge and still provides, free of charge, shots of those events for publication.
2 - The client reduces the event's shot order from 'A' by a large amount and instead, uses shots provided by 'B', free of charge after the requesting of and confirmation of coverage of the event by 'A'.
I have my own opinion of both 1 & 2, a very strong opinion at that, particularly with the knowledge this type of scenario is becoming more prevalent, but what do others think ?
And please, don't let this degrade into an us verses them, dog fight.