Ethics

[Mark L]

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

[Karl]

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

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

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

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

Karl

[Mark L]

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

So a contract is worth nought?

[Kym]

B was spoken to on the day by A to let him know he received a work order to cover said events and also informed him that because A didn't trust the client completely to honour their agreement to not use B's shots supplied for nought if he was the give them the opportunity. It was also explained to B that for each shot supplied for nought resulted one less shot purchased from A. It was also explained to B that A had no problem at all with him supplying shots, be it for free or otherwise, for any event that A didn't not receive work order and therefore did not need to spend the time and costs to cover it.
P's written agreement with A has a provision for A to be the sole provider of photographs to P from events covered through a work order to A. A's agreement was previously altered to protect him from a couple of prior occasions when spending extended amounts of time and work costs fulfilling work order obligations and being gazumped by freebies after the fact.

That was not covered in the O.P. but telling B anything is irrelevant.
If I'm at a public place and someone tells me I'm the 'pro' and don't publish your work (assuming no contract with the event people), I'd tell them to get nicked.
The ethical and possibly legal issue (not clear in the O.P.) is the agreement between A and P. B is a free agent.
Did P break an exclusive supply agreement? Then that is the real issue.

[norwest]

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

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

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

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

[kiwi]

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

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

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

[jjphoto]

No and obviously, is the subject of the thread.

....

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

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

[Sifor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[norwest]

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

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

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

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

[Sifor]

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

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

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

[norwest]

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

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

[Sifor]

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

[anon]

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

(Snip)

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

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

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

(Snip)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Anon

[ricktas]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Longshots]

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

[arthurking83]

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

.....

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tommo1965]

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

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


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


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

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

[norwest]

Originally Posted by norwest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ricktas]

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

[Kym]

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

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