Ethics

[norwest]

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.

Thanks for comments, Authur, however, what you suggest would be correct if there was no agreement between P & A for A to be the sole supplier of shots from those events which he receives a work order and carries said order.
At the very best, or worst, depending on how you want to look at it, after questions from B, A was advising him on how and what might encourage P to break their agreement with A. From experience, it was known that not a great deal of encouragement was required.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

It's like pulling teeth keeping you blokes on track. For example, the only mention of B was regarding his ethics and in fact, the also the ethics of the client. Not any legal issue.

And no, you don't know B or P's perspective, they aren't members or perhaps they could give it. But I am and i'd think a little benefit of the doubt could be given to a fellow photographer and ap member, but it appears the preference is to insinuate this member could, just maybe, be telling fibs. That's the prerogative of anyone that wishes to do so.

BTW, you think you're going to hear the truth from a guy that has no qualms with befriending a working photographer, picks his brains and knowing exactly what he's doing, then gazumps him? You see, Kym, that was what the original question posed in the thread was all about. 'Ethics'. You know, those old fashioned ideas of honesty, morality and integrity. Not law, not legal issues, but good old fashioned ethics that many, based on their comments, obviously see little value in, be it the ethics of individuals like B or business houses like P.

Perhaps many live in glass houses and it's too much of a sore point to avoid degrading into a bun fight. Or perhaps not. Regardless, it's never fails to be an eye opener.