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.

[virgal_tracy]

'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.

'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.

The second quote provides more information on the behaviour of "B" that wasn't provided in the 1st quote.

"B" may not have acted "ethical" but that is a loose term in this sense as there is no business dealings between "A" & "B". "B" may well be morally in the wrong based upon information in the 2nd quote.

The main issue is the "ethical" behaviour of "P". With a contract / agreement in place, it doesn't matter if 1000 people supply free images to "P", because if "P" acts ethically / legally then they won't publish any images not supplied by "A".

There is still people out there that will act in a correct manner but they are becoming fewer & fewer as financial considerations start to take effect

[Tommo1965]

OP

if I was you mate..Id ring P..and ask him what the crack is.....Tell him your fed up and you thought you had a business arrangement ...

all too often in life people sell themselves short without knowing their true worth..as a employer of men..I know the worth of a good worker or reliable subby...also my employers know our worth as a small company as we supply a quality product at a reasonable price ..not the cheapest..but not the most expensive either { well almost }

reinforce to the employer the possible repercussions his actions will have on the long survival of a pro Tog..he may be just pulling a crafty and hopes its not taken the wrong way by you..you need to tell them that it is indeed taken the wrong way ....

[norwest]

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 !!

And that was the question. Ethics. The perception of what is morally right and wrong.

[Tommo1965]

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.

.

quite agree....next time tell the enquiring amateur nothing....its a sad thing to have to do , but after this experience I don't see you have a choice ....

[norwest]

There is still people out there that will act in a correct manner but they are becoming fewer & fewer as financial considerations start to take effect

Agree, but why, vt? Today people have it extremely easy compared to decades ago, but people today appear to give far less of a damn about what they do and how they do it. Shafting someone would have seen broken noses a couple of decades ago, but now it seems it's OK if it's not illegal or if you can get away with it.

[norwest]

Meeting had this morning. Reasons given were, in a nutshell..

A realisation more shots required than received in original order, had others available, so used them.
Order was fulfilled as others used were after the fact of said order so responsibilities complete.
Not about saving money because others are supplied for free, but about keeping the sender of other shots happy, too.
An unreasonable expectation to expect a further order for shots instead of using senders.
Have no control over what sender of others does or how he gets his shots
We didn't know he would be there, we didn't know he knew you.
Learned that the sender of the shots is a friend of a member of staff.

Irrational excuses and a buttering up overflowing with over the top, sugar coated compliments re one's value to them.

With a realisation there'd be no alteration to attitude and practice, they were informed of a contrary opinion on the matter in clear and firm but polite terms and also informed that shots would not be supplied in the future in any way, shape, form or price. Matter closed.

[ricktas]

As this has been resolved with the OP stating 'Matter Closed', I will now close this thread.

[Longshots]

You simply cannot expect to be an exclusive photographer for an event, unless you are being paid. Not paid based on eventual usage, but commissioned before the event. And then the terms and conditions of entry to the event limit others.

Sure the ethics are less than acceptable. But You should take this experience and learn from it, and change your approach, or business model. As a professional, you cannot expect to have exclusive capture position at an event, based on a third party agreement between you and an editor that exists solely on payment amount based in selection of, and quantity based on usage. That's just not feasible in this day and age.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but the OP began this discussion asking for people to discuss the ethics, and actuallyt stated at one point that he wasn't looking for solutions but opinions. Just because he got bored, or changed his mind and then announces "case closed", shouldn't then close the discussion on the matter of ethics, IMO.

[norwest]

You simply cannot expect to be an exclusive photographer for an event, unless you are being paid. Not paid based on eventual usage, but commissioned before the event. And then the terms and conditions of entry to the event limit others.

Sure the ethics are less than acceptable. But You should take this experience and learn from it, and change your approach, or business model. As a professional, you cannot expect to have exclusive capture position at an event, based on a third party agreement between you and an editor that exists solely on payment amount based in selection of, and quantity based on usage. That's just not feasible in this day and age.

I never had nor expected to have what you say. The agreement was re the purchase for editorial use by one particular client, not exclusive rights as a photographer to an event. The agreement was instigated by the client and agreed to after previous methods of payment were found to be wanting by both parties, to protect the interest of both parties. They loved the reliability, availability and the quality of product provided but wanted to argue about payment for such things as travel, time spent ect. in a big, wide region.

I agree, in normal circumstances freelance payment per event or per hour would be preferable, but it was far from normal and quite peculiar circumstances in the peculiar circumstances of a very old fashioned and conservative agricultural country region. A very difficult area for any newcomer to gain acceptance until they have several generations of local family, with normal practice being I pat your back if you pat mine, but you first have to be a relative or friend of a friend and where accepted protocol, pay rates and the 21'st century are only for those silly buggers in the city.

Peculiar circumstances led to peculiar agreements.

[ricktas]

I have had a few members want this thread re-opened. I have decided to do so, with the following notice

RESPECT OTHER MEMBERS POINTS OF VIEW

If anyone posts belittling another persons point of view, attacking them in any way for their point of view, or breaching a site rule, they will be banned for 7 days!

[kiwi]

I think honestly mate you've thrown the baby out with the bath water by cutting your contract

It's pretty hard to find any publication that's willing to pay you these days

Anyhow, your business but I can't help feel that its a bad business decision

Now mr b will just have free reign providing free images

[norwest]

I think honestly mate you've thrown the baby out with the bath water by cutting your contract

It's pretty hard to find any publication that's willing to pay you these days

Anyhow, your business but I can't help feel that its a bad business decision

Now mr b will just have free reign providing free images

I know how it looks on the surface, Kiwi, but they were opportunistic today and tried to back me into a corner to remove the safety net, one that had already become more and more fragile. They didn't expect the result and didn't like it all but their disappointment quickly turned to nasty resentment when they realised i actually wasn't going to bend over with parted legs. The next line, I'll leave to your imagination.

B isn't the only one that does freebies, they have many, but he was the only one to stick in a knife. The guy must be an ego freak to go to those lengths for a name under a picture. But an ego freak that will give me a very, very wide berth in the future.

[Art Vandelay]

Yep, tell 'em to get stuffed. No point wandering around sports fields all day for a pittance.

[Mark L]

Think I agree with kiwi, though "A"'s ethics most dictate what they do (as seems to be done).
I've thought about going to our local "P", as I believe I have some better images than their local "A"'s that are published. Where to start? Ethics!
Thanks for starting this thread norwest.

[norwest]

Had a look at your local on the web, Mark. The general shots look very generic and the sports shots are very average, so it looks like a 'J' for journo might be doing them and be glad not to have to do it in the busy, jack of all trades schedule of a country journo. If they're like ours they'll have a 300D and kit lens on auto for point n shoot. Show them a web portfolio and give it a go, you should be far more capable than the existing, but don't give them an excuse to expect a lot for little. Or zero.

[welly]

Just my 2 cents worth. Actually - given that I've previously been a management consultant - It's probably about $300 worth. So what are the ethics of providing professional advise for nothing. DOH!

It's advice. I was briefly an English teacher. Going by today's pay for teachers, that's easily $40 of consulting fees. Cough up!

[geoffsta]

I think "A" needs to diversify. There are many articles in photo magazines about photographers who do just that, for the same reason that "A" is disgruntled. And generally find that they are far better off.
I can see with technology getting cheaper, that there will be many more "B's" around. All after their tiny bit of recognition.
How many "B's" do we see on here (Myself included) have added their own "WOW I've just been published" thread, and everyone including the "A's" giving them a pat on the back.
I'm no legal eagle, and I'm not sure whether an "Agreement" is the same as a "Contract". And will "A" be willing to go through a long drawn out court battle for breach of contract. Is it worth the hassle.


All in all this is a fantastic thread, with many points of view. And it shows how the "A's" of this world are finding it tougher and tougher to make a living.

[ricktas]

Ethically, B has got an obviously different sent of ethics and morals to A. B feels it is ok to use someone to get information and then go behind their back and get leverage from that.

Would I do what B did, NO!

But ethics and morals are funny things, we each have our own, but A, B, P, and mine are all probably different, under different scenarios. Society as a whole has a shifting tide of ethics and morals. What was done 20 years ago, is frowned upon now, and what was frowned up 40 years ago is now just accepted normal behaviour.

Remember when women had to have a separate bar the pub?

I think it is easier for most in this thread to dissect this and look at the legalities of agreements/contracts cause they offer hard proof of aspects of the scenario, and it is safer to discuss them that get into a discussion of where each of our moral judgement lies. Discussing morals and ethics is bound to raise the hackles and disagreement in this thread simply because if someone disagrees with what B did and someone else agrees that what B did is OK. It is just safer to stick to hard and fast facts.

[norwest]

I'm no legal eagle, and I'm not sure whether an "Agreement" is the same as a "Contract". And will "A" be willing to go through a long drawn out court battle for breach of contract. Is it worth the hassle.

Totally out of the question with little to gain but an empty pocket.

Remember when women had to have a separate bar the pub?

I have friends whom until only 30 years ago dealt with council bylaws preventing them from entering a pub at all. And the library and the pool and the bowling club and any other council run community amenity. 10 years prior to that, add the school to the list. The bylaws are gone, through gritted teeth (only through enforced government legislation) but to an appreciable degree the attitude that instigated them still remains.