pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Using wedding stock photography  (Read 2356 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 31, 2012, 20:09 »
0
I do a fair amount of stock photography, but I am primarily a wedding photographer. I found one of my wedding stock photos on a wedding photographer's website in England. The photo was used in their portfolio section, and their logo was placed on the bottom right side of the image. I emailed the photographer, and he stood his ground.  He explained that he found it on the internet and therefore it now belonged to him. After several emails (rated PG-13) he eventually removed the photo.

I know that many businesses will use stock photos on their site to promote their services, but I definitely have a problem with a wedding photographer using someone else's photos to promote their skills.

Has anyone else noticed anything similar to this?


dbvirago

« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2012, 20:13 »
0
The "found it on the internet" mentality is widespread, but surprised to hear it from a photog

« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2012, 20:43 »
0
How frustrating to see another "professional" photographer actually having the guts to slap on their logo on someone else's photograph claiming it's theirs.

These people shouldn't be in business.

Congrats on putting him in his place.

« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2012, 21:30 »
0
I have been scanning the licensing terms of various sites recently after setting up my own site and I'm pretty sure that is against the licensing terms.  If he didn't buy a license then I guess he is in 'trouble' either way, but even if he did buy a license he can't add it to a 'gallery' or pretend the image is his own.

... from the bigstock buyer agreement

You may: a. Incorporate Images on web sites, provided that no Image is: i) displayed at a resolution greater than 1200 x 800 pixels; or ii) displayed as part of gallery, collection, album, archive, scrapbook or other aggregation of individual images, or

You may not: Use or display an Image in such a manner that gives the impression that the Image was created by you or a person other than the copyright holder of that Image

« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2012, 22:22 »
0
I have to imagine that wedding photography being one of the more popular genres of photography that the masses like to do for money, it is highly likely you'll find a photographer using a stock photo for advertising purposes.  Of course, the 'found' bit is garbage, and just dropping it in a portfolio is misrepresentatiin, but using it in a more promotional aspect should be OK.  Everyone can't shoot everything, and photographers have the right to use stock to fill needs.

« Reply #5 on: August 01, 2012, 05:48 »
0
I have to imagine that wedding photography being one of the more popular genres of photography that the masses like to do for money, it is highly likely you'll find a photographer using a stock photo for advertising purposes.  Of course, the 'found' bit is garbage, and just dropping it in a portfolio is misrepresentatiin, but using it in a more promotional aspect should be OK.  Everyone can't shoot everything, and photographers have the right to use stock to fill needs.

Probably "okay" as far as licensing is concerned but ethically in the gutter. The service you are providing is wedding photos

ShadySue

« Reply #6 on: August 01, 2012, 05:58 »
0
Probably "okay" as far as licensing is concerned but ethically in the gutter.
Yeah, with most agencies that's about it. Legally OK if they purchased it. (I realise that the OP was one stage worse, in that the tog had stolen the image, not licensed it from an agency.)
Ethically and legally (in some countries) dubious, as the consumer might reasonably assume that photos on their website were taken by them. Togs traditionally hired models and wedding costumes to get an initial portfolio to show clients.
I guess there's nothing in the T&C to stop togs buying big sizes of wedding stock photos, print them out big, and stick them in their windows in frames. How that would stand legally in different countries, I have no idea. I suspect in the UK, it would be illegal ('intent to deceive').
Consumers are going to have to learn to do searches on companies' website images to check if they purport to the product/service they're considering buying or are 'stock images'. Caveat emptor. The consumer programmes will no doubt start alerting people soon.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
24 Replies
5882 Views
Last post October 10, 2008, 11:01
by nativelight
0 Replies
906 Views
Last post August 25, 2010, 17:02
by Artmyth
12 Replies
3551 Views
Last post April 06, 2011, 17:42
by donding
36 Replies
8481 Views
Last post April 14, 2016, 13:41
by etudiante_rapide
5 Replies
2257 Views
Last post September 13, 2016, 09:37
by Minsc

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results