Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hey good folks of Alamy. 

 

Photography isn't my job. I do it beside my job as an IT Admin for a private school establishment. 

A few months ago I took a picture of a planned demolition of buildings adjacent to the school. It was being demolished to make way for a school extension. 

 

It was a 3 pic HDR image that I spent about 30 minutes editing. A colleague said it was a great pic and that I should show my general manager it. 

I emailed a low res copy of the pick to him to see if he liked it. I didn't hear back at all. Not the norm as I speak to this guy on a daily basis. 

 

I then open a copy of a published circular that gets sent out to parents a few weeks later, and low and behold, my image is sitting right there on a half page of A4. 

 

Naturally I went nuts at the person responsible, not even a credit for the image or anything. I was furious. All they did was apologise.

 

On speaking to our accountant it looks like the image has gone to press for a financial document to the same number of people, and I have taken all I can with it. 

 

What advice is there for this sort for abuse? It's a sensitive issue as it's my employer and they obviously think they can just take what they like. 

 

However, it was taken on my time with my own gear. Granted it's their property. 

 

I don't want to fall out with them over it, but for the fact that they are simply not recognising that you can't just take without paying, is what's annoying me the most. 

 

Any advice would be grateful 

 

If they had gone through Alamy for the image it would have cost a lot. 

 

Paul

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough one. It depends on a couple of factors;

 

1. When you handed over the low-res, what conditions did you place on it use ?

2. What does it same in your day-job contract about second jobs and IP ?

3. How much do you like your job ;) ?

4. Rather than money, is there any trade-off you can do with your employer? Use of facilities, extra holiday.

 

You don't have to answer 3 but that will be the main problem. You will probably have to rattle a few cages to get this sorted. Only you can decide if that is worth it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- and put a loud and clear copyright watermark in the centre of the photo in any future submissions of the kind.

Edited by Niels Quist
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the problem I guess. I think I would need to rattle a few cages to get this one sorted. You place trust in folk and they just rip the michael right out of you. Thanks folks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. When you handed over the low-res, what conditions did you place on it use ?

 

This +100

 

It's 2013. If you let images out of the door, in digital format, with no watermark, accompanying paperwork or conditions of use clearly spelled out they will be treated as freebies. Especially if you email them unsolicited and ask people if they "like" them. I'd save that for Facebook in the future... :)

 

You can now explain that apart from your day job you licence your photography work to businesses for publication and the going rate is 'X' (use the Alamy Calc) and would they like to pay by BACS or cheque? Depends on whether you think a few quid (let's be honest about the 'usage') is worth hacking off the people who pay your mortgage/rent for?

 

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the first thing you should do is check the terms of your employment, especially if you are based in the US.  My experience in the US is that terms of employment typically include broad claims to almost everything you do, including activities outside work hours, if any are established.

 

Regards

Lionel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. When you handed over the low-res, what conditions did you place on it use ?

 

This +100

 

It's 2013. If you let images out of the door, in digital format, with no watermark, accompanying paperwork or conditions of use clearly spelled out they will be treated as freebies. Especially if you email them unsolicited and ask people if they "like" them. I'd save that for Facebook in the future... :)

 

You can now explain that apart from your day job you licence your photography work to businesses for publication and the going rate is 'X' (use the Alamy Calc) and would they like to pay by BACS or cheque? Depends on whether you think a few quid (let's be honest about the 'usage') is worth hacking off the people who pay your mortgage/rent for?

 

J

 

Aye I'll know in future to trust no-one. Not even the folk I've been working for in the last 6 years. I did email the accountant who wants to use the image next, and said that it was a no no. I used the Alamy Calc and apparently I'd have got £300 for each use. 

 

Yip I'm a dummy. 

 

Lesson Learned and hopefully other people can learn from this. 

 

Perhaps the first thing you should do is check the terms of your employment, especially if you are based in the US.  My experience in the US is that terms of employment typically include broad claims to almost everything you do, including activities outside work hours, if any are established.

 

Regards

Lionel

 

Based in the UK. My work don't have any claim on anything I do out with my work. I make that very clear to them. Else they'd run away with my free time too fixing their own personal computers, which they tried at one point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based in the UK. My work don't have any claim on anything I do out with my work. I make that very clear to them. Else they'd run away with my free time too fixing their own personal computers, which they tried at one point. 

 

Those work clauses scare me. I would never be completely owned by my employer in that way. About fixing personal computers - yes, have had a similar job and can recognise the necessity to keep the private help in arm's length.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul - it rather sounds as if you took the images on school premises, discussed them in the office during working hours and circulated them on the school IT system. IMO if you want your photography to be treated as a separate business then you need to treat it as such. I think that this is one to write off to experience. Next time why not ask the school in advance whether they would like to give you the commission?

 

dov

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul

 

The question to ask yourself is what remedy are you seeking? Try and detach that from your indignation about their behaviour. The analogy is the redundant employee who in the heat of the moment sues his employer for wrongful dismissal then lies awake every night agonising over the forthcoming tribunal etc. and makes themselves ill in the process. The reality is they have little or no chance of anything other than a pyrrhic victory and wouldn't  want to return to work there anyway.

 

There are times when it pays to take a deep breath and not give anyone else the permission to make you feel bad, Chalk it down to experience and move on. otherwise I suspect you will suffer more than them.

 

Easy for me to write I know - I'd probably respond just as you have.

 

Richard

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers for the continued input folks. I didn't take the picture on the grounds it was taken at the top of the street on a public road. I was on my lunch too. 

 

 

{image removed as I'm cleaning my Flickr account up}
 
I think to save any grief, and annoyance I'll be putting this down to experience and like what's been said, a filthy big water mark through the next one. 
 
Thanks again. 
Edited by Paulstw
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think to save any grief, and annoyance I'll be putting this down to experience and like what's been said, a filthy big water mark through the next one. 

 

- and now we are talking about filthy, big watermarks, I wouldn't publish images on the Internet without a watermark. In a day or two it'll be on Google Image search and people will use it without even thinking about it. 

 

A fusspot perhaps - but more a realist, I think?  :)

 

A great photo  - especially the light.

Edited by Niels Quist
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? you're posting unwatermarked 2048x1365px images to flickr?

Even though you've 'disabled' downloading, the image is still easily stealable...

 

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3701/9400303088_1a245f854e_k.jpg

 

and no IPTC data with the file?

 

oh dear

 

km

 

i post a lot of images on FB...but at max 850px longest side, hugely compressed and watermarked to heck...

1175279_10151867274334850_976830900_n.jp

Edited by RedSnapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? you're posting unwatermarked 2048x1365px images to flickr?

Even though you've 'disabled' downloading, the image is still easily stealable...

 

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3701/9400303088_1a245f854e_k.jpg

 

and no IPTC data with the file?

 

oh dear

 

km

 

i post a lot of images on FB...but at max 850px longest side, hugely compressed and watermarked to heck...

 

 

Appreciate the tips. I don't keyword or tag any of my images on Flickr, well maybe a few shots of birds, that are cropped to hell but nothing else. 

I have started watermarking them but maybe a bigger mark is needed. I'm currently addressing my use of Flickr and why I even need it. 

 

I guess I use Flickr for my post processing pics that Alamy would throw out. FB has changed it's policy now so that you do not own any of the stuff you post there, so if they want to use it in an advert they will. So I share from Flickr if I want to post to FB, that way they can't take it. (But they can take it from Flickr because you're being lazy on there) and thats true too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't intended in a negative way so please don't take it as such. It's intended as a positive criticism. In another post you say that you have only been into photography for around a year so there are undoubtedly some gaps in your knowledge of the technical side. The first thing that hits me about this picture is that is interesting but it does not look professional. Why? Well, the building is leaning because you have tilted the camera - otherwise known as converging verticals and very easily corrected in Lightroom or Photoshop. I would also wonder why it was necessary to use HDR on a scene like this. You could probably have done as good a job with a single well-exposed image and a simple bit of post-processing.

 

Perhaps you need to ask the question could somebody with little knowledge of photography and a decent compact say have produced a similar picture. That is not to denegrate your ability and enthusiasm which is clear from what you say but there are lots of lessons to be learned here. I wouldn't kill the day job yet if I were you. Best of luck.

Edited by MDM
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't intended in a negative way so please don't take it as such. It's intended as a positive criticism. In another post you say that you have only been into photography for around a year so there are undoubtedly some gaps in your knowledge of the technical side. The first thing that hits me about this picture is that is interesting but it does not look professional. Why? Well, the building is leaning because you have tilted the camera - otherwise known as converging verticals and very easily corrected in Lightroom or Photoshop. I would also wonder why it was necessary to use HDR on a scene like this. You could probably have done as good a job with a single well-exposed image and a simple bit of post-processing.

 

Perhaps you need to ask the question could somebody with little knowledge of photography and a decent compact say have produced a similar picture. That is not to denegrate your ability and enthusiasm which is clear from what you say but there are lots of lessons to be learned here. I wouldn't kill the day job yet if I were you. Best of luck.

 

I know exactly what you were trying to say without offending me. That's ok I don't get offended. Someone with a P&S could have taken the shot, and they did and used it on the schools FB page. I then went out that afternoon and took this. It's not a HDR, it's just been processed that way in LR. It was a single exposure. I just like to work a lot on my images sometimes. 

 

It's a total throw away image. That's why it's Flickr, I don't really like the image, I just wanted to take it. It's the principle of them taking it that has annoyed me. 

 

" I wouldn't kill the day job yet if I were you" That one hurt a wee bit though. I guess from my post it looked like I wanted serious money for my amazing picture and how dare they even think about not compensating me for my masterpiece. Aye I guess it's come across that way but lessons have been learned and I take your points on board. We're all learning at the end of the day, and I take your advice. 

 

Cheers

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This isn't intended in a negative way so please don't take it as such. It's intended as a positive criticism. In another post you say that you have only been into photography for around a year so there are undoubtedly some gaps in your knowledge of the technical side. The first thing that hits me about this picture is that is interesting but it does not look professional. Why? Well, the building is leaning because you have tilted the camera - otherwise known as converging verticals and very easily corrected in Lightroom or Photoshop. I would also wonder why it was necessary to use HDR on a scene like this. You could probably have done as good a job with a single well-exposed image and a simple bit of post-processing.

 

Perhaps you need to ask the question could somebody with little knowledge of photography and a decent compact say have produced a similar picture. That is not to denegrate your ability and enthusiasm which is clear from what you say but there are lots of lessons to be learned here. I wouldn't kill the day job yet if I were you. Best of luck.

 

I know exactly what you were trying to say without offending me. That's ok I don't get offended. Someone with a P&S could have taken the shot, and they did and used it on the schools FB page. I then went out that afternoon and took this. It's not a HDR, it's just been processed that way in LR. It was a single exposure. I just like to work a lot on my images sometimes. 

 

It's a total throw away image. That's why it's Flickr, I don't really like the image, I just wanted to take it. It's the principle of them taking it that has annoyed me. 

 

" I wouldn't kill the day job yet if I were you" That one hurt a wee bit though. I guess from my post it looked like I wanted serious money for my amazing picture and how dare they even think about not compensating me for my masterpiece. Aye I guess it's come across that way but lessons have been learned and I take your points on board. We're all learning at the end of the day, and I take your advice. 

 

Cheers

Just to be clear I certainly wasn't knocking your potential when I said that about the day job. I was thinking also about the state of the industry and how difficult it is to survive. I'm more or less retired from the day job and able to devote all my time to photography now which I love but I wouldn't want to be trying to make a living out of it.

 

And the day I stop learning (in general) will probably be the day I stop breathing. Keep on truckin' as a wise man once said.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This isn't intended in a negative way so please don't take it as such. It's intended as a positive criticism. In another post you say that you have only been into photography for around a year so there are undoubtedly some gaps in your knowledge of the technical side. The first thing that hits me about this picture is that is interesting but it does not look professional. Why? Well, the building is leaning because you have tilted the camera - otherwise known as converging verticals and very easily corrected in Lightroom or Photoshop. I would also wonder why it was necessary to use HDR on a scene like this. You could probably have done as good a job with a single well-exposed image and a simple bit of post-processing.

 

Perhaps you need to ask the question could somebody with little knowledge of photography and a decent compact say have produced a similar picture. That is not to denegrate your ability and enthusiasm which is clear from what you say but there are lots of lessons to be learned here. I wouldn't kill the day job yet if I were you. Best of luck.

 

I know exactly what you were trying to say without offending me. That's ok I don't get offended. Someone with a P&S could have taken the shot, and they did and used it on the schools FB page. I then went out that afternoon and took this. It's not a HDR, it's just been processed that way in LR. It was a single exposure. I just like to work a lot on my images sometimes. 

 

It's a total throw away image. That's why it's Flickr, I don't really like the image, I just wanted to take it. It's the principle of them taking it that has annoyed me. 

 

" I wouldn't kill the day job yet if I were you" That one hurt a wee bit though. I guess from my post it looked like I wanted serious money for my amazing picture and how dare they even think about not compensating me for my masterpiece. Aye I guess it's come across that way but lessons have been learned and I take your points on board. We're all learning at the end of the day, and I take your advice. 

 

Cheers

Just to be clear I certainly wasn't knocking your potential when I said that about the day job. I was thinking also about the state of the industry and how difficult it is to survive. I'm more or less retired from the day job and able to devote all my time to photography now which I love but I wouldn't want to be trying to make a living out of it.

 

And the day I stop learning (in general) will probably be the day I stop breathing. Keep on truckin' as a wise man once said.

 

Nah don't worry about it. I can't dare to compete with people in the field who have double figure experience in years. I'll never give up in this game. If someone tells me it's not possible I go out my way to make it so. 

 

I certainly appreciate the hardship of a pro photog, who as their main income, is struggling with today's market. You've got guys like me every day asking on forums advice on this and that and the next thing. I try to limit it as much as possible, but in the grand scheme of things, it must be soooo irritating for you guys. I respect the need to protect images, and the information gained through trial and error that produced them :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? you're posting unwatermarked 2048x1365px images to flickr?

Even though you've 'disabled' downloading, the image is still easily stealable...

 

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3701/9400303088_1a245f854e_k.jpg

 

and no IPTC data with the file?

 

oh dear

 

km

 

i post a lot of images on FB...but at max 850px longest side, hugely compressed and watermarked to heck...

 

1175279_10151867274334850_976830900_n.jp

Hi Keith,

I like the watermark pervading the whole picture - only way to do it in my opinion.

 

Obviously the the large heavy watermark on the right hand side could just be cropped off. I think that many people who want to knick the shot, particularly using it smaller than 850px, (which is still quite large for web use), might not care about the remaining semi-transparent watermark. I think it should be heavier; similar to AGE's watermarks.

 

What do you think?

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW I took all my images off flickr ages ago. Flickr to me is just the same as people who send in their photos to local papers just so they can see them in print. And they they get used say, in the paper's annual calendar. The paper doesn't even have the good grace to send out a free calendar to the photographers a lot of the time either (so in other words, they have used the photo at least twice). That's fine and I don't blame anyone who have no interest in commerciality. But I wouldn't do it.

 

I also do stock music. I took all my examples down from the internet years ago when I heard two of them on  TV. I just don't put stuff on the net anymore. I let the stock companies deal with all of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What do you think?"

 

its a compromise thing.......between making the w/m effective or too intrusive.....

 

nothing is ever perfect.....

 

for me, at the moment, i'm happy with the balance..

 

km

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not an argument you will win and could impact the day job - I'd suggest filing this under "lessons learned" and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What do you think?"

 

its a compromise thing.......between making the w/m effective or too intrusive.....

 

nothing is ever perfect.....

 

for me, at the moment, i'm happy with the balance..

 

km

You're right, sometimes, maybe, I over watermark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not an argument you will win and could impact the day job - I'd suggest filing this under "lessons learned" and move on.

 

I would agree with the above. Maybe the best thing you could have done (20/20 with hindsight) would have been to give this image/s to Alamy and told your work colleagues to 'take a look at this great set of images'. You could file it under a different pseudo so they probably wouldn't even know you had taken the pictures. 

 

Downside to that, of course, is that they only used your image because they thought it was for free and wouldn't have wanted to pay you or Alamy anyway. Too many of these charlatans about nowadays

 

Best

 

Richard

 

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was on my lunch too. 

 

Coming to this late but you need to look at your contract of employment Paul. Some contracts exclude working in a secondary business or at the very least you have to run them past your HR department (or whatever they are called these days) first.

Secondly some contracts of employment include your lunch times and your holidays etc as paid time. This is particularly important in some weekly hours and agreed annual leave contracts (or most). If they pay you for your lunch time or allow you time off within your contracted hours, or pay you annual leave you are still effectively on their time.

I know a few cases where people have come a cropper over this one. Particularly if they are involved in legal proceedings. I know one person who worked for a mulitnational and the press coverage of legal proceedings quoted their name, salary and who they worked for.

 

Always read the small print, they could be quite legitmately entitled to use the photos.

Imagine what would happen if any photos of your work place or area were used in a derogatory fashion in the press with your name against them.

Thats the problem with a lot of people pretending to be/wanting to be a pro, there are so many issues beyond the just taking of the photos and thats the professional in the pro, anyone can take the photos, its the rest thats the business side of things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.