A Question of Ethics - could get heated in here ;)

EdinburghGary

EdinburghGary

Reply not Report
Messages
19,271
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
This is I hope an interesting question, and I also hope one which will spark an interesting if not predictable argument :D

Now this thread is coming from my "business head" and not my "photographic heart" ;) This is purely about marketing and perception of business in the eyes of potential clients.

I will try an keep it simple. It's all about the classic "chicken and egg", portfolio versus first clients scenario.

1: Without a good portfolio, clients do not have much of a reason to pay for your services.

2: Without the clients, it's hard to get a good portfolio.

3: You are absolutely confident in your ability, if a little nervous.

So, bearing all that in mind, you decide you want to be, for arguments sake, a Wedding Photographer, with his own Wedding Photography Business. You decide to start a web site offering your services, yet you have no portfolio.

The ethical dilemna
Without calling it a portfolio, and without claiming to have taken said photos, do you BUY stock images of various weddings and "splash them around your site" in an effort to allow your client the presumption that said work is yours? :D

I have asked this question in the IRC chatroom in the past, and boy - did it cause a hoohaa ! :)

From a strictly business perspective, makes perfect sense. My photographic heart however says "forget it".

Interested in your thoughts. For the record I and a friend have said site, and said stock images purchased. We have yet to have it proof read and rewritten (I never trust my own English). Other than that, its just this ethical hurdle standing between us and an advertising campaign. My heart tells me to shoot another few freebies and use our own photos. My business head says to go for it now, grasp it as quickly as I can.

Looking forward to a healthy discussion! ;)

Gary.
 
Bored Gary? :D
Ok I'll hurl the first cat into the coop
purely business ( and totally hypothetical )
I would go with the stock images
BUT put a ( small) disclaimer somewhere
along the lines of "would you like images like these of your wedding?
or even "stock images used for examples only"
 
Cobra said:
Bored Gary? :D
Ok I'll hurl the first cat into the coop
purely business ( and totally hypothetical )
I would go with the stock images
BUT put a ( small) disclaimer somewhere
along the lines of "would you like images like these of your wedding?
or even "stock images used for examples only"
Click to expand...

Oh yeah I should have said, a huge privacy statement and T's and C's would have all that covered.

Bored? Me? Never :D

Gary.
 
Are MacDonalds cheeseburgers really that attractive when you get them?
Are swimming pools in hotels really always that quiet and picturesque?
Do new cars come with limo black tinted windscreens?

Advertising and business is all about presentation above anything else (apart from staying within the law) (most of the time).

On the other hand if you go to a photographers website you would "expect" all photographs to be theirs.. to convey their style and quality.

I would say if you go with stock to get the business going just be completely open about the use of the images. If the main aim is to build up a good reputation you don't want to start of by being accused of misleading people.
 
How about hiring models and gaining some real experience at the same time.

Or getting some friends to pose - or next wedding you are invited to etc.

I don't have a strong view on the ethics of what you are suggesting, but it could be embarrassing if you were asked if you took them.

Graham
 
surely a say wedding shooters portfolio is built from time second shooting, or are we assuming that that hasn't happened previous to business start up.

What about a mock wedding with models in dresses and suits? would that be more acceptable?
 
Look at it from another perspective. If you were a stock photographer, and you suddenly find someone passing your work off as their own to gain business, would you not be a tad peeved?

And what if your nowhere near as good as you think you are and your pics don't meet the standard of the stock shots?

Just throwing some more coal on the fire :D
 
I would think getting some more cheap and cheerful weddings and build your own images up, you mentioned in other thread you have a wedding coming up on Saturday you could use the images from that and take a leaf out of Lukes book and place them in a gallery which depicts the whole day from start to finish in a time line.

With a statement explaining that this is sample of your work depicting an entire wedding from start to finish displaying the quality and quantity of the images that would be captured on you special day.

Something along those lines, add to it as you get more weddings.

That way you get the satisfaction of displaying your images, with your style.

My tupence worth...

Nigel
 
Seeing as you've already bought the stock images, then I'd say use them. Afterall, that's what stock images are for isn't it?, when you need some images for an illustration and you don't have any of your own...

It's not a though you're a crap photographer and the clients are going to be dissappointed :)
 
Another perspective is from that of the client.

The following argument is commonplace on auction sites such as fleabay, stock images or images of the actual item? Now, as a buyer I always want to see the actual item because I then know what I am getting and to a certain degree have a level of expectation?

In the case of a wedding the "item" is a lot more expensive and your clients whill be expecting their "item" (your photographs) to be delivered as described, within reasonable limits, to meet their expectations.

Surely using someone else's stock images sets a standard that you may not be able to initially achieve or which inaccurately reflects the style of shooting you are to be producing?

Therefore I would think it'd be better to put your own work up, full stop. This gig your doing on Saturday is your start and go from their.
 
You should go to the local church and take a few snaps as the wedding party and guests arrive. I'm sure no one would mind. You dont have to just take group photos just a few creative shots so you have your own content on your site. You could probably do three or four weddings in a day. You often get passers by (semi-professionals) taking snapshots of strangers weddings.
 
ROFL2K9 said:
Afterall, that's what stock images are for isn't it?, when you need some images for an illustration and you don't have any of your own...
Click to expand...

Errr.... yes, but not if you're a photographer :shrug:
 
leon1p said:
Are MacDonalds cheeseburgers really that attractive when you get them?
Are swimming pools in hotels really always that quiet and picturesque?
Do new cars come with limo black tinted windscreens?
Click to expand...

The answer to all those questions is "probably not", however unless McDonalds are passing off a BK Whopper as theirs, or the Spanish hotel pool is really in Florida, or the Ford KA is really a Porsche, then it's merely "artistic licence."

To use someone else's images to sell yourself as a professional photographer however is, at best deceptive. Legally, I'm not sure what the position would be, but it sounds awfully like "reverse passing off".

I'd also imagine it would be highly embarrasing having to explain to a potential customer if caught that you didn't actually take any of the pictures on your own photography-business website ;)
 
If stock images were used, and it is not absolutely clear that they were not taken by the photographer whose services are advertised then it is possible this may constitute fraud and/or misrepresentation. Burying a disclaimer in the T's & C's or making some oblique 'backside covering' statement about the images is not being 'absolutely clear'.

The advertising standards authority might also take an unhealthy (for the photographer) interest in the site, should they receive a complaint. All adverts (and it sounds like the hypothetical website referred to here would be an advert), must be 'legal, decent, honest and truthful'. I don't see the photographer would have any defence against an accusation that the advert was not 'honest and truthful'.

Personally I would only ever use images I had taken myself, as this would avoid any of the potential problems mentioned above.
 
Twist it around - if you were a customer and weren't happy with the images from the day, and then found out the website images weren't taken by you.......

Not good for future business IMO.
 
Hi Gary

From a businessman's point of view.

You, as a businessman will have to decide on whether you want to take a chance.

Are you confident in covering a wedding to the satisfaction of the customer? If so it does not matter what you show the customer, they are not going to ever question it.

However if they are not happy after the wedding that is when you might have a problem.

I am confident that you will cover the wedding you have on Saturday well, I do not believe there will be any problems. If you expected this thread to cause the usual uproar here then let me throw some petrol on it :D:D......if you had asked me I would have given you some images to use, a gift to get you going from one businessman to another.

The way you have gone about it though is good. No point in offering to do a wedding for cheap as that would put people off. Offering to do it for free and explaining you are just setting out probably did you no harm especially if you showed them some of your non wedding work.

stew
 
bigbigblue said:
If stock images were used, and it is not absolutely clear that they were not taken by the photographer whose services are advertised then it is possible this may constitute fraud and/or misrepresentation. Burying a disclaimer in the T's & C's or making some oblique 'backside covering' statement about the images is not being 'absolutely clear'.

The advertising standards authority might also take an unhealthy (for the photographer) interest in the site, should they receive a complaint. All adverts (and it sounds like the hypothetical website referred to here would be an advert), must be 'legal, decent, honest and truthful'. I don't see the photographer would have any defence against an accusation that the advert was not 'honest and truthful'.
Click to expand...
This sounds pretty good to me. I think the ethical thing to do (since you used that word, Gary!) is not to create a situation where visitors to the web site might believe that the photos displayed were yours. Burying the disclaimer in the small print isn't ethical. End of.
 
EdinburghGary said:
This is I hope an interesting question, and I also hope one which will spark an interesting if not predictable argument :D


The ethical dilemna
Without calling it a portfolio, and without claiming to have taken said photos, do you BUY stock images of various weddings and "splash them around your site" in an effort to allow your client the presumption that said work is yours? :D
Click to expand...


I'd have to say not ethical - you're aimming to create an illusion they're yours if you took them or not.

I have less problem with using models for advertising on a wedding site then some, purely because from a business perspective I know a beautiful girl in a good location looks better in a portfolio then the 55 yr old couple I shot in Hounslow registry office last Friday. Your website is only advertising but it should be your own work.

Cheers

Hugh
 
How about offering your services for free for say two or three weddings then using the images to build a portfolio for future clients?
 
Hi Guys,

Sounds like it could cause me more hassle than I need, so perhaps best to drop those images :D I think I can replace 90% of them with images I already have in my collection, the rest may come on Saturday.

It's strange for me, any project in the past I have undertaken has required a web site up front, which works and which advertises your products or services. With this though, the products and services need to be offered first, before you can properly market them - it feels backwards :D

I will post the URL shortly, WITH the Stock Images - and will get the removed prior to any *launch* should there ever be one.

This has always been 90% hypothetical I should add. It's a "What if we are really good at Wedding Photography" question.

It was interesting to see the responses,

Gary.
PS - the first free wedding is on Saturday. Will do any more on the back of it if we feel up to it.
 
I'd say it's all about expectations and balances Gary.

Personally, I'd offer that there's nothing wrong with using stock images on your site, it's done all over the place. If you look for sites say, offering business advice, you always see images of nicely dressed young business folk, smiling across the table whilst pointing to an excel spreadsheet of positive looking sales figures. I don't think those images are necessarily of the staff of that business, nor taken in the rooms within that business.

However, expectations need to be managed here. In the example I use above, there isn't really an expectation on the part of the viewer/client that the images seen on the www site are actually those of the business. With a photography www site though, one could argue that there is somewhat of an expectation that the images seen are indeed the work of the photographer whose www site it is.

Again however, if you do choose to use stock images, so long as you have a disclaimer, then I don't see this as doing anything wrong, even if the disclaimer is in the small print. I appreciate that most of us don't, but it is up to the viewer/client to trouble themselves to look for and read the small print. Some may see this as unethical, but it's done all over the place in business. If you can find something that attracts potential customers to your site/business offering rather than going to others... it's all part of the game.

Some have pointed out that if you did use stock, and (though very unlikely) also did a bad job of the wedding, that customers would be furious if they found out the images on the site were not of your doing. Surely though, clients would have asked to see a portfolio of your shots at some point...?

Personally, I'd prefer to use my own images on a portfolio/gallery www site offering such services - that's if I had them of course and thus could... but there's always the chicken and egg scenario as you rightly allude to. If you can't wait, and a www site has to be there now, then one option would be to perhaps use stock images and replace these with your own as you undertake wedding shoots yourself. At the end of the day I'd wager that most togs would prefer to use their own shots on their www sites.

Good luck in your venture...:thumbs:
 
I have to go with the concensus really, regardless of any legalities, that the particular product you will be selling should be represented in any advertising by the actual product, not just 'something similar'

As for stock images themselves, if a photographer has submitted stock images of 'wedding' shots, with no caveat other than the normal licencing, then surely they cannot be surprised if someone did use them in the way Gary is suggesting [dons tinfoil helmet ;) ]
 
boyfalldown said:
I'd have to say not ethical - you're aimming to create an illusion they're yours if you took them or not.

I have less problem with using models for advertising on a wedding site then some, purely because from a business perspective I know a beautiful girl in a good location looks better in a portfolio then the 55 yr old couple I shot in Hounslow registry office last Friday. Your website is only advertising but it should be your own work.

Cheers

Hugh
Click to expand...

I'm with Hugh.

I've had the unfortunate experience of having to fix a series of blooming awful images from someone who did just that so from experience I'd say steer well clear.

Business needs to be built on a strong foundation rather than shifting sand and it will only take you a short time to get your own images. Not worth the risk IMHO.

P.S. good luck for tomorrow :)
 
There was a guy (reported on the BBC website I think last year) who passed off other photographers images as his own. Can't remember what he went to court for but he couldn't take images as good as his website images and was soon found out.

Legally I've no idea, but I would check if what you propose is not fraud as you would be passing off someone else's images as your own, ethically, a really unsound way to run a photography business.
If you want images, then hire some models and a church.
 
Interesting - but hardly the 'scrap' you were expecting I guess

It is quite COMMON for people to borrow images of what they expect to create to show people, & as long as you're up-front about it there's usually no problem; just don't pick images from the world's best and pretend you can do it from day 1 :lol:

That said, all of my first Wedding bookings were made without me showing anyone ANY Wedding images at all - I just told them I'd do a good job and they believed me based on me showing a few child portraits to prove I know what a camera is :)

If you have, or can quickly get, your own images then clearly that's best - but I'm guessing Venture franchisees show 'typical' company work rather than their own as they don't have ANY do they at the start

DD
 
Here are the images we bought licenses for, and this would be one of the main features on the homepage - the links and logo would all be built around this:

weddingphotos.jpg


Paid £50 or so for all the images, web site usage resolution.

I trust this place more than you can imagine, has always worked in the past! I will chat with Darren and get the images removed and put our own ones up.

Gary.
 
Definatally NO

First a practical reason.. I meet with a bride - I show them album(s) of my work - you will look like a right numpty in this situation - THEY ALWAYS want to see albums of your finished work

Second - when you actualy shoot your first wedding, you will be amazed at how fast paced everything is. Its something you need to learn to deal with - so second shoot for someone, and take on small cheap weddings and build up slowly (thats how you get a portfolio)

Thirdly. You get booked for 3 reasons - they like YOUR style, they like YOU, they like your price. its normally a combination of the three. You do need to show your style, which involves shooting real weddings

Fourthly. Getting images from a course, hiring a model - are all unrealistic portrayals of your work. Models know how to pose, brides generally dont. You have bags more time and loads less presure with a model shoot. On a course, you will be often using equipment you cant afford, dont have, and the shot is set up for you

Lastly - don't gatecrash someone elses wedding and start shooting - it is incredibly rude, and also, will utterly hack of the photographer that is working it. You will find out the job has as much to do with managing people as it does shooting photographs
 
Gary,

Have you thought of popping in to some of your local wedding dress, cake and florists shops and asked them if you could take a few images (you would probably have to supply a few images on CD for their use) for advertising purposes. Apart fro the car shot, all of those images could be shot with just a couple of models, even the venue isn't that important to the shots.

Personally, if you have the time, I would try to find a really attractive male & female (students are good and need the money) rent a wedding dress (charity shops often have them for sale cheap) & gents outfit for a day and visit some nice places in and around Edinburgh, take some images and Canon Bob's your Auntie!
 
Just to clarify a point about model shoots... There is nothing wrong for an experienced photographer hiring a model to develop some ideas with - before unleashing those ideas on some bride. That gives the photographer time to get it wrong without stuffing a real wedding up

But that new technique would be something in addition to the solid core of proven shots the phootrapher normally takes. In the same breath, using the images from such a shoot to then inspire a bride is equally OK. The subtle point i make is that the photographer allready has a core portfolio that he/she can shoot fluidly
 
From both a business and photographic angle it is a no no in my book. Your site has to be a reflection of your style and skill level, using stock imagery will not show your skills or style to potential clients and as said before I think trading standards would go to town should a client take a dim view on your use of stock imagery, regardless of whether is was in the site's t&C's.

There are a number of ways you can gain a portfolio for next to no money. But building a good portfolio can take time and that is something money can't buy.
Approach a few established togs and ask if you can be second shooter on a couple of weddings, look outside of your business area and that way they won't feel threatened by a new tog setting up in direct competition with them. I certainly would welcome a second shooter for free.
I started a few years ago with no wedding portfolio but got a freebie gig on the back of some portrait work I did with some friends children. The B&G saw those shots and asked me to do their gig, I took no money, they got free pictures, I got portfolio pictures. A win win situation. During the day I got asked to do another by guests at the wedding, then my brother in law got married, so in the space of 6 months I had three weddings under my belt and a nice portfolio. Then I started to market myself as the images I could use on my site were all mine. But to be honest most of my work now comes from word of mouth, (I really need to update my online portfolio with this years work). My bigeest tool for gaining clients are the albums. An online portfolio doesn't show every image just the highlights. When the potential clients can hold, feel and see the entire album that is what sells my services. What starts as a basic package enquiry through the site will evolve into a meeting where I show them what I offer, normally this will turn the basic package into something else, they will have wedding cards, engagment shoot, upgraded wedding album from Yophoto one to Graphistudio one and so on. Relying soley on your site to sell you in my mind is limiting yourself, and this goes back to the whole building your portfolio issue. It takes time and rushing it will show, you have a passion for taking shots, set yourself a realistic time scale of say 12 months and build it slowly, then your passion will show. Do a few weddings this summer, spend the winter months getting your PR material in order then hit it big for next year. Most weddings are booked 12 months advance anyway.

Which ever route you take mate, good luck and as someone on here once said (Hacker I think) weddings are the most nerve racking yet exhilerating gig to shoot.
 
Richard King said:
THEY ALWAYS want to see albums of your finished work
Click to expand...

I agree with all of your post except this bit Richard

Few of my bookings ever even ask to see any work at all, they've either been recommended, seen a few online, or clearly don't care enough :D

That said - I don't do 'Album Packages' so I guess that could be a reason there :shrug:

Gary - the greatest images in the world won't get you a booking if you're a t-*** and can't get on with people and put them at ease - and quickly

They may come to you as they've seen your work, but they book you as they BUY INTO YOU as a person first and photographer second; if they don't like you they won't book you

I always prefer to be the 3rd, 4th tog they've seen as they know the score by then and only come as they don't like the others enough - many close to me have been branded as pillocks, or even described as arrogant & ignorant - not the cleverest of qualities to exude in a sales environment :lol:

DD
 
from a non-pro point of view I would spend the money on other things.
For example...if this is in your opening page or primary banner, then you'll need model releases etc to use them in your promotions...so stock images would be suitable.
for the main bits of your website, surely using your own work would be better...with permission of the models/couples...
the solution for me?? go to a wedding shop, explain your situation. ask them if they'd like a model shoot of their dresses if they don't have stock photos already (but most do) and set up a mock shoot. get a nice looking couple (aspiring models are good or friends that you know would like a photo shoot) and work for time/prints. I've done this with a few couple of nice ladies who work in promotions and need modeling shots.
Therefore you can get a model release, and have your shots in there and not have to have a real wedding to get the experience and shots...
as a customer. I'd want to see real pictures of what you could do, once I got into the website/brochure that is


(just read page two....okay, EdBray said all this 4 post ago...DOH!) great minds etc :P
 
DiddyDave said:
Few of my bookings ever even ask to see any work at all,
Click to expand...

Strange! All of the photographers I went to see when we were booking our wedding, /started/ by showing us an album.


For the OP, I wouldn't have thought it would be too difficult for you to re-take those photos that you have shown as the stock ones. Then the quandry goes away. Bit of a pity you have already paid for them. I would hope, that as a punter, if your website were to contain photos from a source other than your own, that there would be a visible copyright notice stating that it is not yours. Which would worry me when I saw it possibly, if there were none without that notice (i.e. none of yours).
 
coldpenguin said:
Strange! All of the photographers I went to see when we were booking our wedding, /started/ by showing us an album.


For the OP, I wouldn't have thought it would be too difficult for you to re-take those photos that you have shown as the stock ones. Then the quandry goes away. Bit of a pity you have already paid for them. I would hope, that as a punter, if your website were to contain photos from a source other than your own, that there would be a visible copyright notice stating that it is not yours. Which would worry me when I saw it possibly, if there were none without that notice (i.e. none of yours).
Click to expand...

Not fussed re the payment, and to be fair - perhaps I have helped pay a fellow tog's salary - who knows :)

Thanks again guys, food for thought. We won't be using the images.

For the record:

- We have already done 3 model shoots, one with a bride - we could use her

- I have helped on a wedding in the past, a small one - we were uninvited it transpired though, and bride and groom were NOT happy to have photos taken. I was not aware if this before pitching up. Either way, might ask them if I can use some of the photos.

- My wife still has her dress in the cupboard, potential to use her for this. I think Darren also has same opportunity.


And for those advising us to do free gigs to get the portfolio, it was always our master plan. Still is. I guess I wanted to "kickstart" the web site. I will slow down a little :D

Gary.
 
If it were me, I'd shoot freebies until I had said images for advertising.
As a photographer, why would you want any work on your site, other than your own?
Just my opinion though!
 
coldpenguin said:
Strange! All of the photographers I went to see when we were booking our wedding, /started/ by showing us an album.
Click to expand...


Strange perhaps if you're seeing someone about a Graphi album package as I'm guessing you'd expect to see one then

But we tailor everything and many don't ever have an album so it's a more open discussion about their day, what they'd like to see from it and what style they prefer in their images

Not so strange that way perhaps :shrug:

DD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top