Reviewing togs - legalities

Harvey_nikon

Harvey_nikon

Messages
3,749
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

A friend is considering setting up a site where she will review and others can review photographers/videographers.

Now, I know that you can review their services easily enough in words, but what about sample images? Obviously if it's a good review I can't see a pro minding a sample of their work, even if its only a snippet of a video or a couple of photos.

But what if its a negative review?

The reason behind it comes from her own wedding experiences. Photographer had his 2 son's do the video and it was nothing short of a nightmare. took 4 edits and even then it was like an out takes video. Focusing on the wall behind the groom during the ceremony, moving the camera and tripod during the vows, not changing setting before going outside and blowing everything out.

Could using a Swedish hosting site and have protected whois status get around any as I know they have a different view on copyright?

I expect this to be a heated subject, but I think one maybe worth doing.
 
So long as the opinion is based I fact

E.g the telegraph pole sticking out the roof of the car ruins it or I think the colour balance makes the bride look orange

He you can have any fear.
 
Mine. Field.

For example, not everybody knows that you can libel people by telling the truth. There was a proposal to change that in the latest Queen's speech but AFAIK it isn't law yet.

Oh and Google up "libel tourism". If the website is viewed in a country then you can sue for libel in that country. Regardless of who is saying it and where.

Bottom line: you pull a random picture from a stack and say "look how rubbish xyz photographer is" then you can be pretty sure xyz photographer will come after you. Possibly with good cause.

This website is pretty shocking in its one sidedness. http://biSPAM/NqnqZh

[Note - I've had to use BiSPAM to mask that URL because the address contains a word the swear filter finds offensive. It's the one that means "drunk" in the UK and "angry" in America. I guess don't click it if you find reading that word offensive.]
 
I think posting negative comments with examples is asking for trouble but could maybe turn it the other way and do ratings as per the many Tradesman rating sites.
Site user would look up the photographer to see how they have been rated and pick ones that suit. If they can't find a rating they would have nothing to go on so at own risk but better than it all being at own risk without the site I guess.

May also be better to offer advice on finding the right photographer in the first place. She has to take some of the blame for choosing a poor photographer doesn't she?
 
I think shes on a hiding to nothing, bad reviews will cause aggravation, and a good review can lead to problems if the photographer hired on her recommendation turns out to be rubbish.
The problem is it's impossible to tell from a few photos or a short video if the persons any good, she'd never know if the photos are that photographers work, (a tog I know has found his pics on several other sites)
And recommendations from the public are little better, friends and family will give good ones and rivals will give bad.
The only way to be sure is to check with past customers and see their albums, not really a practical option.
 
remember that photographs are considered art and are pretty much open to review - you can be negative all you want on the peice but you couldn't say for example - the photographer must be an ass for taking it that way etc
 
Just look at the restaurant world vs food critics. Essentially a good restaurant won't need a good write up in the paper, but it helps. A bad restaurant needs a good write up but only gets bad ones as it is, well. Bad.
This only accelerates the bad restaurants demise and if they can't keep up or change then the inevitable happens. Closure.
However, the good restaurant may drop the ball on occasions and this will show in the critics writings.
This is where the critique is critical. If the critic slams the restaurant with no reference to how things used to be or focus is only on the bad and Not the good then any new potential customer will be instantly turned away by reading the article. And a possible domino effect may occur.
As you can't really walk into a photographer off the street, order your wedding photos, get them done and your back on the street in three hours, getting through the potential list would be endless, cost you millions in wedding dresses and endless divorces lol
So your reliant only on customer reaction, which is not always the best gauge. There may be other issues than poor photography such as a personal grievance, a general dislike of character or just a clash of personality which will be different for every customer. One possible route would be an impartial critique by one voice on images submitted by customers, this is however tricky. That one voice needs to be rather over qualified to pass judgment on others work, and as photography is art and art is subjective then how will anyone say "this is crap, this is good"
I feel an impossible and dangerous task is in hand with this site and as people shop for photography with their eyes then why go to a website other than the prospective photographers website to read someone else's opinion about something you like?
At least in a restaurant you have choices, your not going to eat chicken when you love veal.
 
Simon photo said:
One possible route would be an impartial critique by one voice on images submitted by customers, this is however tricky. That one voice needs to be rather over qualified to pass judgment on others work, and as photography is art and art is subjective then how will anyone say "this is crap, this is good"
Click to expand...

One of the many reasons that I don't belong to any "professional" society is that to qualify I would have to take pictures for my clients that satisfy the society's hierarchy. This stifles creativity - it also stops people taking risks. And risks are good.

I took a picture of a child this week. It's really not very good. Every judge who saw it would slate it and on a review site I'd look like a pretty poor photographer. But I know it's going to be treasured. He's 4 years old and autistic with a morbid fear of cameras. His parents don't have a single picture of him. Now they have one.

Somebody wants to pick that picture up and post it to a website and tell me it ain't 100% sharp and I will beat them with a roll of rusty barbed wire.
 
JonathanRyan said:
One of the many reasons that I don't belong to any "professional" society is that to qualify I would have to take pictures for my clients that satisfy the society's hierarchy. This stifles creativity - it also stops people taking risks. And risks are good.

I took a picture of a child this week. It's really not very good. Every judge who saw it would slate it and on a review site I'd look like a pretty poor photographer. But I know it's going to be treasured. He's 4 years old and autistic with a morbid fear of cameras. His parents don't have a single picture of him. Now they have one.

Somebody wants to pick that picture up and post it to a website and tell me it ain't 100% sharp and I will beat them with a roll of rusty barbed wire.
Click to expand...

Exactly, that's why im saying this is a dangerous and impossible task
 
JonathanRyan said:
Mine. Field.

For example, not everybody knows that you can libel people by telling the truth. There was a proposal to change that in the latest Queen's speech but AFAIK it isn't law yet.
Click to expand...

Indeed

http://www.kwikchex.com/2012/05/new-uk-defamation-laws/

Tripadvisor have been getting heat over their reviews site

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel...-tripadvisors-critiques-in-court-2076417.html

http://www.tnooz.com/2012/01/31/new...are-real-honest-or-trusted-says-uk-regulator/
 
I find it unbelievable that you can libel someone by telling the truth! That certainly needs changing. If you're doing something you're ashamed of then bloody stop it instead of getting all bad tempered when someone tells on you.

A site that promotes quality photographers seems more sensible than one that criticises poor ones.
 
Last edited:
Harvey_nikon said:
A friend is considering setting up a site where she will review and others can review photographers/videographers.
Click to expand...

Is this a voluntary thing the subjects would put themselves up for?

Harvey_nikon said:
Now, I know that you can review their services easily enough in words, but what about sample images? Obviously if it's a good review I can't see a pro minding a sample of their work, even if its only a snippet of a video or a couple of photos.
Click to expand...

Copyright? People know what a Chicken Kiev (for example) may taste like, and can take a review/criticism of someone (respected) who tastes it. Photography/Video is a visual medium which people would want to see. Do you copy their work to your review site, or do you link to it? :shrug:

Harvey_nikon said:
The reason behind it comes from her own wedding experiences. Photographer had his 2 son's do the video and it was nothing short of a nightmare. took 4 edits and even then it was like an out takes video. Focusing on the wall behind the groom during the ceremony, moving the camera and tripod during the vows, not changing setting before going outside and blowing everything out.
Click to expand...

Ah, I wonder who will be the first subject up for review? :shrug: :bonk:


Unless this is an opt in thing, which I don't think people would do with someone without any experience of Photography/Videography, :shrug: then I think that the person is leaving themselves open to a whole lot of potential trouble.

If someone wants to tell people how bad an experience they have had than go to wedding sites and tell others of their experiences. I assume that is what people do already. :shrug: And I would hope that was the way the person wanting to start this venture did before spending their money.

Of course that may still be no guarantee, but you do your research before spending so much on something so important. Maybe a site like this could help with that, but you get reviews from real world users, rather than from one person who has probably not used the Photographer/Videographer imho. :shrug:
 
If the purpose of the site is to for aggrieved people to post "this photographer ruined my wedding" we already have the Daily Mail for that...
 
srichards said:
I find it unbelievable that you can libel someone by telling the truth! That certainly needs changing. If you're doing something you're ashamed of then bloody stop it instead of getting all bad tempered when someone tells on you.

A site that promotes quality photographers seems more sensible than one that criticises poor ones.
Click to expand...

who's version of the truth? there's nearly always two sides.
 
No i feel this venture won't be a walk in the park. Its just asking for trouble,
Surely any photographer worth their salt would include testimonials, albeit biased ones, on their website anyway?

And like i said, you window shop for photographers, who cares if the photographer is a bit short tempered or rude, so long as their doing their job and not ripping you off then everybody is happy.
Marco Pierre white is, or was a world standard chef, didn't stop him bolloking customers or kicking them out and yet they kept coming back. And he still maxed out the stars and knives and forks in the Michelin guide, it made no difference if he was jovial or an arse kisser, what mattered was he produced the best food available.
 
POAH said:
you cannot be sued if what you say is the truth - if you bend the truth then you'll get sued
Click to expand...

A libel claimant does not have to prove that the words are false
Click to expand...

From Private Eye's favourite libel lawyers - http://www.carter-ruck.com/Media Law/Questions_And_Answers.asp

It further notes that truth is an absolute defence against libel BUT

The onus is on the defendant to prove that the allegations are true.
Click to expand...

There's a world of difference between things that are true and things that you can prove (you know, in a court of law and everything) to be true.
 
BTW - what's the point of the website? To make money off advertising?

Tough model....
 
POAH said:
you cannot be sued if what you say is the truth - if you bend the truth then you'll get sued
Click to expand...

The problem here is photography is subjective, what I like you may hate, what is the truth if you don't like my photo? Does that make me a bad photographer or you a bad reviewer? it's not quite as easy as it sounds.
 
JonathanRyan said:
BTW - what's the point of the website? To make money off advertising?
Tough model....
Click to expand...

Harvey_nikon said:
The reason behind it comes from her own wedding experiences. Photographer had his 2 son's do the video and it was nothing short of a nightmare. took 4 edits and even then it was like an out takes video. Focusing on the wall behind the groom during the ceremony, moving the camera and tripod during the vows, not changing setting before going outside and blowing everything out.
Click to expand...


Seemed just a way for a person to get back at the people who gave them a bad service wrapped in a 'review' website imho, that I hadn't even thought of the money making angle. :bonk:
 
I'd suggest legal advice as to the wording of your terms and conditions and your status as a 'publisher', and who submitted comments belong to.

As Jonathan says above, libel is a hell of a complex area... McNae's essential law for journalists may well be worth a read for you too, just to give you a grounding.
 
Legalities aside - that is something for a solicitor..

Running a website like that could be a royal PITA and swallow up a lifetime of hours. Best case is that it dies a rapid and painless death, worst case is that it takes off on an exponential growth curve. Does she know what running it might involve? Has she got a team of trusted people that can moderate/admin the site in a consistent, reliable and calm manner?

Does she know what she wants to happen when things stray away from the normal she's hoping for, i.e. when there's a dispute and what forms a dispute could predictably take.

In the past I've watched a forum spectacularly implode because it introduced a review section without deciding in advance how it would handle situations that were reasonably foreseeable (and which the owner of the forum had been warned about in advance). The precise circumstances of that implosion aren't going to be relevant (I assume she's not going to be seeking sponsorship/advertising from photographers being reviewed), but it is important to plan (and preferably publish - I don't know of any website or forum that publishes the dispute resolution process or the outcomes of it) the dispute resolution procedure (what happens when, who will arbitrate).
 
swanseamale47 said:
The problem here is photography is subjective, what I like you may hate, what is the truth if you don't like my photo? Does that make me a bad photographer or you a bad reviewer? it's not quite as easy as it sounds.
Click to expand...


But your thoughts on a photo is the truth. My wife likes mushrooms i think they are vile I can't be sued because my taste buds work differently lol
 
POAH said:
But your thoughts on a photo is the truth. My wife likes mushrooms i think they are vile I can't be sued because my taste buds work differently lol
Click to expand...

But mushrooms can't sue you..
Try shouting that Mars Bars are unhealthy from the rooftops - and read up on the McLibel trial.
 
I just hate the one sided nature of review sites. If nothing else would your friend invite a response?

It's a nightmare, rightly, legally and best avoided
 
POAH said:
But your thoughts on a photo is the truth. My wife likes mushrooms i think they are vile I can't be sued because my taste buds work differently lol
Click to expand...

It's not quite the same thing as reviewing wedding photographers, your personal taste is one thing posting comments that may damage their trade is another.
How could the photographers concerned be sure of getting a fair review?, whats their redress going to be?, how could you vet the reviews if they are public? I see it ending in a court somewhere.
 
How do the builders review sites differ to what this site is intending to do?
 
tiler65 said:
How do the builders review sites differ to what this site is intending to do?
Click to expand...

That is the comparison I made on the last page. I am not sure they are that different but do they base it on recommendation, i.e. who is good to use rather than pointing out who you shouldn't use along with lots of complaints about their work which they could then dispute/take legal action against etc,.

The risk is that you can ruin someones business unjustly. Not everyone who leaves negative feedback is in the right themselves...
 
ernesto said:
That is the comparison I made on the last page. I am not sure they are that different but do they base it on recommendation, i.e. who is good to use rather than pointing out who you shouldn't use along with lots of complaints about their work which they could then dispute/take legal action against etc,.

The risk is that you can ruin someones business unjustly. Not everyone who leaves negative feedback is in the right themselves...
Click to expand...

Sorry Chris I totally missed your post.
 
tiler65 said:
So who owns the copyright of the photos that the builders post online from their work?
Click to expand...

Some of them will have taken their own or paid a photographer, other will use stock shots. Either way the photos are copyrighted somewhere.
 
But most people reviewing a builder won't use his shots - as those will of course show him in the best possible light .. if he's arsed up gt aunt flos extension then people will take their own pictures of his shonky , half arsed work and share them with the world

its not the same thing with photographers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top