# Need advice: photographer watermarked our wedding photos



## Z1D

Hi all, hope you can offer me some opinions.  I recently got married, and naturally we had a photographer on hand.  When we signed up with this photographer, we enlisted for a basic package only, which simply agreed to supply high resolution digital images for the day on CD (.jpeg not RAW).  We recently picked up the DVDs and noticed that every single picture was watermarked.  This was unexpected, and while we did not agree to receive watermarked images, the contract we signed didn't explicitly prohibit them either.    I talked with the photographer, and though at first he admitted to it being a mistake, he seemed unconcerned overall.  When I told him I would like a new set of discs without the watermark he became slightly standoffish and said that virtually any place would do the same thing regarding the watermark.  I found that unlikely since, as I understand it, when you agree to buy the images, you become owner of those images (and their copyright - and yes, we have already paid in full).  I spoke to a good friend of mine who is an experienced photographer, and he said this was most certainly not standard operating procedure, but I'm looking for a few more opinions.  Is what he did legal and common? Legal but uncommon?  Legal but unethical? Or outright illegal?    For the time being I am hoping we gives us the new discs with no watermark, everyone moves on with a grumble, but I am preparing myself if he tries anything shady.


----------



## MTVision

I don't know where you are from but I don't believe you own the copyright to the image. The photographer owns the copyright.  You (mire than likely) paid for the service and copies of the images. Usually, copyright is owned by who took the pictures. If your contract states that you are buying the copyright that's a different story but (from what I've heard) photographers charge quite a bit to sell their copyright.


----------



## Evesdilemma

The photographer retains the copyright unless you pay for it-paying for the copies doesn't transfer the copyright to you, it merely provides you access to the photos.  What he did was not illegal, but it was poor business to not offer to remove them, especially since he said it was a mistake.


----------



## Z1D

MTVision said:


> I don't know where you are from but I don't believe you own the copyright to the image. The photographer owns the copyright.  You (mire than likely) paid for the service and copies of the images. Usually, copyright is owned by who took the pictures. If your contract states that you are buying the copyright that's a different story but (from what I've heard) photographers charge quite a bit to sell their copyright.


   Does that mean he was within his rights to watermark the images?  I mean, the whole point of buying digital photos is to print them yourself, and I feel that the watermark detracts from the image.


----------



## MTVision

Have you done any research on this? Where are you from? I have pictures that were done by Olan Mills (a big box store studio) and they have a watermark on them so it's neither illegal not unethical in the US. Did he say he would give you a new disk? The photographer will probably give you a new disk but if you post the photos on your Facebook or anywhere online you should give then credit and/or use the watermarked photos.


----------



## MTVision

Z1D said:
			
		

> Does that mean he was within his rights to watermark the images?  I mean, the whole point of buying digital photos is to print them yourself, and I feel that the watermark detracts from the image.



Yes he was within his rights. I said in another post I have pictures with a watermark from a studio. Is it a huge watermark? 

Like another poster said he should remove it if he said it was a mistake.


----------



## sierramister

I would argue this... I've never seen this done.  If the contract states that you should receive high resolution photos on a DVD and you are free to print them on your own, then I would say a judge would tell the photog to take watermarks off.


----------



## Z1D

Thanks for the responses.  No, the watermark is not huge, it's in the bottom left corner, but it is red and fairly opaque.  It certainly stands out in some of the lower light photographs.  By the way I'm in Canada, so the copyright laws are likely quite similar to the US.  He did say we would give us a new disc without watermarks, so hopefully this thread is only for my own information.


----------



## cgipson1

In Canada... the copyright laws are totally opposite of the US. In the US, the photographer owns the copyright. In Canada, whoever pays for the service owns the copyright (or at least, so I have read). I am sure some of our Canadian professionals will speak up and clarify the issue for you.


----------



## tirediron

Z1D said:


> the copyright laws are likely quite similar to the US...


  You'd think so, but in fact, as cGipson alluded to, they're not.  Read through the contract and find out if he had a clause about his retaining copyright.  If he did not, than under Canadian Law, as the contractee, you should own the copyright (nb.  I am not a lawyer, nor do I play on television; do not take this as fact) to the images.  That said, irrespective of copyright ownership, it is IMO, very poor business practice to watermark client images in this way.


----------



## willis_927

Whenever I give the DVD of images, I provide a low Res, and a high Res copy. The low res has watermarks, the high Res does not.


----------



## Big Mike

Yes, as I understand it, the laws in Canada are opposite to the US, on this issue.  In the US, the artists (photographer) owns the rights to any images they create, unless they are working under a contract that states otherwise.  In Canada, whoever pays for (commissions) the artwork, is the one who holds the copyright (unless specified otherwise in a contract).  

So since you're in Canada, it's likely that you own the right to make copies, provided it doesn't say otherwise in your contract.

As for the watermark, that's the photographer's choice.  Unless your contract explicitly says that they are to deliver images without a watermark.  
I do agree that it seems very odd that they would watermark all the images, when they have sold you the image files.

It is common to give clients a set of proof prints or files that are watermarked, but in this situation the idea is that they are just for viewing and you would then order prints from the photographer.  So maybe this is what the photographer is expecting, where-as you are wanting to make your own prints.  So it's possibly a communication mix-up, and is something that should have been worked out before the wedding, on the contracts.

Unfortunately, weddings are something that most of us only do once (that's the idea anyway)....so it's not like you can really learn from your experiences and do it differently next time.  

My suggestion would be to appeal (again) to the photographer, to get your files without the watermark....but maybe it would be best to ask if they are assuming that you will order prints directly from them.  Maybe they are expecting you to pay for the 'clean' image files, at an additional cost.  
Hopefully, if you and the photographer are both open and honest, this can come to an agreeable conclusion.


----------



## Gavjenks

Who owns the copyright seems pretty irrelevant.  Even if the contractee gains copyright for contracted photos in Canada, the whole point is that it is unclear whether the contract covers UNwatermarked photos, or watermarked photos.  It's a disagreement about what types of photos the contract refers to, not who owns them. I'm sure he would be happy to agree that you own all of your contracted, _watermarked _photos.

What seems much more relevant here, is that the photographer admitted that it was a mistake.  *Oral contracts are also contracts*, and him admitting this is the equivalent of it being explicitly stated on your written contract that the photos are to be unwatermarked. This would most likely hold up in court, unless he risks committing perjury by denying it, which would be pretty stupid just to avoid giving clean photos to somebody who already paid you...

1) Was anybody else there when he told you it was a mistake, like your husband etc.?
2) It would be helpful if your written contract also sort of hints or suggests at unwatermarked photos.  You say it doesnt, but would it be possible to post the relevant portions of it here, to be sure?


----------



## SCraig

Gavjenks said:


> ... would it be  possible to post the relevant portions of it here, to be sure?





This is a near 2-year-old thread.  It's unlikely the OP will post anything.


----------



## ShooterJ

SCraig said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... would it be  possible to post the relevant portions of it here, to be sure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a near 2-year-old thread.  It's unlikely the OP will post anything.
Click to expand...


LOL... it IS however pretty amusing when it happens.  I've been guilty of responding to an older thread myself ... and without fail, eventually somebody comes along and points it out. :lmao:


----------



## cgipson1

Gavjenks said:


> Who owns the copyright seems pretty irrelevant.  Even if the contractee gains copyright for contracted photos in Canada, the whole point is that it is unclear whether the contract covers UNwatermarked photos, or watermarked photos.  It's a disagreement about what types of photos the contract refers to, not who owns them. I'm sure he would be happy to agree that you own all of your contracted, _watermarked _photos.
> 
> What seems much more relevant here, is that the photographer admitted that it was a mistake.  *Oral contracts are also contracts*, and him admitting this is the equivalent of it being explicitly stated on your written contract that the photos are to be unwatermarked. This would most likely hold up in court, unless he risks committing perjury by denying it, which would be pretty stupid just to avoid giving clean photos to somebody who already paid you...
> 
> 1) Was anybody else there when he told you it was a mistake, like your husband etc.?
> 2) It would be helpful if your written contract also sort of hints or suggests at unwatermarked photos.  You say it doesnt, but would it be possible to post the relevant portions of it here, to be sure?



Are you a law student or something? You seem to have a lot of opinions on copyright that a copyright attorney might disagree with. Is is all conjecture, or is there something behind it? Or is this all from that book on photography legal issues I saw you post at one time? Since no one here ever saw the contract, and none of us here are copyright experts (that I know of anyway)... sort of useless to speculate, don't you think?


----------



## 480sparky

In the US, only ONE person owns the copyright.... *and that is the person who took the photos*.  Period.  End of that discussion.  

Copyrights* cannot be sold or transferred or traded*.  Period. End of that discussion.

The photographs are the photographers *to do with as he/she pleases*.  Period. End of that discussion.

*No amount of discussion on an internet forum is going to change any of these three facts*.  Period. End of that discussion.


----------



## snowbear

480sparky said:


> Copyrights* cannot be sold or transferred or traded*.  Period. End of that discussion.



Not true - per the US Copyright Office: U.S. Copyright Office - Assignment/Transfer of Copyright Ownership (FAQ)

"Are copyrights transferable?
Yes. Like any other property, all or part of the rights in a work may be transferred by the owner to another. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "Transfer of Copyright," for a discussion of ownership."


----------



## Buckster

LOL@photographers, fauxtographers and phowannabes pretending to be legal experts on matters of copyright. :thumbup:


----------



## 480sparky

snowbear said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Copyrights* cannot be sold or transferred or traded*.  Period. End of that discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true - per the US Copyright Office: U.S. Copyright Office - Assignment/Transfer of Copyright Ownership (FAQ)
> 
> "Are copyrights transferable?
> Yes. Like any other property, all or part of the rights in a work may be transferred by the owner to another. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "Transfer of Copyright," for a discussion of ownership."
Click to expand...


You are transferring rights, not the copyright itself.


----------



## snowbear

Ain't we a hoot?


----------



## KmH

From the US Copyright Office Circular 12: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ12.pdf



> *Transfers*
> A &#8220;*transfer of copyright ownership*&#8221; is an assignment, mortgage, grant of an exclusive license, transfer by will or intestate succession, or any other change in the ownership of *any or all the exclusive rights in a copyright*, whether or not it is limited in time or place of effect. It does not include a nonexclusive license.



Since this thread was started Canada re-vamped their copyright laws to be more in line with US copyright law.
It is my understanding that those who commission photography no longer become the copyright owner by statute in Canada.
Canada's Copyright Act


----------



## snowbear

Not to start an argument, but I guess I just don't understand it.

Page 2 of Circular 12 (U.S. Copyright Office) states:

"Owner of Copyright
Only those deriving their rights through the author can own 
copyright in the work. *The author may transfer all or part of 
the copyright to someone else.*"  (Bold emphasis mine)

What am I missing?  I read this to say that I can give, trade or sell the copyright of any of my works to someone else.  Likewise I can buy or otherwise receive the copyright of someone else's work.


----------



## Buckster

snowbear said:


> Not to start an argument, but I guess I just don't understand it.
> 
> Page 2 of Circular 12 (U.S. Copyright Office) states:
> 
> "Owner of Copyright
> Only those deriving their rights through the author can own
> copyright in the work. *The author may transfer all or part of
> the copyright to someone else.*"  (Bold emphasis mine)
> 
> What am I missing?  I read this to say that I can give, trade or sell the copyright of any of my works to someone else.  Likewise I can buy or otherwise receive the copyright of someone else's work.


You're not missing anything.  Everything you just said is true.

From this book, written by a pro photographer and an actual, accomplished, copyright attorney who specializes in representing photographers: Photographer's Survival Manual: A Legal Guide for Artists in the Digital Age (Lark Photography Book): Edward C. Greenberg, Jack Reznicki: 9781600594205: Amazon.com: Books

Following a discussion and clarification on Title 17 of the US Copyright Code, we get this on page 26:



> So that's your bundle of rights under the copyright law.  They're yours unless and until you sell, transfer, or give away your copyright.  Do that and you will lose all control over that image.  Do that and, obviously, you're no longer the copyright owner of the image you created.  You can't put that image in your portfolio or on your website as and example of your work without the written permission of the whomever you've given, sold or transferred the copyright to.  That's why we strongly suggest you never sell, transfer, or give away your copyright - unless, of course, someone wants to pay you an obscene amount of money.  And you should know that many successful photographers have, in fact, carefully licensed to clients all rights for an unlimited time, and charged them obscene amounts of money.  All the while they've maintained ownership of their copyright - the keyword here is "licensed."


There's also discussion elsewhere in the book about how "Work For Hire" is the devil BECAUSE it transfers your copyright away from you and to whomever is employing you for the shoot.

There is further discussion about "Public Domain" and how work ends up in it.  When that happens, you no longer hold the copyright.

The myths about copyright and the law on internet forums is staggering, especially in the forceful nature of those who pretend to be experts when making statements about it.

Period.  End of that discussion.


----------



## Gavjenks

cgipson1 said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who owns the copyright seems pretty irrelevant.  Even if the contractee gains copyright for contracted photos in Canada, the whole point is that it is unclear whether the contract covers UNwatermarked photos, or watermarked photos.  It's a disagreement about what types of photos the contract refers to, not who owns them. I'm sure he would be happy to agree that you own all of your contracted, _watermarked _photos.
> 
> What seems much more relevant here, is that the photographer admitted that it was a mistake.  *Oral contracts are also contracts*, and him admitting this is the equivalent of it being explicitly stated on your written contract that the photos are to be unwatermarked. This would most likely hold up in court, unless he risks committing perjury by denying it, which would be pretty stupid just to avoid giving clean photos to somebody who already paid you...
> 
> 1) Was anybody else there when he told you it was a mistake, like your husband etc.?
> 2) It would be helpful if your written contract also sort of hints or suggests at unwatermarked photos.  You say it doesnt, but would it be possible to post the relevant portions of it here, to be sure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a law student or something? You seem to have a lot of opinions on copyright that a copyright attorney might disagree with. Is is all conjecture, or is there something behind it? Or is this all from that book on photography legal issues I saw you post at one time? Since no one here ever saw the contract, and none of us here are copyright experts (that I know of anyway)... sort of useless to speculate, don't you think?
Click to expand...

If you notice, I specifically asked if the op would post the contract. Of course it hinges mostly on that.

Regarding oral contracts being enforced, I know its true in the u.s. from lawyer counsel personal expwrience on more than one occasion. Then researched if it was also true in canada, and like 6 out of 6 sites said yes.

Not sure what exactly here you find cobtroversial.


----------



## ShooterJ

I love these threads.


----------



## table1349

Gavjenks said:


> If you notice, I specifically asked if the op would post the contract. Of course it hinges mostly on that.



Don't hold your breath on this one there sparky.  The OP's last foray in this forum was on *9/28/2011!!*  :lmao:


----------



## Tailgunner

ShooterJ said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... would it be  possible to post the relevant portions of it here, to be sure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a near 2-year-old thread.  It's unlikely the OP will post anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL... it IS however pretty amusing when it happens.  I've been guilty of responding to an older thread myself ... and without fail, eventually somebody comes along and points it out. :lmao:
Click to expand...


Yup, and here it goes again lol


----------



## ShooterJ

:lmao:


----------



## TCampbell

480sparky said:


> In the US, only ONE person owns the copyright.... *and that is the person who took the photos*.  Period.  End of that discussion.




Not necessarily.  

See "Works made for hire":   http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

The safe play is to make sure your contract includes language which clarifies who will own the copyright.


----------



## Gavjenks

> Don't hold your breath on this one there sparky.  The OP's last foray in this forum was on *9/28/2011!!*  :lmao:


Ah thanks.  That is sad. It was an interesting situation, and would have been neat to see if the guy worded it sneakily to cover his watermarking, or if it were actually just a lazy assumption / casual arrogance.



> LOL@photographers, fauxtographers and phowannabes pretending to be legal experts on matters of copyright. :thumbup:





> Are you a law student or something? You seem to have a lot of opinions  on copyright that a copyright attorney might disagree with. Is is all  conjecture, or is there something behind it? Or is this all from that  book on photography legal issues I saw you post at one time? Since no  one here ever saw the contract, and none of us here are copyright  experts (that I know of anyway)... sort of useless to speculate, don't  you think?



Yes, I agree with both of you. "Lol, useless," indeed. Because heaven forbid anybody research, learn, or talk about anything they are not a certified "expert" in. Anybody who does that must be desperate, foolish, have suspicious ulterior motives, or be formally working toward the aforementioned professional degree. Instead, we should all just have expensive professionals do everything for us and avoid any self-education or mutual sharing of knowledge in any way that does not directly relate to our own personal career. That's why I always have certified electricians change my light bulbs, plumbers unclog my toilets, and French chefs toast my bread in the morning. It's sort of useless to attempt any of these things myself, don't you think? Unnecessary effort, plus I might get a little dirt on my clothes and look poor in front of everybody else at the yacht club.

*...Meanwhile, in the real world:*

The law is relevant to every photographer, whether or not they happen to be a copyright lawyer, whether or not they can afford to go pay a copyright lawyer hundreds of dollars for opinions, and whether or not they happen to be able to find detailed, relevant, and up to date information about their specific situation in a static book (often not).

For those times when money isn't growing on trees and a situation is tricky or ambiguous, the most efficient alternative is to do basic *personal research*, most likely online, of current case law, local and federal statutes, etc. And if you don't know where to start or what terms to search for, forums are often a legitimate good first step in that research, to highlight which things ideas or facts you can go explore further or double check that you might not have considered before, for free. Similar to Wikipedia.

So no, I (and probably the other people talking about the law here) am not any sort of official expert. I don't have a law degree, I'm not working toward one. But I'm also not pretending anything or randomly speculating. I'm doing basic primary and secondary research (often an hour or so for a random post about something like this) and then sharing my results. Because:

1) I think learning is fun, and forum questions are a great inspiration for interesting questions to learn about.
2) I'm obviously a somewhat argumentative and rationally-oriented person, and the law is right up my alley as a hobby, and
3) I get to legitimately help people who couldn't afford a lawyer and might not be as experienced as I am at researching things, or who simply don't have the free time, and thus came onto a forum to ask other community members.


----------



## ShooterJ

Not that the OP cares considering the age of the post... but this IS interesting. Can an individual research something on their own? Sure... but that doesn't, and IMO, never will qualify them to give advice on it. The law is extremely complex.. a benefit of an attorney who has gone to school is that he/she is well versed in MANIPULATING the law as needed to serve the client/state interest. That's real world, that's how it happens. If you doubt that, you haven't spent much time in court rooms ( I HAVE spent a considerable amount of time in them watching attorneys find the loopholes)... I have a lot of training in military/law enforcement... could you google information on a lot of the things I've been trained in? Sure you could! Would that qualify you to be effective in doing or teaching those things? Not in your wildest dreams... you might be able to make an attempt on a paintball field, but nobody is going to put their life in your "expert" hands because you "read something"...likewise, I wouldn't put a legal matter into an individuals hands because they "read something"... in a legal matter, everything you do, say and record can mean the difference between winning or losing a case...and sometimes, it doesn't even matter if you're right (that depends on how good the attorney is on the OTHER side)... 

Research to your hearts content, but if you go into a courtroom with a truly educated and seasoned attorney, he's going to chew you up and spit you out. I've seen it too many times when someone thought they'd "learned enough" to represent themselves.


----------



## cgipson1

Gavjenks said:


> 3)* I get to legitimately help people who couldn't afford a lawyer and might not be as experienced as I am at researching things, or who simply don't have the free time, and thus came onto a forum to ask other community members.*



My one problem with this: Are you going to pay for an attorney to help anyone that gets in trouble from following your inexpert advice? It happens! (of course, if anyone is dumb enough to actually follow amateur legal advice obtained on the 'net, they probably deserve what they get). 

But that would be the Antithesis of Helping Someone.... wouldn't it?


----------



## ShooterJ

cgipson1 said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3)* I get to legitimately help people who couldn't afford a lawyer and might not be as experienced as I am at researching things, or who simply don't have the free time, and thus came onto a forum to ask other community members.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My one problem with this: Are you going to pay for an attorney to help anyone that gets in trouble from following your inexpert advice? It happens! (of course, if anyone is dumb enough to actually follow amateur legal advice obtained on the 'net, they probably deserve what they get).
> 
> But that would be the Antithesis of Helping Someone.... wouldn't it?
Click to expand...


This would be why people I arrest have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.. you know, that part about "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"

There are good reasons people are told to seek legal advice from a professional. Hehehe


----------



## Tailgunner

ShooterJ said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3)* I get to legitimately help people who couldn't afford a lawyer and might not be as experienced as I am at researching things, or who simply don't have the free time, and thus came onto a forum to ask other community members.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My one problem with this: Are you going to pay for an attorney to help anyone that gets in trouble from following your inexpert advice? It happens! (of course, if anyone is dumb enough to actually follow amateur legal advice obtained on the 'net, they probably deserve what they get).
> 
> But that would be the Antithesis of Helping Someone.... wouldn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This would be why people I arrest have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.. you know, that part about "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"
> 
> There are good reasons people are told to seek legal advice from a professional. Hehehe
Click to expand...


Yup, an officer is not your friend when being detained or arrested...talk about the weather but nothing else until you retain an attorney.


----------



## KmH

snowbear said:


> Not to start an argument, but I guess I just don't understand it.
> 
> Page 2 of Circular 12 (U.S. Copyright Office) states:
> 
> "Owner of Copyright
> Only those deriving their rights through the author can own
> copyright in the work. *The author may transfer all or part of
> the copyright to someone else.*"  (Bold emphasis mine)
> 
> What am I missing?  I read this to say that I can give, trade or sell the copyright of any of my works to someone else.  Likewise I can buy or otherwise receive the copyright of someone else's work.


Yes. That is essentially what copyright use licensing is all about.

Use licensing usually stipulates the transfers is only valid for a limited time period, effectively making the use license a rental agreement as opposed to an outright sale.

Photo contests that are thinly veiled rights grabs include submission rules that demand the copyright owner grant usage in perpetuity, and in any manner the contest owners want.

"Work for Hire" only applies if there is a document signed by both parties stating "Work for Hire" applies - per Circular 9, page 1 - Definition in Law. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf


> . . .if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. . .


----------



## table1349

Tailgunner said:


> Yup, an officer is not your friend when being detained or arrested...talk about the weather but nothing else until you retain an attorney.


Are these words of experiece or are you just guessing?


----------



## ShooterJ

Tailgunner said:


> ShooterJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My one problem with this: Are you going to pay for an attorney to help anyone that gets in trouble from following your inexpert advice? It happens! (of course, if anyone is dumb enough to actually follow amateur legal advice obtained on the 'net, they probably deserve what they get).
> 
> But that would be the Antithesis of Helping Someone.... wouldn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This would be why people I arrest have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.. you know, that part about "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"
> 
> There are good reasons people are told to seek legal advice from a professional. Hehehe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, an officer is not your friend when being detained or arrested...talk about the weather but nothing else until you retain an attorney.
Click to expand...


That IS correct though.. if I have a reason to be putting you in handcuffs, I'm not your friend.  I'm not your enemy either and depending on your circumstances I might even try to help with your case or speak on your behalf in court.. BUT, I still have a job to do and anything you tell me is evidence in the case at that point.

That being said, a word of caution if you are arrested and an officer does NOT read your rights... a lot of people start rambling because this wasn't done like they'd seen on TV.  So understand the following...

I don't HAVE to read you your rights, unless I intend to question you.  However, if you volunteer something, I CAN still use it.  So whether you're given a Miranda Warning or not, just sit quietly and continue saying nothing.


----------



## Tailgunner

gryphonslair99 said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, an officer is not your friend when being detained or arrested...talk about the weather but nothing else until you retain an attorney.
> 
> 
> 
> Are these words of experiece or are you just guessing?
Click to expand...


Well, just say I have been known to break a few speeding laws in my younger days.


----------



## table1349

Tailgunner said:


> Well, just say I have been known to break a few speeding laws in my younger days.


----------



## KmH

"Officer, I appreciate and respect the job you do, but it is in my best interests to refrain from saying any more than I am legally required to without my legal representation present."


----------



## ShooterJ

Outstanding .. I appreciate your support and your right to remain silent. Get in the car.. I have **** to do. 

:lmao:

Sorry...


----------



## table1349

KmH said:


> "Officer, I appreciate and respect the job you do, but it is in my best interests to refrain from saying any more than I am legally required to without my legal representation present."


Too damn much fluff there Keith.  As Nancy Reagan would have said.  Just sy "NO!"


----------



## nycphotography

Gavjenks said:


> Yes, I agree with both of you. "Lol, useless," indeed. Because heaven forbid anybody research, learn, or talk about anything they are not a certified "expert" in. Anybody who does that must be desperate, foolish, have suspicious ulterior motives, or be formally working toward the aforementioned professional degree. Instead, we should all just have expensive professionals do everything for us and avoid any self-education or mutual sharing of knowledge in any way that does not directly relate to our own personal career. That's why I always have certified electricians change my light bulbs, plumbers unclog my toilets, and French chefs toast my bread in the morning. It's sort of useless to attempt any of these things myself, don't you think? Unnecessary effort, plus I might get a little dirt on my clothes and look poor in front of everybody else at the yacht club.
> 
> *...Meanwhile, in the real world:* ...



LOL grave digging on old threads aside... You've pretty much summed up my angst about the general attitude around legal, tax, business and regulatory issues.  "Don't bother to learn anything, that's why we have $400/hr professionals.  Oh, and make sure you get 20 licenses and 40 kinds of insurance."

What's even more remarkable to me... when I wanted to learn about all these different subjects growing up, I had to drag my ass down to the public library (or university law library) and spend a day wandering around skimming TOCs and indexes trying to find what books would be relevant.  Now with the internet, theoretically at least, much more of this information is available to anyone who bothers to turn on their computer for anything more useful than watching porn.  Yet, people today are even more ignorant than ever?  Manage to explain that fact, and all of a sudden a whole lot of things about the world snap into focus.

BTW: If you bother to learn anything about the world around you, the types and amounts of "insurance" you need goes down dramatically.  And paying an expensive professional to tell you what you already know (or could reasonably find out) certainly qualifies as insurance in my book.  If I were Donald Trump, it might qualify as time management.  But I'm not, so it still counts as insurance ;-)


----------



## nycphotography

cgipson1 said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3)* I get to legitimately help people who couldn't afford a lawyer and might not be as experienced as I am at researching things, or who simply don't have the free time, and thus came onto a forum to ask other community members.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My one problem with this: Are you going to pay for an attorney to help anyone that gets in trouble from following your inexpert advice? It happens! (of course, if anyone is dumb enough to actually follow amateur legal advice obtained on the 'net, they probably deserve what they get).
> 
> * But that would be the Antithesis of Helping Someone.... wouldn't it?*
Click to expand...


My problem here is that this is the same argument given to not administer CPR to a dying man.  What if I break his ribs in the process and then he sues me?

By and large, this general refusal to assist is a cop out... generally based on ignorance or laziness yet usually expressed in terms of avoiding liability.


----------



## ShooterJ

It's still dangerous to read a bit and think you've got the skills, experience and education to combat at a legal matter that an attorney is trained for.

I've seen this line of thinking a lot and then people are surprised when a lawyer tears them apart.

If you need legal advice, an attorney knows how a court works (it's a game to them and one that they play well).

Spending an hour or two on the net or a day at the library won't stack up to a pro who makes his/her living at being prepared to contest an issue before a judge. Advising people to take action based on your day of research, in a legal proceeding that will pit them against legal professionals is not sound advice.

I've seen people who should be in prison walk because their attorney knew how to play. That's how it works ... it sucks, but it's realistic.  Don't think or lead others to believe that the internet or a library is going to prepare you for it.. it simply will not.


----------



## nycphotography

ShooterJ said:


> It's still dangerous to read a bit and think you've got the skills, experience and education to combat at a legal matter that an attorney is trained for.
> 
> I've seen this line of thinking a lot and then people are surprised when a lawyer tears them apart.
> 
> If you need legal advice, an attorney knows how a court works (it's a game to them and one that they play well).
> 
> Spending an hour or two on the net or a day at the library won't stack up to a pro who makes his/her living at being prepared to contest an issue before a judge. Advising people to take action based on your day of research, in a legal proceeding that will pit them against legal professionals is not sound advice.
> 
> I've seen people who should be in prison walk because their attorney knew how to play. That's how it works ... it sucks, but it's realistic.  Don't think or lead others to believe that the internet or a library is going to prepare you for it.. it simply will not.



All true, granted your presumption that the person being addressed is an idiot.

however, to the degree that the person in question is NOT an idiot your conclusion becomes less universal and should be further qualified.  If you are going to make statements of fact, they should be true for all people all the time, otherwise they are not facts, they are opinions.

It is in fact _possible_ for a sufficiently motivated person of reasonable intelligence to avail themselves of the information available in lieu of retaining an expensive professional.


----------



## ShooterJ

I'm not suggesting they're an idiot or that they're intelligent.  I'm stating that they're attempting to play a game with people who have played it a lot longer and know how to win.


----------



## ShooterJ

I have skill sets which experience has made second nature for me... could you read on those for a day and then compete with me?


----------



## ShooterJ

My point is that reading for a day, or two days .. or a month ... doesn't hold up well against someone who's trained AND has the benefit of practical application.  

I can hit a target a LONG way off ... I was trained to do it by other people who knew how. I had experience with the application of it... I know what you can and can't do.. what will make you successful and what will bury you.

If you read about it for a YEAR but never actually fired a shot .. you'd lose when we put up targets. Experience is ALWAYS a factor... that's true in legal matters just like it is everywhere else.


----------



## Buckster

nycphotography said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3)* I get to legitimately help people who couldn't afford a lawyer and might not be as experienced as I am at researching things, or who simply don't have the free time, and thus came onto a forum to ask other community members.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My one problem with this: Are you going to pay for an attorney to help anyone that gets in trouble from following your inexpert advice? It happens! (of course, if anyone is dumb enough to actually follow amateur legal advice obtained on the 'net, they probably deserve what they get).
> 
> * But that would be the Antithesis of Helping Someone.... wouldn't it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My problem here is that this is the same argument given to not administer CPR to a dying man.
Click to expand...

No, it's more like "teaching" someone that CPR is done by putting a pillow over the victim's face and holding it down firmly for at least 5 minutes so that no bad air is ingested, and then someone goes and does it.

The point is that when the information given is ill-informed bulls**t, it can lead to a disaster.  "Well sure, I was wrong and in hindsight my advice sucked, but at least I _*TRIED*_ to help" isn't a valid excuse for someone to be passing out bulls**t as though they're an expert.


----------



## cgipson1

nycphotography said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3)* I get to legitimately help people who couldn't afford a lawyer and might not be as experienced as I am at researching things, or who simply don't have the free time, and thus came onto a forum to ask other community members.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My one problem with this: Are you going to pay for an attorney to help anyone that gets in trouble from following your inexpert advice? It happens! (of course, if anyone is dumb enough to actually follow amateur legal advice obtained on the 'net, they probably deserve what they get).
> 
> * But that would be the Antithesis of Helping Someone.... wouldn't it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My problem here is that this is the same argument given to not administer CPR to a dying man.  What if I break his ribs in the process and then he sues me?
> 
> By and large, this general refusal to assist is a cop out... generally based on ignorance or laziness yet usually expressed in terms of avoiding liability.
Click to expand...


Ignorance and Laziness? Really?  lol! How about arrogance and cockiness... the other end of this discussion!


----------



## ShooterJ

Isn't it kind of like people who read about photography, never actually done any of it and then post here on the forum trying to sound professional?

Oh how the pros despise that... when people think that some internet reading trumps all those years that they invested in learning and practicing the craft.

Make no mistake law practice is a craft... those guys are counting on you being ignorant. If you THINK you know what you're doing, even better.. they'll bait and trap you without breaking a sweat.

People don't like to admit that no matter how intelligent they are or how many books they've read, they just don't stack up to people who DO rather than read.


----------



## cgipson1

nycphotography said:


> And paying an expensive professional to tell you what you already know (or could reasonably find out) certainly qualifies as insurance in my book.



and then you end up in court, and you realize you are screwed because you don't know as much as you thought you did. And it ends up costing way more than that "Professional" would have cost you! Sure, Have fun!

I see this as an extension of the whole Quasi-PRO Photographer thing where amateurs suddenly declare themselves as experts in a field that they have very little knowledge in. Sounds exactly like it... 

Read a book (or watch a Youtube video), form an opinion, maybe blog a little on it.. instant expert status conferred....


----------



## ShooterJ

Holy chit, I beat Charlie to it... *victory dance*


----------



## cgipson1

ShooterJ said:


> *Isn't it kind of like people who read about photography, never actually done any of it and then post here on the forum trying to sound professional?
> *



Amazing.. we had similar thoughts on this... lol!


----------



## cgipson1

ShooterJ said:


> Holy chit, I beat Charlie to it... *victory dance*



Victory dance the right way, dude! This way>   
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  lol!


----------



## tirediron

I'm pretty sure that this has wandered far enough off of the rails.


----------

