# Should I be the good guy or the bad guy?



## Sweetneers (Dec 19, 2011)

So, a few months ago I had a shoot with a client. This was a three location, 5+ outfit shoot. I did this as a favor, and did not charge anything. Once the shoot was over, I did everything as usual, editing the photos, placing them on my website and my facebook. The photos on my website are protected, and can not be downloaded in anyway. I also placed them on facebook, with a watermark as usual. 

About a week later I get a phone call, "Hey this is [Client's mother's name] I am going to order some photos, and we know that there is a proofing delay after we order them so we wanted to see what to totally edited photos will look like before we order them." Typically, I'm happy to do this for a client, because I understand that an edited photo can sometimes not be as appealing as they thought it would be. I went ahead and edited 52 of the photos. This took about 10+ hours (unpaid hours, mind you.). They never ordered anything.

Then, I get another phone call. "Hey, this is [Client's mother's name]. [Client's name] has an audition for a disney show, and we were wondering if we could get a totally edited photo for the her headshot. Some time this week, I'm going to order the other photos too." So, I decided I might as well go ahead and edit this picture. I post the photo to my site, and nothing ever gets ordered. 

So today, I log on to facebook to see the girl has taken her cell phone, taken a picture of the picture on her computer screen (You could see the RGB pixels in the photo), edited it (Or should I say butchered it?), and posted it to her Facebook. Now, I'm not a total ass. I post my photos to Facebook, so people can use them as their profile pictures; however, they're photos I've edited with, and they're high resolution images that make me look like a professional. The image she posted makes me look like a mom with a point and shoot. Not to mention, I never even gave her the rights to any image, the copyrights to edit the image, or the right to post it.

So here's my question should I talk to the girl, file a DMCA takedown, or just let it be, even if it makes me look bad?

*&#8203;Here's the original and the photo she posted.

Original:
*





*
Her version:
*


----------



## o hey tyler (Dec 19, 2011)

I ran into a similar situation where someone (who I didn't know personally) downloaded one of my photos from facebook, that a mutual friend was tagged in. He then edited the photo, and posted it to his photography facebook page as an "edit". I immediately messaged the person, and after waiting 2 hours for a response, I filed a facebook intellectual property claim. I posted the original .jpeg URL in the description as well as a link to his image. I told them that it was copyrighted material and he did not ask permission to edit. Facebook had the photo down in under 2 hours, and I received an apology from the offender. 

The best you can do is politely tell her that she's breaking copyright laws, and that she needs to remove the edited photo at once. You should also tell her that if she fails to comply, that you are taking the necessary steps to file a DMCA report and will have the image removed by facebook itself. 

At least, that's what I'd do.


----------



## o hey tyler (Dec 19, 2011)

P.S. Good luck with the whole ordeal. TBH, I'd say you made out fairly well in terms of the potential edits that took place...  The photo of mine that was edited had a large blue sunburst put behind the subject that overpowered the rest of the photo, and it made me literally throw up in my mouth and defecate at the same time. 

It was that bad.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 19, 2011)

I love it!!! Her Facebook shot looks pretty good! Except for that weird line of sawdust or whatever in the background that leads the eye right out of the picture. Her butchering of the image is enough punishment. I guess this is a lesson learned...you cannot work without a contract and money up FRONT.


----------



## TCUphoto (Dec 19, 2011)

Wow it's sad how often this happens. This happened to me as well, as I took pictures as a favor for a professor who is in charge of my medical rotations next year. She cropped out my watermark in all the images I put on facebook, reposted them on facebook, and then blocked me. I didn't say anything just because of the position I'm in. However, I would definitely say something to the girl, or mention it to the mom next time she talks to you. You've done them a big enough favor, and that's very disrespectful to you and your work. That's just my 2 cents...


----------



## o hey tyler (Dec 19, 2011)

TCUphoto said:


> Wow it's sad how often this happens. This happened to me as well, as I took pictures as a favor for a professor who is in charge of my medical rotations next year. She cropped out my watermark in all the images I put on facebook, reposted them on facebook, and then blocked me. I didn't say anything just because of the position I'm in. However, I would definitely say something to the girl, or mention it to the mom next time she talks to you. You've done them a big enough favor, and that's very disrespectful to you and your work. That's just my 2 cents...



Why don't you file a DMCA claim? I wouldn't hesitate. It's your intellectual property. If you get flack for it, fight it. Don't get walked on because you are a student.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Dec 19, 2011)

Seriously though, 52 images dont take 10 hours to edit.  You need to work on your workflow.  It doesnt even take me 10 hours to edit a whole wedding with 1000+ shots to cull trough.

If your edit isnt that fast, I really suggest not posting that many.  Maybe 15?  Just pick best of the best.  Do you have LR3?


----------



## rub (Dec 19, 2011)

Retouching can definately take time, if thats what the "fully edited" shot means.  Acne, bad teeth, stray hairs.  Editing is a much faster process  than retouching.  At least for me.  I can easily spend 10-20 mins on a single boudoir image.


----------



## orljustin (Dec 20, 2011)

Well, you did 15 hours of work for free, why should they not move forward thinking they can take whatever they like at no cost.

FYI, most of your images are underexposed or have really bad, harsh lighting, like you shot them in a tunnel with one flash:
Brittany Hill | Facebook

You've definitely overworked the "sure I'll edit for free" thing.  Most of those are very similar.

Btw, regarding "The photos on my website are protected, and can not be downloaded in anyway." :
http://images.us.viewbook.com/b99a355e015b8fb27a7b1fd5906f141e_hd.jpg
http://images.us.viewbook.com/0f267f0c0371198aa27edd3b0a4d3bf0_hd.jpg

etc.


----------



## photo guy (Dec 20, 2011)

I had this happen recently where I posted some photos to a site (dumb me, no watermark or logo) and some people used some of them for profile photos without permission.  I then posted a responce on the site saying they can be used ONLY WITH PERMISSION FIRST.  Nothing happened, so I contacted site admin. and the photos were down within 2 hours as no one responded to ask permission.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 20, 2011)

rub said:


> Retouching can definately take time, if thats what the "fully edited" shot means.  Acne, bad teeth, stray hairs.  Editing is a much faster process  than retouching.  At least for me.  I can easily spend 10-20 mins on a single boudoir image.


Easily!  I've spent up to an hour working on a single image because that was the one that the clients REALLY wanted for whatever reason.  Difference is, I charge for editing time...


----------



## mjhoward (Dec 20, 2011)

Be the bad guy.


----------



## TCUphoto (Dec 20, 2011)

I don't even think if you said something you should consider yourself a "bad" guy. You did them a huge favor and they're taking advantage of it. They are being "bad", you are simply protecting your work.


----------



## KmH (Dec 20, 2011)

Sweetneers said:


> The photos on my website are protected, and can not be downloaded in anyway.



If they are online, they can be copied. 



Sweetneers said:


> I post the photo to my site, and nothing ever gets ordered.


They don't need to order. They got from you what they wanted. 

Your problems are mostly related to poor business practices.


----------



## Sweetneers (Dec 20, 2011)

orljustin said:


> Well, you did 15 hours of work for free, why should they not move forward thinking they can take whatever they like at no cost.
> 
> FYI, most of your images are underexposed or have really bad, harsh lighting, like you shot them in a tunnel with one flash:
> Brittany Hill | Facebook
> ...



I'd like to address three points. 

1) The images were, in fact, shot in a tunnel with one flash. (Didn't really ask for critique, though.)
2) The images on facebook, and some of them on my website, are not the retouched photos.
3) The images you managed to download, were not protected. I simply meant, the ones in her gallery. The only way should could download them was to screenshot it, and get a small image, or take a photo with her phone, as she clearly did.

Thanks for not answering my original post.


----------



## orljustin (Dec 20, 2011)

Well, she can get 600x900 px images from facebook and easily crop out the logo.  I mean, that's a 4x6 of acceptable quality.  Or just get them from your site without the logo:
http://www.zackcarpenterphotography...d7MdhH/0/XL/ZackCarpenterPhotography-2-XL.jpg

Sorry to bust on you - I see you're just a high schooler.  Let this one go and take what you've learned here to improve for next time.


----------



## etnad0 (Dec 21, 2011)

Sweetneers said:


> orljustin said:
> 
> 
> > Well, you did 15 hours of work for free, why should they not move forward thinking they can take whatever they like at no cost.
> ...



I've been dealing with computers since I was your age and more specifically web design. There is no such thing as an image that can't be copied from your site. You have a script that blocks right click? So what? There is a plugin for FireFox that blocks your script. In fact, there are other options to turn off scripts completely. If you put it online people can get it. Don't think they can't. She might not have known how but it can be done. Send me a link to her gallery and I'll show you.


----------



## orljustin (Dec 21, 2011)

Already showed him.  It's called "checking the cache".


----------



## etnad0 (Dec 21, 2011)

orljustin said:


> Already showed him.  It's called "checking the cache".



Yeah, I saw that lol. When he said they were unprotected (the ones you grabbed), I figured I'd do what you did when he posted his "protected" link. He'll learn eventually.


----------



## Kolander (Dec 22, 2011)

You may show in your website the photos with the size of a post stamp, and of course 40 dpi resolution. Then, if someone wants any pictures in big size, he must first send you a transfer. Greetings.


----------



## orljustin (Dec 22, 2011)

Kolander said:


> You may show in your website the photos with the size of a post stamp, and of course 40 dpi resolution.



Of course, DPI means nothing.  You've just got to keep the pixel dimensions small with a watermark and some jpeg compression.


----------



## Kolander (Dec 22, 2011)

Well, a low DPI means that they couldn't PRINT the picture, of course an important matter if you earn your living selling pictures.


----------



## orljustin (Dec 22, 2011)

Open in Photoshop, change dpi to whatever.  Voila.

Open in Windows Viewer.  Pick size.  Voila.

etc.


----------



## KmH (Dec 22, 2011)

Well, it's not even dpi you're talking about, it's ppi.

Kind of like calling feet, inches.


----------



## Kolander (Dec 22, 2011)

orljustin said:


> Open in Photoshop, change dpi to whatever.  Voila.



 Is it a joke? Try to increase a low resolution, and then print the picture. Tell us what you see.


----------



## orljustin (Dec 22, 2011)

I would see an image printed at the size I requested.

For instance, a 300x600 pixel image, when told to print at 300 dpi would make a print 1 inch x 2 inch, which would look pretty fine for a tiny image.  On the other hand, if I told it to print at 30 dpi, I'd have a pretty crappy looking 10 inch x 20 inch print.

Are you sure you know what you're trying to say?


----------



## gsgary (Dec 22, 2011)

I hope she got the Disney show, she could do with some exercise, bit of a porker


----------



## j_mejia17 (Dec 22, 2011)

^ROTFL! Im glad Im not the only one thinking this.  Boy this thread has really derailed now...


----------



## etnad0 (Dec 22, 2011)

gsgary said:


> I hope she got the Disney show, she could do with some exercise, bit of a porker



I disagree. Big women are sexy too. Who the hell like boney women? If I can see bones when a woman stretches I toss her back to the dogs. LOL


----------



## Kolander (Dec 23, 2011)

orljustin said:


> ...if I told it to print at 30 dpi, I'd have a pretty crappy looking 10 inch x 20 inch print.
> 
> Are you sure you know what you're trying to say?



I think you are not, ask your lab for that :meh:


----------



## orljustin (Dec 23, 2011)

So, you're disagreeing with me that a 300x600 pixel image at 30 dpi would produce a 10 x 20 inch image?  I think you need to talk to your "lab".  Or get a calculator.


----------



## Kolander (Dec 23, 2011)

Nobody was talking about 300 x 600 pixel, please read what I said: *post stamp size *at 40 dpi. Try to increase it )


----------



## Hereindallas (Dec 23, 2011)

Back to the original question.  I would have the image removed.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Dec 23, 2011)

You should have charged her. Next time put a watermark on her face.


----------



## PhotoTish (Dec 23, 2011)

I guess it would be very unprofessional to take the images down and then just post a couple edited with a Santa hat and long white beard ... I think the girl and her mother have taken advantage of you and you should ask that the photo be removed.  Yeah, be the bad guy :thumbup:


----------



## Kolander (Dec 24, 2011)

It is very easy, I repeat, you just show thumbnails in very low resolution. If they want a nice print, or a background, they must pay you for it, then you send the file with the right parameters.

If not, this is what they'll get increasing the thumbnail to a *postcard *size. Gorgeous, eh? :mrgreen:


----------

