D’OH!

Some recent news for photographers was a spat between two photographers in the Northeast. It seems Photographer A took pictures for Photographer B of Photographer B’s children playing in the mud. Cute, no? The problem started, however, when Photographer B started her own photography business and used those pictures to sell the exact same thing - pictures of kids in mud puddles. And Photorgapher A onbjected. And one thing led to another and what do you think happened? A lawsuit?

No, an actual physical altercation.

Nonetheless, as I explained in my post about copyrights, Photographer B had, in fact, violated the copyright of Photographer A by using those pictures to promote her business, even if the subjects in the photos were Photographer B’s kids.

It led me to look at Photographer B’s social media and I found this:

Oh, that is a lovely idea. Families and cute children in lavender fields. As mentioned above, however, this photographer had already burned some bridges in the local photography community (what with copyright violation and catfighting) and someone mentioned Photographer B’s offer to the owner of the lavender fields.

Which did not make Photograph B happy.

Okay, enough of catty replies, here is the lesson to be learned from this:

A professional photographer is obligated to be aware of all restrictions and risks before bringing a client to a location.

Unfortunately, there is a mindset among inexperienced photographers that anything goes to get the shot, to include using private property without the owner’s permission. We have a word for that: TRESPASSING. As an attorney, I could argued that absent notice, such as a “NO TRESPASSING” sign, the persons could not be found culpable. That is fine for a random field along the roadside (and I know a photographer who jumped into one only to be chased out not by the famer . . . but by his bull - yikes!).

But let’s look at a situation like this with reasonable eyes. If someone owns a property on which they are conducting their business (suchas a lavender farm) it does not make sense that anyone can bring their business onto the property to make a profit (lavender field mini-sessiosn) and not have the owner’s permission and possibly pay for the privilege of doing business there.

Locally, we have had this same problem. Knoxville is known for its Dogwood Arts festival and one highlight is the Baxter estate being open to the public for the month of April. Baxter Gardens is owned by the Baxter family who live on it. Their home is right there and it is open because of their generosity. As of now, commercial photographers are banned since too many were advertising mini-sessions and basically setting up camp for the day in “photogenic” spots that deprived other guests from ejoying them, of course without permission. A regular mini-session offered by photographers is at Christmas tree farms for holiday pictures. One owner of a local farm told me, he had to place restrictions because too many photographers were bringing their clients into the rows and actually cutting down trees to stage shots - and then just leaving the cut trees lying there! They had non regard for his bottom line, destroying the assets he hoped to sell.

Be careful. Many locations require permission and usually a form of pass or membership before a photographer can use the site. A photographer who wants to take a shortcut around that is also likely to take a shortcut with their craft and deliver mediocre work to you. Recognize that there is a value beyond your photographs in using a professional photographer - they are looking out for your safety as well.