Stock/Model shots in Wedding portfolios...

daycent

I'm just wondering what peoples thoughts are regarding stock and model photos being used to promote wedding photographers.

I have come across a good few websites in the past with photos that stick out a mile to me as model/stock shots.

They are different issues I suppose. I would have a problem with people who go on wedding photography courses, or hire models, and use those photos as realistic representations of their ability. As anyone who has shot a wedding can tell you, you usually only have a second to react to something or the moment is gone. The ability to foresee these situations, or to react in time, is a large part of what makes a good photographer IMO.

Worse again is the use of stock shots that the photographer hasn't even taken themselves. There was an ad earlier in Tipp FM (I didn't hear it myself) about a competition to win €1000 euro towards wedding photography for one "lucky" listener. I decided to have a look at the photographer's website as you do. In amongst the handful of cameraphone-esqe shots was one that looked to be of a far higher standard than the others (as in, an acceptable standard). Well, I decided to do my Jessica Fletcher act again (I don't do this all the time I swear ). I searched the photo using tineye, and would you believe it, turns out it's a stock shot. I won't name the photographer in question (for the moment anyway)

This kind of thing seems common enough from what I've seen. How are the rest of us supposed to compete with this kind of stuff going on? Is it legal?

Cameraman

daycent wrote: »

I'm just wondering what peoples thoughts are regarding stock and model photos being used to promote wedding photographers.

I have come across a good few websites in the past with photos that stick out a mile to me as model/stock shots.

They are different issues I suppose. I would have a problem with people who go on wedding photography courses, or hire models, and use those photos as realistic representations of their ability. As anyone who has shot a wedding can tell you, you usually only have a second to react to something or the moment is gone. The ability to foresee these situations, or to react in time, is a large part of what makes a good photographer IMO.

Worse again is the use of stock shots that the photographer hasn't even taken themselves. There was an ad earlier in Tipp FM (I didn't hear it myself) about a competition to win €1000 euro towards wedding photography for one "lucky" listener. I decided to have a look at the photographer's website as you do. In amongst the handful of cameraphone-esqe shots was one that looked to be of a far higher standard than the others (as in, an acceptable standard). Well, I decided to do my Jessica Fletcher act again (I don't do this all the time I swear ). I searched the photo using tineye, and would you believe it, turns out it's a stock shot. I won't name the photographer in question (for the moment anyway)

This kind of thing seems common enough from what I've seen. How are the rest of us supposed to compete with this kind of stuff going on? Is it legal?

I don't think anything you've mentioned is actually illegal - but it's certainly unethical and misleading. I think it's something that mainly happens when photographers are starting out, and don't have a portfolio of pictures to show.

It's interesting to see how many 'wedding' photos on some sites appear to have noone else in the church during the wedding.

The simplest way for the bride to avoid this is to ask to see full albums and full sets of photos from recent weddings.

BTW, nothing wrong with doing model, 'fashion' shoots or workshops - they're excellent practice. Just don't pass them off as real weddings.

smelltheglove

I have come across on a few occasions websites that had just one sample wedding with no apparent presence of guests....

I am sure the courses are great for experience but the difference between shooting a model and shooting a normal couple who are not used to the camera is HUGE. I dont think it is ethical to include these as sample pictures.

Fatscally

Cameraman wrote: »

I don't think anything you've mentioned is actually illegal - but it's certainly unethical and misleading.

Would it not be false advertising?


I totally agree with the OP. I hate albums where on one page they're in a castle, then on a beach, then in a forest, then under a waterfall.... and this is supposed to be all in a real wedding day's work?!:eek:

Cameraman

Fatscally wrote: »

Would it not be false advertising?

I suppose it's a 'grey area'. If someone actually says "I've shot 100 weddings" and they haven't - then I think that would be somewhat fraudulent. However, otherwise - then it's not so clearcut.

BTW, I think the proper way around this for beginners is to just be honest about how much or little experience they have and set the brides' expectations appropriately.

VisionaryP

Fatscally wrote: »

Would it not be false advertising?


I totally agree with the OP. I hate albums where on one page they're in a castle, then on a beach, then in a forest, then under a waterfall.... and this is supposed to be all in a real wedding day's work?!:eek:

You'd be surprised. I had one couple go to a beach, a forest and a running track on their real wedding day!

DotOrg

Fatscally wrote: »

I hate albums where on one page they're in a castle, then on a beach, then in a forest, then under a waterfall.... and this is supposed to be all in a real wedding day's work?!:eek:

I've done a wedding where the church was beside a beach, did some shots there, then did some portraits of the couple in a wood (with a waterfall) and then the reception was in a castle

eas

I've noticed this before - although I'd feel bad for the couple falling for the smoke & mirrors trickery, I don't think people doing this type of thing are much to worry about, they won't be around long.

If they're sh*t, they're sh*t. There's not enough posting fakes on your website that will change that. They'll eventually end up in court or beaten by the mother of the bride - either way exit left.

If they're not sh*t and end up being legitimate competition, then fair dues to them. I'd treat them with the respect they deserve and try beat them by being better than they are.

Cameraman

eas wrote: »

I've noticed this before - although I'd feel bad for the couple falling for the smoke & mirrors trickery, I don't think people doing this type of thing are much to worry about, they won't be around long.

If they're sh*t, they're sh*t. There's not enough posting fakes on your website that will change that. They'll eventually end up in court or beaten by the mother of the bride - either way exit left.

If they're not sh*t and end up being legitimate competition, then fair dues to them. I'd treat them with the respect they deserve and try beat them by being better than they are.

My worry is not competing with them - it's any false expectations they might create about their ability, and if they manage to do a decent job on the day for the B&G.

AnCatDubh

Yes to all of the above in measures.

Stock images are very much bordering on the unethical imho in so far as they aren't your work so unless you've credited them to a stock agency then yes this in my mind is a big problem that the photographers themselves need to go look hard in the mirror (provided they can see through the smoke ) but this only because you are selling your ability to create the image which people can reasonably expect having found it on the website.

Otherwise if you think about it, stock images are used everyday of the year to "sell" things - product and services, so it is widely accepted in marketing terms. To my mind, not where it is what people are buying into.

Mind you, having said that it happens the whole time in the product world - white branded goods - TV's made by nobodies sold by mega brands, and the reverse - biscuits made by the recognised brand and sold by the nobody brand - gah....

In respect of models though - i'd be a little more forgiving.

If you are starting out as a photographer / part-time professional (oxymoran perhaps) trying your hand and so forth then maybe its all you have to show. So chicken or egg. So long as you don't portray it as giving a false expectation that you have actually shot in the heat of a wedding event, then i'm not finding anything particularly objectionable - again so long as the photographer doesn't mislead the customer.

I'd assume the photographer would replace such images with the first couple of *real* weddings that they shoot.

So, maybe model shots actually have their place.

daycent

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Yes to all of the above in measures.

Stock images are very much bordering on the unethical imho in so far as they aren't your work so unless you've credited them to a stock agency then yes this in my mind is a big problem that the photographers themselves need to go look hard in the mirror (provided they can see through the smoke ) but this only because you are selling your ability to create the image which people can reasonably expect having found it on the website.

Otherwise if you think about it, stock images are used everyday of the year to "sell" things - product and services, so it is widely accepted in marketing terms. To my mind, not where it is what people are buying into.

Mind you, having said that it happens the whole time in the product world - white branded goods - TV's made by nobodies sold by mega brands, and the reverse - biscuits made by the recognised brand and sold by the nobody brand - gah....

In respect of models though - i'd be a little more forgiving.

If you are starting out as a photographer / part-time professional (oxymoran perhaps) trying your hand and so forth then maybe its all you have to show. So chicken or egg. So long as you don't portray it as giving a false expectation that you have actually shot in the heat of a wedding event, then i'm not finding anything particularly objectionable - again so long as the photographer doesn't mislead the customer.

I'd assume the photographer would replace such images with the first couple of *real* weddings that they shoot.

So, maybe model shots actually have their place.

I wouldn't have a problem with people using model shots if they were crystal clear in stating how they went about getting the shots. Never seen this happen myself.

daycent

Just to address some of the responses here regarding giving some leeway to photographers when starting out, I must point out that this guy claims to have 20 years experience.

Check out this blurb from his website:

Welcome to ***** ****** photography. Beautiful Wedding photographs captured for you to cherish forever. The high standard of *****’s photography speaks for itself and his passion for excellence and creativity can be seen in every shot. ***** has the experience of twenty years in the Wedding Industry which ensures his clients are getting an experienced Quality Wedding photographer.

Again, to spell it out, this photographer bought this image from a stock agency, it is not a model shot taken by him. It's one of only a handful of images on his site, and the most prominent one. I'm pretty outraged by this, but it looks like I'm on my own again :rolleyes:

Fatscally

daycent wrote: »

Again, to spell it out, this photographer bought this image from a stock agency, it is not a model shot taken by him. It's one of only a handful of images on his site, and the most prominent one. I'm pretty outraged by this, but it looks like I'm on my own again :rolleyes:

Yup found it. Pretty disasterous. 50 years a family business and he's only got a 75cent stock photo to show.

Just found him on Facebook too. Check it out he's using a Scanned image, look at the marks from the paper. Also all the wedding shots are from standing beside the photographer except for when he stuck his head in for a snappy! Look at the one of the bride - eyes halfway through blinking. He's also a "Sports" photographer (from the stands).
I have to stop looking now. This guy is a wacko.

I've done a wedding where the church was beside a beach, did some shots there, then did some portraits of the couple in a wood (with a waterfall) and then the reception was in a castle

Yup. It can happen ideally although I doubt she hopped into the pool to thrash the dress and started swinging her wet hair around, but that can happen too.
I think I'm spending too much time in the big smoke with women that won't let a fly land on the dress. My next gig is in a church made from cavity blocks and steel girders to resemble a storage warehouse. I'm depressed thinking about what I'm gonna get out of it
I might go for a low iso and just let the light fall off.

PaulieC

perhaps he took the shots and is also selling them on a stock site ?

AnCatDubh

daycent wrote: »

but it looks like I'm on my own again :rolleyes:

Ummmm...... I think most people have actually agreed with you

AnCatDubh

cambo_gueno wrote: »

perhaps he took the shots and is also selling them on a stock site ?

I think the owner of the image is actually on flickr if i'm not mistaken. Unless the flickr image is actually someone trying to give a false impression on flickr (could that ever happen :rolleyes:).

The quality of the stock image is way better imho than the small number of other images that the chap appears to portray as his own. I'd suspect the others probably are his and that this is the level that he is at. (would benefit from a bit of honest C&C, again imho).

Thankfully, in some ways, it is becoming a little easier to start to track images on parts of the web using the likes of TinEye (a great chrome plug in too).

eas

wow, I just had a look at his website....are you for real? I agree that it's not good practice to be deceptive, but come on. This guy is obviously not in the game.

If find it much better use if my time looking for people who push the boundaries up, not down.

Borderfox

From what you are saying Daycent it sounds like clocking a car, eg you can wind back the mileage on a car legally but when you use that to sell its illegal. You can use stock shots on a website but when you start saying these are indicative of the quality that you will get then I have big problems with this.

Any chance to pm me the link

smelltheglove

Borderfox wrote: »

From what you are saying Daycent it sounds like clocking a car, eg you can wind back the mileage on a car legally but when you use that to sell its illegal. You can use stock shots on a website but when you start saying these are indicative of the quality that you will get then I have big problems with this.

Any chance to pm me the link

Just search a couple of lines quoted from the website and it will be the first one on google, away you go. Terrible way of selling imho.

PaulieC

AnCatDubh wrote: »

I think the owner of the image is actually on flickr if i'm not mistaken. Unless the flickr image is actually someone trying to give a false impression on flickr (could that ever happen :rolleyes:).

The quality of the stock image is way better imho than the small number of other images that the chap appears to portray as his own. I'd suspect the others probably are his and that this is the level that he is at. (would benefit from a bit of honest C&C, again imho).

Thankfully, in some ways, it is becoming a little easier to start to track images on parts of the web using the likes of TinEye (a great chrome plug in too).

Sorry, I thought it would've been bvious that my tongue was lodged in my cheek when that was written :rolleyes:

Borderfox

Just seen it, deserves a round of applause for cheesyness. I wouldnt even worry about the stock shot, the rest of the stuff is crap.

oshead

This guy won't get any bookings with that site. It's blatantly obvious to us, never mind to the heightened senses of a bride to be. She'd spot this fraud a mile off. So I don't think anyone needs to worry about this cretin.

The problem is photography seems to be getting it from all angles now with Bob, Dick and Harry all proclaiming themselves as pros.....

stcstc

am i being dumb, i cant find it!!!!

and you all have me curious now

dakar

Borderfox wrote: »

Just seen it, deserves a round of applause for cheesyness. I wouldnt even worry about the stock shot, the rest of the stuff is crap.

Yup, I suppose it's a marketplace out there, and if there's a market for the kind of photos that are portrayed on the site, well and good, but yikes!

I had to do a fix up job on some photos of my friends' wedding (with the copyright holders grudging permission) taken by a similarly long established family photography firm in a large Irish town (recommended to the couple by word of mouth) which were at best amateurish and at worst downright terrible.

Just glad I know enough good photographers from on here in most parts of the country to be able to point people towards if I'm asked:)

Barname

sweet jeebus

I have taken better Wedding shots with a pocket camera...

Ireland - Land of the Chancers

Barname

From the 'Contact' Page;

How did you here about Eamon?

- Google
- Facebook
- Family & Friends

Boards.ie is not available as an option, perhaps I will paste the URL for this thread? :pac:

sheesh

wait a minute he says he is a professional photographer

surely as a photographer his portfolio should only contain photographs he has taken anything else and it is like lying on a CV

PaulieC

Normally I am at the front of the agry mob with the pitchfork and/or torch, but in this case, I think everyone is being a bit harsh with the conclusions that are being jumped to. I think it's a bit much to assasinate this guy's character without him being able to defend himself.

And for those who are morally outraged at the thought of him using a stock shot on his website - nowhere on the site does he say that he took all the shots displayed. IMO, he is well within his rights to use these shots. In fairness, if anyone booked him as a wedding photog based on the 3-inch pictures on his site then, frankly, it's their own fault if they are disapoointed with the outcome

sunny2004

daycent wrote: »

I'm just wondering what peoples thoughts are regarding stock and model photos being used to promote wedding photographers.

Its Laughable, immoral and just stupid to use any photographs you have not actually taken yourself to promote your work.

JuliePhotoArt

As a wedding photographer I was always wondering why anybody would be interested in seeing 50-100 shots for the whole wedding instead of variety of different ones. Now I see this is a perfect case. Feel better now about spending time to put those big sets on my website

magicbastarder

cambo_gueno wrote: »

And for those who are morally outraged at the thought of him using a stock shot on his website - nowhere on the site does he say that he took all the shots displayed.

if you advertise your wares as a photographer and use shots you haven't taken, that's fraud. may or may not be in the legal sense of the word, but in the moral sense, it's a fraudulent act.

democrates

CONSUMER INFORMATION ACT, 1978
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1978/en/act/pub/0001/sec0006.html

6.—(1) If a person, in the course or for the purposes of a trade, business or profession—
( a ) makes a statement which he knows to be false, or
( b ) recklessly makes a statement which is false
as to any of the following matters, that is to say—
(i) the provision in the course of the trade, business or profession of any services, accommodation or facilities,
(ii) the nature, effect or fitness for purpose of any services, accommodation or facilities provided in the course of the trade, business or profession,
(iii) the time at which, manner in which or persons by whom any services, accommodation or facilities are so provided,
(iv) the examination, approval, use or evaluation by any person of any services accommodation or facilities so provided, or
(v) the place where any service, facility or accommodation is so provided or the amenities of any such accommodation,
he shall be guilty of an offence.

My emphasis. I'd bet using results you haven't achieved to advertise your service without a disclaimer would be found in breach of the act, maybe there's case law already.

But +1 cambo_gueno, we don't have the full facts here, sh1t could be legit.

PaulieC

democrates wrote: »

CONSUMER INFORMATION ACT, 1978
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1978/en/act/pub/0001/sec0006.html
My emphasis. I'd bet using results you haven't achieved to advertise your service without a disclaimer would be found in breach of the act, maybe there's case law already.

But +1 cambo_gueno, we don't have the full facts here, sh1t could be legit.

I don't know...I think this is a really murky area legally and morally. Certainly I would not advertise my own photography services using someone else's images, but maybe he isn't either. We don't know for definite that it's not his image, do we. We suspect it's not, based on the other images he is using.
As for the Consumer Information Act text highlighted above, I don't see anything in there that would indicate he is breaking the law. He is advertising a wedding photography service using wedding pictures. OK, he doesn't say they are not his, but nowhere does he claim that they are.
Dubious? Yes. Immoral? Possibly Illegal? Maybe. Good photographer and businessman? Not from the evidence shown

shanona

I'm glad you brought this up! Husband and i are sort of planning to do a model shoot for our wedding page to add to our portfolio.

We had planned on hiring a male and female model and using those shots and the shots individually inside our gallery! The types of shots we were planning on may or may not be considered as "real" but then again - some of the shots i take on assignment aren't either.

There's that magical time between Ceremony and Reception where i usually plan with the bride and groom (and party) to go somewhere scenic (along the way, or nearby) to do some nice individuals and couples. I've been known to have a bride lie on the ground for photos!!! Yes! in her dress and everything. :-P

So maybe the model-shoot-into-portfolio thing isn't such a bad idea, but also, i think it depends on what your actual style is while you're there. As in, IN the moment. If you're a generic poser with the timeless photographic style where the only thing that changes about the photos are the people around the bride and groom- that's fine - but dont try to pass off an edgy, modern, whatever style (from a model shoot) into your portfolio and say it's "real"...

am i right?

Borderfox

I think the spin on it is wedding pictures in a wedding portfolio, taking pictures of models on location in wedding outfits is a different thing altogether especially given the time allotted.

I think it boils down to what I commented on earlier, the use of the picture is in no way illegal (imo) but by having no disclaimer people are led to believe that this is an expectation of the photographers quality (given the rest of the shots in the portfolio this isnt the case) and in my eyes that is the illegal/immoral act

democrates

Although the other shots could be said to act as a disclaimer...

Even if that stock photo is not his own work, it could be aspirational like you see kids in ads having a great time with toys but your own kid might not, and who knows, he might produce better results than that for his next client.

The statute is way too vague for us non-legal heads to agree on, if someone took a case the judge would have to decide if this site crosses the line. Judges haven't created a nanny state with case law, we're not children so a bit of Caveat Emptor is expected.

I can't think of a law that would clarify this without unintended adverse consequences, maybe it's a friday thing...

Mountainsandh

Hi everyone and sorry to butt in, but I have to agree with daycent and magicbastarder here.
(like photography as hobby, newbie with no professional interest here )

Take a musician putting up samples of their music on myspace. By some people's reasoning here, it would be perfectly allright to post a Carlos Santana sample in the middle of their own samples, without credit whatsoever, and let the people think what they want :
either
a) "that's not this fellow's music, but that's what he aspires to" for the most discerning
or
b) "wow, he really did a great job of that one" for the least discerning.
or maybe
c) "that's not his music, but that's the kind of stuff he can do", for the very trustful.

That's just not right though imo.

democrates

Is plagiarism the word we're after?

daycent

democrates wrote: »

Is plagiarism the word we're after?

Fraud is more accurate in this case I think.

Mountainsandh

daycent wrote: »

Fraud is more accurate in this case I think.

Yeah both
"Fraud by plagiarism"

Calina

This thread has gone down one direction which there are two points to consider.

1) use of stock photography - don't agree with it

2) use of models to show style of photography - am okay with it for a very simple reason.

Typically if a wedding photographer does a wedding shoot, to use those shots for advertising later, he probably needs the okay of the couple in the photographs. Certainly the copyright for the photo will stay with him under normal conditions, but commercial use of the photographs - requires a model release from those in the photographs.

Now, the fine line is art versus commercial photography and given that most wedding photographers would be using their website not as an art gallery but as an advertising and marketing tool because they are selling some stuff, then were I a client of said photographer, I'd want to say yes or no whether the photographs were subsequently used as an advertising tool. I mean, you'd have to ask if you used them in a print ad, right?

Using models is a handy way of getting around that. People have different expectations of privacy. I realise I'm a photographer myself and this could be construed as somewhat hypocritical, but for me, a wedding would be a deeply personal day and I'd like it not to be used as advertising material.

That being said, I don't want a traditional wedding album anyway so possibly I'm not best qualified to comment. But in summary, hiring some models to put a web portfolio together if you're doing the shots yourself and advertising your services, I'm good with that.

not, however stock photography.

VisionaryP

Calina wrote: »

Typically if a wedding photographer does a wedding shoot, to use those shots for advertising later, he probably needs the okay of the couple in the photographs. Certainly the copyright for the photo will stay with him under normal conditions, but commercial use of the photographs - requires a model release from those in the photographs.

Practically every professional wedding photographer will have it in the contract that the images taken at the wedding can be used for portfolio purposes, including, but not limited to, display online.

Calina

I might be interested enough in the matter to negotiate it out.

VisionaryP

Yep. I've only ever had one couple ask that, and I obliged. They changed their minds afterwards though, and had no problem going into the portfolio.

Not a single other couple (out of about 200) even mentioned it.

smelltheglove

VisionaryP wrote: »

Practically every professional wedding photographer will have it in the contract that the images taken at the wedding can be used for portfolio purposes, including, but not limited to, display online.

Very true, out of all the weddings I have co vered I can only think of 2 couples that did not want their pictures online, this is something I clear up when signing the contract so I know from the off if I can use the images or not. Most couples are really excited and honoured if their images appear on the website.

eas

Calina wrote: »

Certainly the copyright for the photo will stay with him under normal conditions, but commercial use of the photographs - requires a model release from those in the photographs. .

Using your images for self promotion is not commercial use, thus no need to model release.

As said above professionally it's good practice to ask for permission, but unless you've signed away copyright it's not legally required.

Cameraman

Calina wrote: »

T but commercial use of the photographs - requires a model release from those in the photographs.

I'd be interested to know if you have a definitive source for this. Everything I've found seems to point at this being a bit of a 'grey area' in Irish law. Though where celebrities are used to endorse something without their permission, a separate commercial issue may arise there.

Using Wedding Photography as an example - there is also the issue of what is 'commercial' use. I see three main possible uses :

(1) Promotion of the photographer in their portfolio and maybe an ad.
(2) Promotion of some other wedding-related item e.g. dress, venue, limo company etc.
(3) Straightforward commercial promotion for something completely unrelated.

I think very few people would object to (1), some to (2) but I think most would not be happy with (3).

However, not liking something doesn't mean it's illegal.

BTW - I think it would be very poor business practice to use, say, a Wedding Photograph in an ad. without consulting the subjects first - irrespective of copyright. For the record, I cover (1) in my contract, cover (2) on a case-by-case basis and have never needed to worry about (3).