When they tell you they'll steal your © pics . . .

[Jim Poor]

Well, at my most recent (and second) paid event, one of the portrait session clients made this remark to my wife while I was off talking with someone else. "Oh, you'll be sending proofs over the web? Great, I'll just drop them into Photoshop." She wasn't sure what to say (my fault) so she just let it slide and told me about it when I got back.

I marked the guy's contract so I would be sure to know who said it and figure out what to do.

I'm not a fan of big watermarks, but that seems appropriate in this case. The trouble is, if I watermark just his proofs (this was a group event with 15 sessions, proofs to be posted to a gallery for the group to view) I'd feel like I was singling him out.

I considered making individual galleries for each client at the event, password protecting them all and then marking just his proofs in way that is more conspicuous than normal for me. That seems like a lot of work though.

So for now, I've just about settled on posting proofs that are smaller than usual (I like 800 pixels, but will be using 500 this time) and putting a large watermark on them but trying not to obscure the important parts.

Something like this: (forgive the non-nature image)



I'm also considering a reminder of the "terms and conditions" that are on the contracts when I send out the bulk email letting folks know the proofs are ready to view.

What do you think? Advice?

Thanks
Jim

[Robert Amoruso]

I think your resolution (pun intended) for this situation is the best. Low rez and big watermark. If anyone asks tell them what one of the clients said. And since you know who did it, I feel you are within your rights when you email this person that the proofs are ready for viewing that you know what he said and why you do not share his viewpoint.

People like this thrive in society because good people like us do not confront them. I say confront him.

[Grady Weed]

I second Roberts comments wholeheartedly!

[Julie Kenward]

I totally agree. If they want something for nothing let them take the darn photos themselves.

[Steve Foss]

I agree completely with the advice given.

However, it's valuable to realize that most people who make the comment this guy did do not understand that what they are proposing is theft.

Some certainly do, and those users will always be among us. But when I get a comment like that (whether regarding online proofs or actual prints that someone mentions laying on a flatbed scanner to make more prints after they've bought one), I see an opportunity to educate, so I point out politely that such an action would be theft of copyrighted material, that I make my living by making professional quality images for interested clients, and that I ask that to be respected. Done nicely, such an educational stance can win you friends and clients. You know, the wise friendly neighbor tone, folks just talking over the fence: "Tom, you wouldn't call your plumber and ask him to plumb in a new sink for free, would you? And this isn't plumbing. This is art we're talking about, images that will last a lifetime and bring joy to you. I can't work for free, either, right?"

I haven't had that happen too many times, but of the handful of instances, all but one seemed sincerely surprised. With the one other person, who was combative and confrontational, it was clear he knew it would be theft and that I wasn't going to get him as a client, so I burned a bridge. In front of a couple other people, I looked him in the eye and told him if I found out he did that I'd sue him until the flesh fell off his face.

I'm not a nasty guy. Honey is better than salt.

FWIW Jim, I think the watermark protection of your images is just right.

[Sharna Lee]

I agree with Steve and the others. You have every right to protect those images. I would go so far as to do this to all of the proofs. Most likely if this guy is saying this aloud the others are doing it too. Just my 2 cents.

Wonderful picture of that golden btw.

Sharna

[Jim Poor]

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.

When I posted the watermarked proofs, he wrote asking if soft copies were available, or if not, if 4x6 and wallet sizes were.

I had only offered as small as 5x7 for individual prints, wallets were OK. I took this to mean that if he couldn't have soft copies, he would buy the smallest prints available and make his own scans.

I wrote back that due to loss of control, copyright and several other issues, electronic versions of the images are priced quite high, and that I was not offering wallet sized individual images, but sheets of wallets all of the same pose.

He said he understands and will choose which poses to order. . . we'll see.

[Sharna Lee]

Kudo's Jim! That'll teach him. Maybe.

You did well here. I'm impressed.

Sharna

[david cramer]

Good advice here, and you handled it very well.

[Steve Foss]

Jim that sounds just right to me. Congrats on thinking it through and salvaging the best that could be hoped for out of a potentially bad situation. Sometimes all the human interaction is just too much work to make the few dollars charged for a sheet of wallets seem like it's worth it, eh? :(

[Ed Cordes]

I agree that most people are not aware of copyruight issues and their consequences for us. However, this guy seems very much aware and you handled him perfectly! If I had to guess he will try to get an image from one of the other in the group.

[Jim Poor]

Jim that sounds just right to me. Congrats on thinking it through and salvaging the best that could be hoped for out of a potentially bad situation. Sometimes all the human interaction is just too much work to make the few dollars charged for a sheet of wallets seem like it's worth it, eh? :(

AMEN! But, then you get a day like today. One client 19 dogs, 3 horses, two cats; 65 prints ordered, mostly 11x14. Great day, but I'm whipped!

[Robert Amoruso]

Good work Jim dealing with this guy.