Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by KerryS, Apr 18, 2011.
Except that you cannot go down the BASE numbers list a consecutive 5 names without a fatality.
So now you're comparing some thrill seeker's DEATH with my little Johnny's blood blister? I'll see you in court mister.
Getting back to what got this going. One thing that should be noted is, the pics in questions where taken from a local guides web site, Griffs Fly Fishing Adventure. So right now it looks like 3 guiding outfits have been effected. Last night I cheked another guides web site and found that some of it's info had been cherry picked by the the same offending guide also. Looks like a clear pattern here as to how this guys ethics are.
And we've got a tempest in a teapot brewing here, but with what effect? Has anyone contacted Somers directly? It's probably not cost effective in time and money to attempt a court ordered cease and desist. It's problematic to post an expose' on the internet or in print, so what about a blitz of angry responses from consumers?
A flood of empty threats from an offended community should give the message that his market plan has failed, and is creating blowback.
So I just sent this message to Somers. I'll keep you posted if I get a reply.
Dear Mr Somers,
It has been brought to my attention that your business has been getting a great deal of attention lately for allegedly accessing photos and text from other guides websites.
As president of South Sound Fly Fishers, I have been asked to query you about this situation. Our members choose to engage only the most competent and ethical outfitters when making their spending decisions, so are concerned about this widespread report regarding questionable marketing practises.
Please reply at your earliest opportunity, as I have been tasked with a report to the board, and to the general membership regarding photos that do indeed appear on multiple websites. We are especially interested in whether this was a management decision, or an accident on the part of your web service.
Thank you for helping me perform my diligence to our club members, who are currently planning their recreational activities.
Kerry is not "absolutely" correct. there are a number of ways where one can be paid for a photo without needing a release. Two of the most common are news/editorial and fine art. That having been said, there are a number of instances where you do absolutely have to have a release from the identifiable people in an image and use on a guide's website might well fall under that blanket.
But it is incorrect to make a blanket statement that a photographer cannot make money from images without a release.
Josh, you are correct but for the sake of this argument I doubt many here are professional photographers with a track record of news or fine art photography so it is doubtful any of us are going to get much traction using either as a defense. And any pro will tell you get a release no matter what the intended use of the image is.
Josh, "Fine Art" is defined as Editorial (not commercial) and news/editorial is self explanatory. My statement hinges on the definition of "commercial" use, as does the law.
Self explanatory to people who are familiar with the photographic or publishing industry perhaps. But you aren't talking to lawyers or professional photographers on this forum (yea, okay, you are probably talking to a few). "Commercial intent" in a non legal sense for most people equates as "for the purpose of making money". Thus, when you tell people that you have to have a release if you have "commercial intent" that you need a release, you aren't explaining the situation correctly. In a very general sense, the only time you need a release is if you are publishing a photo in such a way that it promotes a product or service.
It is worth noting that, if one wants to get technical about it, it isn't the photographer's responsibility to have a release for a particular photo. Responsibility for having a release lies with the publisher of the photo. Now, many working photographers do get a release because they know that they have a better chance of selling said photo with a release than without. No publisher with any smarts or honesty would purchase a photo without proper releases for its intended use. But the liability lies with the publisher if they publish an image that doesn't have the proper release from the model/property owner. Now, as we all know, anyone can get sued for anything these days. So a photographer shouldn't expect to be able to avoid litigation simply because a publisher ignored that a release was needed for their purposes. But it is a valid defense.
And to be clear, I know that my comments on this thread don't have much to do with the topic of this guide apparently using images/text that he had no right to. But it's the direction that the conversation drifted, and I'm happy to help run the post count up and keep this thread up at the top. As a photographer, I take a dim view of anyone stealing photos. And as a fisherman as well, it's even worse when they aren't even photos that tell the truth. It would be one thing to use photos of your clients (swiped form facebook or something) without permission. But using photos of fish/clients from another guide service is pretty low.
I'm going to sue you for exposing me to an overdose of legalsleaze this early in the morning. At this, time it is unknown if I will ever recover.
That's fine. But be aware, my only assets are a cranky wife, two annoying children, and a pile of diapers. So good luck!
FYI he's coming back...read his Facebook page.
Haven't we seen this thread before??
Look at the date... It's the same thread that got bumped.
And it's a real bummer he'll be back. Granted, he's probably not going to be particularly welcome on the river this year.