--
--
--
--
--
Actually, I know what a "tithe" is. At our church it is interpreted to mean both money and service. Some of us who are young and healthy, but have less disposable income give what we can afford in dollars and make up the difference with service. My husband, a master electrician, has been doing their electrical work for years as a gift. Maybe at your church it's different. The photography and administrative services are my gig. Perhaps if everyone who wanted a photo I've made paid me instead of helping themselves I would have enough money to give a larger % of my cash income as a "tithe".
The Lord, as represented by the church, is getting both the labor and the fruits of my labor with the exception of some reimbursement for ink and paper. The individual congregants aren't entitled to take those fuits home with them without asking.
You are probably dead right and that is the same dilemma I have been mulling over myself. I suspect you are right about being a cheerful giver. Sometimes the line gets blurred. On the other hand this woman was not acting on behalf of the church, the Lord, or anyone but herself in removing the picture. I would never help myself to something posted for the benefits of all and I suspect neither would you.
--
Don't worry, no one is taking anyone to court
. I have decided not even to make it an issue with the woman or the church. It never WAS as big an issue to me as it seems to be to some in this thread. I think a tactfully worded stamp on the back of the prints offering to make reprints should suffice. I don't want to be a jerk, much less a litigant!The ONLY reason I stated originally that I am a professional photographer is to establish that there is, in fact, a monetary value to my photos. Not to mention the non-monetary values. I assume that people on this forum are generally enthusiastic hobbyists, advanced amateurs or pro photographers. I can't even imagine any of those implying that photos have no value.
My gift to my CHURCH meets both those criteria. I donated my time and the use of the images. The woman who took and copied the picture was acting on her own behalf, not the church's. By your logic, any gift given to the church is fair game for any parishoner to help themselves to. Hey, they have a really nice piece of stained glass hanging in a window. I think I'll take it down and bring it to the local art school so they can copy it for me.
--
Ed, I am so grateful that you are on this thread and actually seem to understand my point here. As you so astutely point out, reading the thread actually helps ;-)
--
Why do a lot of people on this thread try to protect the "rights" of the church while it is a person that got his work stolen ?
Happy New Year to you too Joel
. Your choir must really sing beautifully. I wish we had better sound equipment at our church to record the choir. Hey, maybe I'll do a photo fundraiser for some good sound equipment ;-).Absolutely, Lisa (though none of this relieves the church authorities of their due responsibility for concerned and active mediation). That was so obviously the whole point of your original post, and it has both amused and saddened me to watch the way this thread has been turned into a politico-religious football. Any question of whether you were using "tithe" in its literal, numerical sense couldn't be much further from the real issue; nor is it anybody else's business.
Oh, good grief! By that reasoning, any member of the congregation should feel entitled to borrow the pastor's car any time s/he feels so inclined. And to do so, moreover, without even troubling to ask first.
Question,
Your story is great Ed! You do have talent with this. Hope you
don't mind if I use this story elsewhere, I like it so much!
Take care Ed and happy new year to 505v users everywhere! Hmm, my
daughter has mine now, and my wife has G3 and I'm D30, I always
enjoyed your stories, this is no exception!
happy New year!
MAC
It's nice to have friends, of any kind. I can recommend it to you, Mike. Try it you might like it.
