Did I over-react?

[pam diggs]

I would sincerely like your opinions. I have been doing photography seriously for two years only. I have this friend, an older man. I did a portrait of he and his wife last Christmas and GAVE it to him as a gift. Then, this spring, I did a lovely garden portrait of his wife and GAVE it to him as a gift. He has since asked me for copies and I GAVE him those happily. I also burned the files onto a cd for him so that he could email them to family.

Today I got an email from him that he has been "playing" with the file, putting borders on it, erasing wrinkles, etc. I emailed and asked him very nicely would he not alter the signed file and I will send him the raw file to use as he wishes. I explained to him that I have to ask that because I had a bad experience before. (Someone altered one of my pictures then put it in a brochure.) I simply wanted him to work with the raw file. He became very upset and said that he feels he can do whatever he wants with his own wife's picture! And don't pull that copyright stuff on him! And, besides, I had used his wife's pictures on my business cards! (I had HIS verbal permission, as well as hers.)

I'm just crushed and very angry. I sent him an email that said I would destroy his files immediately so he would have assurance that I will NEVER use either of their images for any reason.

I think I may have to grow thicker skin in this business?

 

[Andrew64673]

I would sincerely like your opinions. I have been doing
photography seriously for two years only. I have this friend, an
older man. I did a portrait of he and his wife last Christmas and
GAVE it to him as a gift. Then, this spring, I did a lovely garden
portrait of his wife and GAVE it to him as a gift. He has since
asked me for copies and I GAVE him those happily. I also burned
the files onto a cd for him so that he could email them to family.

Today I got an email from him that he has been "playing" with the
file, putting borders on it, erasing wrinkles, etc. I emailed and
asked him very nicely would he not alter the signed file and I will
send him the raw file to use as he wishes. I explained to him that
I have to ask that because I had a bad experience before. (Someone
altered one of my pictures then put it in a brochure.) I simply
wanted him to work with the raw file. He became very upset and
said that he feels he can do whatever he wants with his own wife's
picture! And don't pull that copyright stuff on him! And,
besides, I had used his wife's pictures on my business cards! (I
had HIS verbal permission, as well as hers.)

I'm just crushed and very angry. I sent him an email that said I
would destroy his files immediately so he would have assurance that
I will NEVER use either of their images for any reason.

I think I may have to grow thicker skin in this business?

Its usually only friends who give you this trouble, it pays to educate them why copyright is important to photographers. It goes without saying that people will do hideous things to your photos, if it happens to be a friend, I suppose biting your tongue and saving the friendship could be an option. I have done work for friends and had them say in front of me they were going to photocopy the photos because my (discounted) reprint prices were too high (take deep breath, count to ten).

People will copy, and do things to your photos, I find it does not affect me enough to get too furious about it.

If we dont cave in to pressure to hand over copyright negs/raw images, we should see our profession survive, and with better clients. Alternatively, (esp wedding) photography could become the domain of part time photographers. (please no I dont want another job)>

a.

 

[pam diggs]

Thanks, Andrew. You are right about that. I am learning as I progress...

I would sincerely like your opinions. I have been doing
photography seriously for two years only. I have this friend, an
older man. I did a portrait of he and his wife last Christmas and
GAVE it to him as a gift. Then, this spring, I did a lovely garden
portrait of his wife and GAVE it to him as a gift. He has since
asked me for copies and I GAVE him those happily. I also burned
the files onto a cd for him so that he could email them to family.

Today I got an email from him that he has been "playing" with the
file, putting borders on it, erasing wrinkles, etc. I emailed and
asked him very nicely would he not alter the signed file and I will
send him the raw file to use as he wishes. I explained to him that
I have to ask that because I had a bad experience before. (Someone
altered one of my pictures then put it in a brochure.) I simply
wanted him to work with the raw file. He became very upset and
said that he feels he can do whatever he wants with his own wife's
picture! And don't pull that copyright stuff on him! And,
besides, I had used his wife's pictures on my business cards! (I
had HIS verbal permission, as well as hers.)

I'm just crushed and very angry. I sent him an email that said I
would destroy his files immediately so he would have assurance that
I will NEVER use either of their images for any reason.

I think I may have to grow thicker skin in this business?

Its usually only friends who give you this trouble, it pays to educate them why copyright is important to photographers. It goes without saying that people will do hideous things to your photos, if it happens to be a friend, I suppose biting your tongue and saving the friendship could be an option. I have done work for friends and had them say in front of me they were going to photocopy the photos because my (discounted) reprint prices were too high (take deep breath, count to ten).

People will copy, and do things to your photos, I find it does not
affect me enough to get too furious about it.

If we dont cave in to pressure to hand over copyright negs/raw
images, we should see our profession survive, and with better
clients. Alternatively, (esp wedding) photography could become the
domain of part time photographers. (please no I dont want another
job)>

a.

 

[Dan Silvertree]

pam,

I believe one must pick ones battles. Technically you are right, but as you said this is a friend of yours. We need to be very explicit with what license we grant to the users of our images, commercial or pro bono. My suggestion would be to let this one go, but remember it when giving out digital files in the future.

My practice is to provide digital files that are small enough not to be printed, and have my URL superimposed on them.
Dan

 

[Rembvrijn]

One also picks their friends. If this person was such a friend, they would understand and be more accomidating to the situation. I've learned it in situations like this that one not only learns who his friends are but whom one wants to keep as a friend. What is saved by giving in to this person and preserving the friendship? More years of free service and lack of appreciation? Granted this comes from just hearing these few facts, but with what has been presented this is where I would stand.

Yes, I've lost a few "friends" over the years. They are hardly missed and I still have plenty from decades ago.

GageFX

pam,
I believe one must pick ones battles. Technically you are right,
but as you said this is a friend of yours. We need to be very
explicit with what license we grant to the users of our images,
commercial or pro bono. My suggestion would be to let this one go,
but remember it when giving out digital files in the future.
My practice is to provide digital files that are small enough not
to be printed, and have my URL superimposed on them.
Dan

--

E-10, LiPo, FL-40, Stroboframe 120 QF, Lumiquest Softbox, Speedotron Force 10s, AlienBees, HP P1100, Epson 777, Epson 1280

 

[ajs2107922]

It sounds like you kept the copyright of your pictures and from a legal point you are correct. Of course some how you upset your friend which is nerver good.

It a case of mixing business with friends, it never works. Giving friend pictures is just that!.

I guess he felt he was improving the images. I guess if you supply files for customers and don't want the changed version to have your name on the don't supply CD versions with your name on it in the first place.

The customer is alway right and if you have a problem with it , then maybe don't do it! Unless you can afford to loose customers, you are going need to think what you business model is and what you will supply and what you will not. You may make the decision that you will only supply files with the rights.

Myself I would be like the position your in, but would not do anything about it. Unless he went about selling the pictures.
Alex

pam,
I believe one must pick ones battles. Technically you are right,
but as you said this is a friend of yours. We need to be very
explicit with what license we grant to the users of our images,
commercial or pro bono. My suggestion would be to let this one go,
but remember it when giving out digital files in the future.
My practice is to provide digital files that are small enough not
to be printed, and have my URL superimposed on them.
Dan

 

[john farrar]

It a case of mixing business with friends, it never works. > > >

That is SOUND advice!

If you must hand out images to 'friends', then have some stickers made saying: "This print by (whoever) is a proof version of the original and is intended only for personal use. For publication quality images call (whatever number)."

Keeping your anger to yourself is almost impossible when friends become difficult. (And wouldn't a REAL friend return you something of equal value ?).

With awkward customers you have to be businesslike; sometimes you'll get ripped off, other times you'll get repeat business from their colleagues as well. Anguishing about it won't do anything but make you ill , so put this one down to experience and move on.

John

 

[keithop]

I'm just crushed and very angry. I sent him an email that said I
would destroy his files immediately so he would have assurance that
I will NEVER use either of their images for any reason.

I think I may have to grow thicker skin in this business?

I'm not a pro photographer.. disclaimer before continuing ;-)

I think you were spot on to be angry.

This really isn't a complex copyright issue, it comes down to basic respect and friendship. Seems to me you didn't want him altering an image which was signed and therefore attributable to you. Such images affect your public image and could affect the perception of your abilities.

You were very fair and offered the raw image. That's more than you had to do, but is a kindly gesture to a friend.

I can see him not understanding your viewpoint (It's MY photo because I'm on it!) but common curtesy would dictate that he respects your wishes since it hurts him in no way to alter the raw rather than the signed image.

So in your situation,I think you're totally right.

As a non-pro though I must admit that I feel conflicted about this clinging to negatives/raw images which other people suggest.

I understand that the creation of the photo was a creative process by a highly skilled individual.

I can see it if someone goes and takes a photo of a war and sells a license (only) to use that photo to a magazine.

...but if I employ someone to take a portrait of me or wedding shots, then I feel I ought to own the photographs.

I'm looking for a wedding photographer now and I'm only talking to those who will give me the negatives (or properly high resolution digital negatives on cd).

If I'm undermining the industry then I'm sorry, but the idea that I have to pay a lot of money for each print I may want afterwards just feels plain wrong to me.

Keith

 

[KAM93928]

I'm just crushed and very angry. I sent him an email that said I
would destroy his files immediately so he would have assurance that
I will NEVER use either of their images for any reason.

I think I may have to grow thicker skin in this business?

I dont mean to lecture you or anything like that, but you did ask, so forgive me if i am harsh. In my experience people often give little value to products and services that they dont pay for. They unfortunately assume that if "it" is free, it isnt worth much and they often treat the generous giver accordingly. I understand that he was a friend, but I believe you may have been at fault. You treated your own work as if it was done by an amateur and worth nothing, and that is how he treated it too. You should have charged him a reduced price and maintained a more professional relationship in order to protect yourself. CD slideshows that can not be copied or transformed are a good compromise instead of giving away a regular CD. Your work is valuable. Your time is valuable. Giving away valuable gifts allows the receiver to take advantage of the situation. Just my new york attitude showing itself again i guess.

Keith wrote

...but if I employ someone to take a portrait of me or wedding
shots, then I feel I ought to own the photographs.

then i guess that mona lisa lady is rich, huh?

I'm looking for a wedding photographer now and I'm only talking to
those who will give me the negatives (or properly high resolution

digital negatives on cd). If I'm undermining the industry then I'm sorry, but the idea that I have to pay a lot of money for each print I may want afterwards just feels plain wrong to me.

Please do not say you are sorry when you are planning on intentionally doing something wrong, because you are not sorry at all. Your plan is fine as long as you want to pay $5000 for a $3500 photographer in order to compensate him/her for future lost sales. Prices for photographers are built to include after sales, so if you are not going to have after sales, your photographer must increase their up front prices in order to justify their future loss. But i am sure that is fine with you (it is so hard to type sarcasm). The unfortunate truth is that there will always be some undermining photographers who try to impress their clients with high res images on regular cd's, but it is still theft in my opinion.

 

[keithop]

I dont mean to lecture you or anything like that,

Ohhhh yes you do.

but you did ask,
so forgive me if i am harsh. In my experience people often give
little value to products and services that they dont pay for. They
unfortunately assume that if "it" is free, it isnt worth much and
they often treat the generous giver accordingly. I understand that
he was a friend, but I believe you may have been at fault. You
treated your own work as if it was done by an amateur and worth
nothing, and that is how he treated it too.

Erm no? They treated their work as if it was a valuable and gifted it out of kindness to a friend. That does not say "this work is amateur and worth nothing".

The fault is with the recipient.

You should have
charged him a reduced price and maintained a more professional
relationship in order to protect yourself. CD slideshows that can
not be copied or transformed are a good compromise instead of
giving away a regular CD. Your work is valuable. Your time is
valuable. Giving away valuable gifts allows the receiver to take
advantage of the situation. Just my new york attitude showing
itself again i guess.

Well I guess it's the way the world's going so I shouldn't be surprised but I disagree.

Keith wrote

...but if I employ someone to take a portrait of me or wedding
shots, then I feel I ought to own the photographs.

then i guess that mona lisa lady is rich, huh?

Not sure that makes a significant point?

If Mona lisa paid for the portrait to be painted, then I would have assumed she'd receive it afterwards.

I'd assume she would pay a fee that the painter felt represented the application of his time and skills to the depiction. At the end, he gives her the painting and says, thanks, I hope you're happy with the painting, if you are, tell your friends.

I'm looking for a wedding photographer now and I'm only talking to
those who will give me the negatives (or properly high resolution

digital negatives on cd). If I'm undermining the industry then I'm sorry, but the idea that I have to pay > > a lot of money for each print I may want afterwards just feels plain wrong to me.

Please do not say you are sorry when you are planning on
intentionally doing something wrong, because you are not sorry at
all.

am I? I assume if I go to someone who provides me with negatives then I'm not doing anything wrong at all?

Indeed, the last few people I've emailed have said very specifically, "don't worry about enlargements, you'll have the cd and can make your own prints from any lab in your home town"

So I'm not doing anything wrong. I'm choosing with my pocket book to avail myself of one type of photographic service (the one that provides negatives) rather than another (the ones that don't).

Your plan is fine as long as you want to pay $5000 for a
$3500 photographer in order to compensate him/her for future lost
sales.

I presume that's actually exactly what I'm doing when I'm receiving negatives or CDs?

They're charging me for creation of the image, materials, time etc. and the end result is mine. Suits me fine.

Prices for photographers are built to include after sales,
so if you are not going to have after sales, your photographer must
increase their up front prices in order to justify their future
loss.

Well I see it as, they're charging me assuming a one off expenditure of their time, effort, experience, materials etc. which is fine by me, and they're giving a discount to others who will come back to them and pay to have prints made afterwards.

But i am sure that is fine with you (it is so hard to type
sarcasm).

Yes, it's absolutely fine by me. It's called choice.

The unfortunate truth is that there will always be some
undermining photographers who try to impress their clients with
high res images on regular cd's, but it is still theft in my
opinion.

How can it possibly be theft if a photographer chooses to work the sale on all of the factors above and counts on no "re-print" business to arrive at a total fee. I pay it and make my own prints later if I so wish?

You may not agree and wish to keep a lucrative re-print part of your business going but I don't see why you should get so worked up if other people want to do it a different way.

 

[dan rosen]

Keith,

Very well put for a non pro. The gentlemen in question is very confused and probably angry about something that happened to him. There is nothing wrong with you shopping for what you want and nothing wrong with every pro choosing his/her biz model. The only downside to your plan is that USUALLY, and I repeat usually, these are not the high quality pros who hav been doing this for years with supb, consistent results.

Dan

 

[keithop]

Very well put for a non pro. The gentlemen in question is very
confused and probably angry about something that happened to him.
There is nothing wrong with you shopping for what you want and
nothing wrong with every pro choosing his/her biz model. The only
downside to your plan is that USUALLY, and I repeat usually, these
are not the high quality pros who hav been doing this for years
with supb, consistent results.

Thanks Dan, useful info.

I guess if overtime photographers have sold according to an after-sale model and have been ripped off, then I can understand the frustration (especially when it's the livelihood at stake) and would be even less inclined to sell the negatives etc.

I'll look a bit more carefully bearing in mind what you say.

All the best,
Keith

 

[DarrenH]

I'd give him an unsigned photo. He did pay for it and he's right. He can do whatever he wants with it.

If I want to write all over my photos with crayons I have every right to do so, regardless of who I hired to click the shutter.

Cheers, D

I would sincerely like your opinions. I have been doing
photography seriously for two years only. I have this friend, an
older man. I did a portrait of he and his wife last Christmas and
GAVE it to him as a gift. Then, this spring, I did a lovely garden
portrait of his wife and GAVE it to him as a gift. He has since
asked me for copies and I GAVE him those happily. I also burned
the files onto a cd for him so that he could email them to family.

Today I got an email from him that he has been "playing" with the
file, putting borders on it, erasing wrinkles, etc. I emailed and
asked him very nicely would he not alter the signed file and I will
send him the raw file to use as he wishes. I explained to him that
I have to ask that because I had a bad experience before. (Someone
altered one of my pictures then put it in a brochure.) I simply
wanted him to work with the raw file. He became very upset and
said that he feels he can do whatever he wants with his own wife's
picture! And don't pull that copyright stuff on him! And,
besides, I had used his wife's pictures on my business cards! (I
had HIS verbal permission, as well as hers.)

I'm just crushed and very angry. I sent him an email that said I
would destroy his files immediately so he would have assurance that
I will NEVER use either of their images for any reason.

I think I may have to grow thicker skin in this business?

 

[KenEis]

When you gave him the photos on CDR you lost all leverage. I wouldn't do that for my own mother. You are a very nice person but remember, no kindness goes unpunished...

He probably wont do anything that would harm your photographic reputation anyway. Interesting that a guy you helped so much would react so strongly.

I would sincerely like your opinions. I have been doing
photography seriously for two years only. I have this friend, an
older man. I did a portrait of he and his wife last Christmas and
GAVE it to him as a gift. Then, this spring, I did a lovely garden
portrait of his wife and GAVE it to him as a gift. He has since
asked me for copies and I GAVE him those happily. I also burned
the files onto a cd for him so that he could email them to family.

Today I got an email from him that he has been "playing" with the
file, putting borders on it, erasing wrinkles, etc. I emailed and
asked him very nicely would he not alter the signed file and I will
send him the raw file to use as he wishes. I explained to him that
I have to ask that because I had a bad experience before. (Someone
altered one of my pictures then put it in a brochure.) I simply
wanted him to work with the raw file. He became very upset and
said that he feels he can do whatever he wants with his own wife's
picture! And don't pull that copyright stuff on him! And,
besides, I had used his wife's pictures on my business cards! (I
had HIS verbal permission, as well as hers.)

I'm just crushed and very angry. I sent him an email that said I
would destroy his files immediately so he would have assurance that
I will NEVER use either of their images for any reason.

I think I may have to grow thicker skin in this business?

--
Ken Eis

 

[pam diggs]

I really appreciate all your opinions and advice on this. I have certainly learned a lesson, I suppose better now than later as I am fairly new at this. I will not give out files (even to my own mother in the future unless I receive premium payment for the work. Otherwise it's cd slide shows or small files for web viewing.

Learning new lessons every day...

He probably wont do anything that would harm your photographic
reputation anyway. Interesting that a guy you helped so much would
react so strongly.

I would sincerely like your opinions. I have been doing
photography seriously for two years only. I have this friend, an
older man. I did a portrait of he and his wife last Christmas and
GAVE it to him as a gift. Then, this spring, I did a lovely garden
portrait of his wife and GAVE it to him as a gift. He has since
asked me for copies and I GAVE him those happily. I also burned
the files onto a cd for him so that he could email them to family.

Today I got an email from him that he has been "playing" with the
file, putting borders on it, erasing wrinkles, etc. I emailed and
asked him very nicely would he not alter the signed file and I will
send him the raw file to use as he wishes. I explained to him that
I have to ask that because I had a bad experience before. (Someone
altered one of my pictures then put it in a brochure.) I simply
wanted him to work with the raw file. He became very upset and
said that he feels he can do whatever he wants with his own wife's
picture! And don't pull that copyright stuff on him! And,
besides, I had used his wife's pictures on my business cards! (I
had HIS verbal permission, as well as hers.)

I'm just crushed and very angry. I sent him an email that said I
would destroy his files immediately so he would have assurance that
I will NEVER use either of their images for any reason.

I think I may have to grow thicker skin in this business?

--
Ken Eis

 

[David Barkin]

Hi Pam

I really appreciate all your opinions and advice on this. I have
certainly learned a lesson, I suppose better now than later as I am
fairly new at this. I will not give out files (even to my own
mother in the future unless I receive premium payment for the
work. Otherwise it's cd slide shows or small files for web viewing.

Learning new lessons every day...

I just came upon this thread and decided to read through it before posting.

This question that you've raised has nothing to do with photography. It is a question of personal relationships and friendship. I think Kieth's first post on this more or less sums it up. I was going to add to Kieths posts the exact opposite of your conclusion.

I've done hundreds of pro bono favors for friends. Every now and then I come across a person who has no appreciation of this. The lesson I learn is that this person is not worth my friendship. The "lesson" is a valuble one. I want good friends, not parasites.

Personally I've never let these things prevent me from doing things for my firends. I just drop people like the ones you describe.

In essense many "scams" are based on taking advantage of basic human nature. Once a person is burned they in turn give up a piece of their humanity. While what you describe is not a scam, it's also causing you to think negatively of your fellow human beings.

It's better to be burned once in a while then to stop being as human as possible.

Sorry for the patronising tone, but this is how an old timer (well perhaps not that "old" and old timer) feels.

Dave

 

[Kel Toookay]

I really appreciate all your opinions and advice on this. I have
certainly learned a lesson, I suppose better now than later as I am
fairly new at this. I will not give out files (even to my own
mother in the future unless I receive premium payment for the
work. Otherwise it's cd slide shows or small files for web viewing.

Learning new lessons every day...

I think one problem with this whole scene is that your communication was done through email. When things get sticky it is sometomes better to talk it out over the phone. Sometimes (even on this forum, believe it or not) we will say things in a email that we wouldn't if we were talking face to face.

It also seems like the friend was proud of what he did and wanted to share it with you, then got emabarassed when he was caught in a copyright violation.
So it looks like you learned a less and lost a friend...

--
Mike D

Buy a pro camera and you are pro photographer,
buy a flute and you own a flute.

 

[Dan Silvertree]

Just out of curiosity, if, as you state, you are not a pro photographer, why comment on pro photography business practices?

not trolling, just curious. I notice this happening with "pro" threads on this forum.

I'm not a pro photographer.. disclaimer before continuing ;-)

As a non-pro though I must admit that I feel conflicted about this
clinging to negatives/raw images which other people suggest.

I understand that the creation of the photo was a creative process
by a highly skilled individual.

I can see it if someone goes and takes a photo of a war and sells a
license (only) to use that photo to a magazine.

...but if I employ someone to take a portrait of me or wedding
shots, then I feel I ought to own the photographs.

If you negotiate a complete buyout and a copyright transfer from the photographer then you do. If you don't negotiate that, then, you don't.

I'm looking for a wedding photographer now and I'm only talking to
those who will give me the negatives (or properly high resolution
digital negatives on cd).

If I'm undermining the industry then I'm sorry, but the idea that I
have to pay a lot of money for each print I may want afterwards
just feels plain wrong to me.

You are not undermining the industry, it certainly is your prerogative to make such a deal with a willing photographer, and if your wallet or mindset dictates that, of course you should. The photographer is undermining the business. My photos are not complete after exposure. They are completed after printing. I resist any attempt to take the post production control away from me, I say resist, because of course, it's not always possible. Just the same, I would hate to have my work judged on the merits (or lack there of) of another printer.

Dan

 

[David Barkin]

Hi Dan

The question is one of a social relationship. The fact that the poster is pro or going pro means absolutely nothing.

The implication of your post is that a "pro" should never do a favor. It cheapens the buisness. That's a statement which leaves the human out of the question.

What was the last time you charged your mother for photography? Your brother? Your best friend?

My time is valuble, when I do a favor of using my skills to help someone I don't want the recepient to give me a hard time. Does it matter if the favor had nothing to do with my skills or was a refection of my skills?

Is this the criteria you suggest we use? What about a doctor? A lawyer? Should I charge my best friend for medical advice?

The bottom line as I say is that this is a social relationship, pro amateur whatever, has nothing to do with it.

Pam learned that her friend was a conceited selfish person. A valuble lesson and one not to be applied to her real friends.

Dave

I'm not a pro photographer.. disclaimer before continuing ;-)

As a non-pro though I must admit that I feel conflicted about this
clinging to negatives/raw images which other people suggest.

I understand that the creation of the photo was a creative process
by a highly skilled individual.

I can see it if someone goes and takes a photo of a war and sells a
license (only) to use that photo to a magazine.

...but if I employ someone to take a portrait of me or wedding
shots, then I feel I ought to own the photographs.

If you negotiate a complete buyout and a copyright transfer from
the photographer then you do. If you don't negotiate that, then,
you don't.

I'm looking for a wedding photographer now and I'm only talking to
those who will give me the negatives (or properly high resolution
digital negatives on cd).

If I'm undermining the industry then I'm sorry, but the idea that I
have to pay a lot of money for each print I may want afterwards
just feels plain wrong to me.

You are not undermining the industry, it certainly is your
prerogative to make such a deal with a willing photographer, and if
your wallet or mindset dictates that, of course you should. The
photographer is undermining the business. My photos are not
complete after exposure. They are completed after printing. I
resist any attempt to take the post production control away from
me, I say resist, because of course, it's not always possible.
Just the same, I would hate to have my work judged on the merits
(or lack there of) of another printer.

Dan

 

[Dan Silvertree]

Dave,
Two things-

First, I agree that it is a question of a relationship, however it is also one of business practices. Anyone who has sold intellectual property, especially in a digital format, knows the difficulty of maintaining the integrity of their work. That's why I mentioned being very explicit with the terms of usage, and even more vigilant with the conditions underwhich digital files are distributed.

Second, I often do work for friends, donating my time. I also agree with what you seem to be saying, which is if there's no humanity invovled, then what's the point? But, even when shooting for free, I still sign a contract which states what can be done with the pictures (i.e., self promotion) and what can't (i.e., used in commerical advertising) I sometimes find myself shooting on independent movies, and I would love to see some of them make it, but if a studio were to buy the movie, and use my publicty stills, then, yes I would want compensation.

As far as the pro/nonpro thing, again, your right it really doesn't have anything to do with anything, I am just struck by the fact that this is a "pro" forum. perhaps just a bit of muckracking on my part, but as an excuse, i'm stuck indoors, working on the computer on an absolutly gorgeous day.
thanks,
Dan

P.S., Maybe Pam's friend was just uneducated on the etiquette of this sort of thing, which makes those explicit terms all the more important.

Hi Dan

The question is one of a social relationship. The fact that the
poster is pro or going pro means absolutely nothing.

The implication of your post is that a "pro" should never do a
favor. It cheapens the buisness. That's a statement which leaves
the human out of the question.

What was the last time you charged your mother for photography?
Your brother? Your best friend?

My time is valuble, when I do a favor of using my skills to help
someone I don't want the recepient to give me a hard time. Does it
matter if the favor had nothing to do with my skills or was a
refection of my skills?

Is this the criteria you suggest we use? What about a doctor? A
lawyer? Should I charge my best friend for medical advice?

The bottom line as I say is that this is a social relationship, pro
amateur whatever, has nothing to do with it.

Pam learned that her friend was a conceited selfish person. A
valuble lesson and one not to be applied to her real friends.

Dave