Equine Photo Ethics

[Arelle]

Just a question for you all, as it came up this morning and I’m feeling some type of way. :lol:

Every year for the last four years, I have hired the same photographer to take photographs of my horses for my Christmas cards. She’s local, I love her, they look great, etc etc.

However, this morning - I happened to open an email blast about a sale that was going on for a national equine chain and, much to my surprise, one of my horses from our 2018 shoot was included in their holiday savings banner advertisement in the email. :eek:

I immediately emailed my photographer, because of the rampant abuse of stealing photographs without permission - I knew I hadn’t authorized the image to be used, and I hadn’t been consulted about my horse appearing in a national ad - but she quickly replied that she was aware and they had a contract in place.

Initially, I was excited - it’s really cool that one of my horses can officially have “model” status and be included on a national advertising campaign. I take it as a compliment that he is handsome enough to pull it off, because it’s a special thing that not everyone gets to experience. However, as the excitement wore off - I am feeling just a little annoyed because I pay good money for photographs each year and the licensing fee for use of that image is not going to me, nor did I receive more than the typical barn discount for the pictures. (I have a large herd, any photo sessions over x horses receives a discount - whether it’s one owner as in my case, or multiple from the same barn.)

Having never experienced this before, what say you, oh horse owning COTHers? Is this financially double dipping on the photographers part? Should I not worry about it and just be tickled to see my horse in print? I feel like, legally, if I paid for the photos then they aren’t to be sold for use in advertising without my express permission but perhaps this is just normal and I’ve been blissfully ignorant for the last twenty years of horse ownership.

*As a disclaimer, I want to reiterate that I am not mad at the photographer. I really do love her and appreciate everything she does; she always treats me and the horses well and I want her to be successful financially. I just haven’t run into this before, and I’m wondering if this is a normal practice? I have no idea what the image use contracts look like for photographers; I’ve seen many people that end up with cover photos the photographer has submitted to the likes of Horse & Rider or other publications, but I never considered that the actual person paying for their photos may not end up being compensated for use of their images if a photographer submits their work for consideration to a third party.

[Jo]

I have no idea what is the right answer here, but I would be seriously butt hurt to not at least have been ASKED about all this.

[OnDeck]

I think you have this a little backwards.

When you hire a photographer and purchase photos you are compensating her for her time and simply purchasing prints or digital copies. You are NOT purchasing the rights to the photos. The photographer still owns the rights and is free to use or sell the photos as she wishes.

[IPEsq]

The photographer owns the photo, and they can license it however they want. If you were in the photo (sounds like it is just the horse?), then then there could be some action you could take for the use of your likeness. But whether this would be worth your while is another thing (compared to a celebrity who can make $$$ off of their likeness). Some states have more concrete laws on this than others. Some also have privacy laws that may apply. But I don’t think this applies to animals. While of course there are some famous and money-making worthy animals out there, I don’t think that the owners of Grumpy Cat, for example, policed her image on these same theories as human rights of publicity because they also owned the images of her and were also in the shoes of the photographer in your situation.

As for some ads / cover photos, it may not be that any compensation is paid to anyone. For example, I submitted a photo of me and my pony to the Chronicle’s year end awards issue (with license/release from the photographer). The editors liked it and asked if they could use the photo to run an ad to promote the upcoming pony issue. I (well, my parents) agreed and the photographer agreed and I there wasn’t any money involved even though it was a commercial use.

I think to address this issue in the future, you should have a contract with your photographer that covers this.

[bugsynskeeter]

If you want exclusive rights, you need to pay for exclusive rights.

[Bluey]

@Arelle

Just a question for you all, as it came up this morning and I’m feeling some type of way. :lol:

Every year for the last four years, I have hired the same photographer to take photographs of my horses for my Christmas cards. She’s local, I love her, they look great, etc etc.

However, this morning - I happened to open an email blast about a sale that was going on for a national equine chain and, much to my surprise, one of my horses from our 2018 shoot was included in their holiday savings banner advertisement in the email. :eek:

I immediately emailed my photographer, because of the rampant abuse of stealing photographs without permission - I knew I hadn’t authorized the image to be used, and I hadn’t been consulted about my horse appearing in a national ad - but she quickly replied that she was aware and they had a contract in place.

Initially, I was excited - it’s really cool that one of my horses can officially have “model” status and be included on a national advertising campaign. I take it as a compliment that he is handsome enough to pull it off, because it’s a special thing that not everyone gets to experience. However, as the excitement wore off - I am feeling just a little annoyed because I pay good money for photographs each year and the licensing fee for use of that image is not going to me, nor did I receive more than the typical barn discount for the pictures. (I have a large herd, any photo sessions over x horses receives a discount - whether it’s one owner as in my case, or multiple from the same barn.)

Having never experienced this before, what say you, oh horse owning COTHers? Is this financially double dipping on the photographers part? Should I not worry about it and just be tickled to see my horse in print? I feel like, legally, if I paid for the photos then they aren’t to be sold for use in advertising without my express permission but perhaps this is just normal and I’ve been blissfully ignorant for the last twenty years of horse ownership.

*As a disclaimer, I want to reiterate that I am not mad at the photographer. I really do love her and appreciate everything she does; she always treats me and the horses well and I want her to be successful financially. I just haven’t run into this before, and I’m wondering if this is a normal practice? I have no idea what the image use contracts look like for photographers; I’ve seen many people that end up with cover photos the photographer has submitted to the likes of Horse & Rider or other publications, but I never considered that the actual person paying for their photos may not end up being compensated for use of their images if a photographer submits their work for consideration to a third party.

Don’t you have a contract to sign before pictures are taken?
That should protect the photographer and the owner of the place and subjects.
Then you can refer to the contract for those details.

Maybe the photographer has one such up on her web site you can read?

[mmeqcenter]

I also have no idea what the law or standard is, but I would not be happy either. Whether or not the photographer has the legal right to license the photograph to a publication for use, I would think at minimum it would be proper etiquette to get permission from the subject of the photo first.

I did find this
https://joemazzaphotography.com/1833-2/

[trubandloki]

My thoughts were always as others have said above. The photographer owns the photos. You pay for prints or the rights to use them within the guidelines you decide between you and the photographer.

I also see nothing wrong with asking for a discount on your sitting fee since your photos come out so great that the photographer gets to use them for other things. They might not say yes, but asking probably will not hurt anything.

[Arelle]

For sure; the photographer owns the rights to the photos. I have purchased fully released images for advertisement use in the past, and I have some lovely fully released images that hang in my house.

Like I said, I’m not mad and I want creative artists to be compensated financially for their work - I guess it just never occurred to me that this was a practice and I’ve been around horses for a couple of decades at this point. Images used in advertising that were taken by photographers in a show/clinic/whatever setting (like, candid photos that you had the option to pay for but weren’t obligated to do so) - sure. Images used that are to advertise the photographers business and brand - sure. Selling an image to a third party that the customer paid to have taken in a specific session - that’s where the line was slightly blurred for me, but it appears I’m in the minority on this! :lol:

[Bluey]

@Arelle

For sure; the photographer owns the rights to the photos. I have purchased fully released images for advertisement use in the past, and I have some lovely fully released images that hang in my house.

Like I said, I’m not mad and I want creative artists to be compensated financially for their work - I guess it just never occurred to me that this was a practice and I’ve been around horses for a couple of decades at this point. Images used in advertising that were taken by photographers in a show/clinic/whatever setting (like, candid photos that you had the option to pay for but weren’t obligated to do so) - sure. Images used that are to advertise the photographers business and brand - sure. Selling an image to a third party that the customer paid to have taken in a specific session - that’s where the line was slightly blurred for me, but it appears I’m in the minority on this! :lol:

That is an interesting question.

You may be right to question, but the photographer is who you need to ask for clarification in your situation.

[RacetrackReject]

As an equine photographer, the photographer owns the copyright to any photo they take. If you purchased the copyright, it would have been fairly expensive, and most people do not go that route, so I’m going to assume that the photographer still owns the image. Also, read the contract that you signed with the photographer. The contract or model release should spell out that the image may be used for advertising or promotion because that’s a very crucial part of contract law for photographers and is included in even the most basic of contracts generally.

Oftentimes, magazines just publish images without contacting the photographer at all and this is a possibility in your case. When this happens, our only real option is to send an invoice because the damage is already done. We can send a DMCA notice, but that really only backs up the invoice at this point because the image has already been published. It’s more of a hey, this is serious to me and I’m not going to let it go type thing. The way your photographer said that she was aware and had a contract in place made me feel like maybe it was done after she learned about what the magazine had done.

Lastly, if the image was taken in a public place, it is kind of fair game. The law says that there is no expectation of privacy in a public venue (think about what paparazzi get away with) so any image taken of you in public can be used in most any way without your say.

For myself, even with my contract, I will message my clients and ask if they are ok with me using images for various things like contests or adverts for myself.

Photographers, if they get compensated at all, only get pennies for their photos in print use. It’s sad really. Some of the biggest media groups will e-mail asking to use images for no compensation and if you send them a $$ amount back, they just go to someone else who will do it for free. If the publisher has to have a specific shot of a specific horse or something that makes your photo unique, then maybe you have a shot at getting a little money for it.

[Bicoastal]

You know what say ye o’ COTH: What does your contract say?

It is entirely legitimate that photographer owns and reserves rights to use images of your horses, including commercial, depending on what the contract says about such rights.

I will add, the photographer could have avoided any hurt feelings by communicating proactively. I’ve never heard of any owner refusing, as they are usually very flattered and excited at the idea of their pet getting 15 minutes of fame. I know I was when my dog was asked to be in a commercial shoot.

[candyappy]

You should be flattered. If your name , address and the location of your horse was with the photo then you should be upset. Otherwise it is just a picture of some horse who is somewhere in the world. Shouldn’t be an issue.

[Puddin_Pie]

And on this same vein, someone sort of local to me with mutual FB friends posted on a local equestrian page. Her profile picture caught my eye, as it was a certain horse. My former horse, that a local photographer had taken pictures of. This person does not own said horse, not has ever met him. I sent a message saying, her, that I used to own that horse when the picture was taken. They finally got back to me that, yes, the loved the picture and had contacted the photographer for permission to use as cover photo. I am not sure about that, but it fell into, not my problem. Bit weird, none the less.

[GraceLikeRain]

@Arelle

Images used that are to advertise the photographers business and brand - sure. Selling an image to a third party that the customer paid to have taken in a specific session - that’s where the line was slightly blurred for me, but it appears I’m in the minority on this! :lol:

But you don’t own the pictures. You own the print you purchased or the JPEG image that can only be used as outlined in your contract.

It is all the property of the artist. If you want to own the exclusive rights to every photo taken during a shoot, then that needs to be negotiated and put into a contract ahead of time. Photo rights for a single photo go for hundreds to thousands of dollars so it is atypical for client to go that route. Similarly, purchasing a JPEG of an image from a shoot does not give the client the right to resell that photo or even use it for advertisement in many contracts.

[ecileh]

@candyappy

You should be flattered. If your name , address and the location of your horse was with the photo then you should be upset. Otherwise it is just a picture of some horse who is somewhere in the world. Shouldn’t be an issue.

This spring, I opened an email from Dover to see an ad for Noble Peddies–not unusual at all. EXCEPT that one of the models was wearing socks that had my horse on them. I did a massive double take, then called my husband in to confirm what I was seeing. Yes. It was Quincy and the photo was from my 2014 Christmas card (I had taken it). This particular photo went somewhat viral (stolen from my flickr account) a few years ago–google “Christmas Horse” and there she is in her dappled glory, with a wreath around her neck standing in front of a green barn in the snow. I was used to seeing it pop up in odd places, but on socks that were being sold for profit? Oh HELL no.

I posted to FB, shocked and somewhat angry. Many of my friends said “you should be flattered”. I contacted Noble and Dan Costa (owner) also told me I should be flattered.

It’s not flattering, it’s rude–and in my case, a violation of copyright.

OP, I understand your feelings, even though as a show photographer I know that I actually own the images of your horse unless you pay me for exclusive use on your part. If I were going to sell any of my photos of client horses to a magazine, I would at least contact the client to let them know I was doing so. Most people would be thrilled to see their horse in a national ad, but it’s POLITE to let them know it’s coming.

[FjordBCRF]

@ecileh

This spring, I opened an email from Dover to see an ad for Noble Peddies–not unusual at all. EXCEPT that one of the models was wearing socks that had my horse on them. I did a massive double take, then called my husband in to confirm what I was seeing. Yes. It was Quincy and the photo was from my 2014 Christmas card (I had taken it). This particular photo went somewhat viral (stolen from my flickr account) a few years ago–google “Christmas Horse” and there she is in her dappled glory, with a wreath around her neck standing in front of a green barn in the snow. I was used to seeing it pop up in odd places, but on socks that were being sold for profit? Oh HELL no.

I posted to FB, shocked and somewhat angry. Many of my friends said “you should be flattered”. I contacted Noble and Dan Costa (owner) also told me I should be flattered.

It’s not flattering, it’s rude–and in my case, a violation of copyright.

OP, I understand your feelings, even though as a show photographer I know that I actually own the images of your horse unless you pay me for exclusive use on your part. If I were going to sell any of my photos of client horses to a magazine, I would at least contact the client to let them know I was doing so. Most people would be thrilled to see their horse in a national ad, but it’s POLITE to let them know it’s coming.

Oh wow! I think I have your horse pinned on one of my Pinterest boards LOL. Did you get any resolution? That being flattered line is trash. That is crazy to me that they would do that and think it wouldn’t somehow someway get back to you, which it clearly did. At work we are so cautious and only use stock photos for powerpoint presentations etc and that’s typically just for internal communications!

A good friend is a professional photog and just echoing many of the others comments, unless you purchase exclusive rights, they are indeed the photographers property. You agreed to it whether you realized or not and that should be detailed out in a contract.

[Impractical_Horsewoman]

Though the photographer owns the copyright–particularly for photographs taken during a private session of a repeat client–I think it’s a good business practice to notify and ideally ask the client as a courtesy.

It’s certainly within the photographer’s legal right to use the images, but there are a number of reasons a client might not want his or her horse’s image used in a commercial context–for example, if a horse had passed away in the interim. If the client strongly objected, the photographer might want to consider using the image of a willing client, to avoid bad feelings (and also because this client is a frequent user of the photographer’s services).

[Where_sMyWhite]

Photographers usually know that if the photo has images of people, including children, who are identifiable, that a release should be signed. Photos of just the horse don’t require that extra step.

It may be good business practice to let a client know a photo containing their horse maybe used elsewhere, but still just a courtesy.

[ecileh]

@Fjordboycharlie

Oh wow! I think I have your horse pinned on one of my Pinterest boards LOL. Did you get any resolution? That being flattered line is trash. That is crazy to me that they would do that and think it wouldn’t somehow someway get back to you, which it clearly did. At work we are so cautious and only use stock photos for powerpoint presentations etc and that’s typically just for internal communications!

A good friend is a professional photog and just echoing many of the others comments, unless you purchase exclusive rights, they are indeed the photographers property. You agreed to it whether you realized or not and that should be detailed out in a contract.

I did get resolution, but it took many phone calls, emails, and, finally, a letter from my lawyer. It turned out that (allegedly) someone submitted the photo for one of their “design a pair of socks” contests and they never bothered to check if it was royalty free or not. At one point Dan Costa was insiting that if I didn’t have a watermark on the image it was fair use and…um…no, that’s not how this works.

Overall, the experience left a really bad taste in my mouth about Noble and their products, which is unfortunate, because I really love the peddies.