I can't help but think that the ego gratification that might be
derived from telling a friend that the photo they copied wasn't just a
photo but valuable art probably isn't worth the cost of a friend. As
photographers, we take great pride in our work and expect that others
will recognize its value. But nine out of ten friends, relatives and
acquaintances won't. To them, they're just snapshots, and if we make a
fuss about them, we come across as silly and mean spirited. If someone
copies a photo that was purchased i a gallery, get angry. If a friend
copies a photo you gave them, smile and be thankful that they like the
image.
Paul
On May 14, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Stan Halpin wrote:
This is one of those interesting dilemmas where there is no right
answer. Thinking out loud as to how I would react in the same
situation...
First, I would be very irked.
Second, I would try to figure out why it irked me. Two thoughts come
to mind. First, I would be irked because it is MY work and I am
getting no credit for it. With my friend, at last I get appreciation
and the knowledge that s/he will think kindly of me whenever s/he
looks at the print. A poor mass reproduction on a copy machine,
passed around to unknown (?) others demeans me and my work as though
it were just another dime-a-dozen crude snapshot. Second, as several
others have said, there is the matter of personal pride in what you
do. Worse even than the recipients treating the copied prints as an
anonymous snapshot would be for them to know who it came from and to
think that the quality of the print was a true representation of
your work.
So, yes I would still be irked. Do I want to make a big deal of it?
Probably not. As a variation on what others have suggested, I would
probably tell my former friend why I was irked, dwelling on the
quality issue as much as anything. "I just do not feel comfortable
knowing that people have poor quality reproductions of my work."
Offer, for the cost of materials, to make good prints for others in
the family as long as you can get back and destroy all of the bad
prints.
At the end of the conversation, an oh-by-the-way, "you should tell
your father-in-law that he can get in serious legal trouble making
unauthorized reproductions of artwork." S/he won't get it, the
father-in-law won't get it if s/he passes that on, but at least you
have made the point that what they did was not only rude and
thoughtless, but also illegal.
Finally, again as others have suggested, I would resolve to re-ink
my copyright stamp and remember to use it next time.
Not that it has done Dave much good. But he deals with horse people
and everyone knows what that crowd is like.
stan
On 13/5/09, Christine Aguila, offered up the following dilemma:
I'd very much like to know everyone's views about something that
has just
happened to me; here's the story:
I gave a nice print--as a gift--to a friend. My friend's father-
in-law took
the print to get it framed, and come to find out, he also made
some scans of
the print and gave them to family members. I'm just going to come
out and
say it--I'm really irked by this. I often sign my prints in the
lower right
hand edge, but I didn't on this print.
How irked would you guys be? What, if anything, would you guys do
or say?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
