A questionable act

AnneL

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Joined
Jul 11, 2001
Posts
15,946
Loc
Wautoma, WI USA
This was posted on the forum I belong to for professional photographers:

A neighbor of mine brought this question to my attention.

She took a photograph of her boys (from the back) sitting on the beach looking at the ocean. Loved it so she had it enlarged to 24 x 30. Wanting it framed she took it to a large hobby store ( A national chain). They needed to crop it to fit into the frame, but they cropped it wrong. They paid to have it remade, cropped it correctly and framed it. She went back later and they had reframed the incorrectly cropped photo and had it on the wall FOR SALE. When she said something to them, they gave the the old photo. The question is, can they legally sell that photo that she took?

Steve
 
If the store asked to buy the photograph from the photographer and the photographer agreed, then yes. If the photographer did not sell it to the store and the store went ahead and framed it like you had mentioned, then no. - Framing Goddess is right, that's SO unethical. As a photographer myself, i'd be furious.
 
Okay, let's say this customer dropped off the piece, it was framed but the customer never returned to pick it up or pay. I'd say the photographer still has inherent rights, but the framer has a right to recover the loss. What do you know or think about this situation?
john
 
Take the durn photo out, pack it up for the customer to pick it up someday and sell the frame and mat as a readymade.

Luckily you take at least a 50% deposit, so your materials are covered.

But, DON'T sell the photo. Bad, bad, very bad!

edie the commonsenserules goddess
 
oftem what is legal is not what is right !
I would be highly offended by the whole ordeal and definitelty would not bother to do any more busn. with this outfit. I think I would be out there picketting these guys. My mind says "Legal" who cares, Moral and ethically it is wrong..and that would be good enough for me. But even that can bring up another question of what is considered moral. We all seem to have our own views on that subject. Living in a typical "amoral" society as we do whose to say what is right and what is wrong. Something inside my gut rings a loud and clear bell and shouts out "wrong"
 
From the info provided, the customer in questions provided them a new photo to replace the one that was cut incorrectly. The original photo should have been returned to the customer when she went to pick up the correctly done photo. The fact that they would try to then profit from their error is, in my own most humble opinion, is unethical in the extreme. I would certainly think twice about going there agin!
 
I’m certainly not a lawyer (I just pretend to be one while watching “Boston Legal”), but I’m guessing it’s not just unethical but illegal.

If you take a picture, you own it! You may license the image, but if you didn’t, it’s yours.

And, there’s the question of a “model release”, too. Even if they are not recognizable, the kids or their parents have to have signed one for it to be displayed in the store … I think.
 
I have a signed michael irvin jersey that i'd love to sell. The framing is mine, but the jersey is not. - It's been here since '04. I can't believe the owner hasn't come to pick it up. Sure makes for a nice display!
 
Wrong, wrong, wrong. In EVERY sense of the word wrong.
 
Originally posted by rookie_fargo:
I have a signed michael irvin jersey that i'd love to sell. The framing is mine, but the jersey is not. - It's been here since '04. I can't believe the owner hasn't come to pick it up. Sure makes for a nice display!
All the way back to '04, eh. I've got some stuff that has been with me since before the move in '89.
Check your state laws on abandoned property. All you may have to do is notify the owner of the jersey that you intend to sell it should it not be picked up and paid for by a specific date. The laws vary from state to state, but there is usually a fairly straight forward procedure in seizing abandoned goods.
 
WRONG! That's all. Anything that came with the customer's stuff and doesn't eventually go into the frame package goes back to the customer. Usually even the old broken frame. Besides the copyright laws. GEEESSSS what were they thinking?
 
A letter to the Hobby Store's corporate headquarters should be sent by your customer informing them what was being done at this particular store. It's very possible that an over-zealous employee/manager in an effort to recoup his loss did this w/o realizing what he was doing. You have to remember, some of the personnel that work at these places are young, first-time employees and/or managers - although this is not an excuse, it does point out a failure of upper management to properly train their employees.
 
Wally I am not about to tell you or anyone else what each State's laws allow. But I did find somethings you said were a bit incompatable or at least your apprehensions are. Would you please expalin if "Check your state laws on abandoned property. All you may have to do is notify the owner of the jersey that you intend to sell it should it not be picked up and paid for by a specific date."
why then did you also state in the same post"All the way back to '04, eh. I've got some stuff that has been with me since before the move in '89." while speaking about how long someone else held on to an unclaimed work?

It may be my lack of understanding but that sure sounded like you gave one piece of advice to all others but in your own case you chose to be a lot more cautious.
Am I just being dense? Or could it be that it isn't as easy as that comment would make it seem to rid yourself of umclaimed work?
BUDDY
 
I’ll start by saying that in my store I would have paid for a new one and given the “bad” one to the customer!

On the flip side I think about what would you do if you damaged a piece of original art and the customer said for $100 they could have another done just like it. Do you now own that art?

What would an insurance company do if they had to buy a $10,000 piece of damaged art? I’ll bet they would salvage what they could and sell it!!!!!!

While this lacks taste and shouldn’t have been done, what makes this any different?

If it was my photo I would ask once then take the picture down and cut the back of the frame out and take the picture myself.

There is a radio show call "Troubleshooter" and the host is Tom Martino. He fielded this very question the other day. I just don't remember what he said.
 
The photographer should have insisted on either getting the original back or seeing to its destruction. But that does not absolve the hobby store for its breach of ethics. I'd say this is more likely at a place with high employee turnover and minimal training. Kinda makes you want to register your images, doesn't it? I think statutory damages for a copyright infringement would likely get the attention of the hobby shop.
 
Originally posted by Jay H:
On the flip side I think about what would you do if you damaged a piece of original art and the customer said for $100 they could have another done just like it. Do you now own that art?

What would an insurance company do if they had to buy a $10,000 piece of damaged art? I’ll bet they would salvage what they could and sell it!!!!!!

While this lacks taste and shouldn’t have been done, what makes this any different?
[/QUOTE

Being a Photographer myself, what makes this differant from paintings and other such art is that this was a photograph of the womans children. I would have felt violated if someone had sold a picture of members of my family without my knowledge or consent. That being said as a framer now I would have returned any art that I had damaged to the customer. But if it meant that the wrong sized frame had been ordered, I would definately sell that as a ready made.

PaulW
 
I would bet that the person who made the decision to stick that on the wall and try to sell it simply didn't think past the idea of recouping the money on the frame in selling it.

Stupidity can be quite simple sometimes. No deep seated meaning, no malicious getting back at the customer, no unethical thoughts, just pure and simple not thinking it through.

Maybe. Whatever, still not right.
 
I agree that the hobby store should have returned the wrongly cropped photo to the customer, or at the very least asked her what she would like done with it. They certainly should not have tried to sell it without her prior consent.

I had a customer who brought in a photo of the Leaning Tower of Pisa that she took while on vacation last year. It was such an interesting shot (taken at the base of the tower and looking up). I loved the photo and asked her if she'd mind if I have a copy to frame and display in my shop. She was more than happy to oblige and gave me the original digital file. I took the photo and made it narrow and taller and turned it into sepia colour. It makes a great display piece and my customer loved it when I showed it to her. However, I wouldn't think of selling it without getting permission from her and I would certainly make sure she would get a portion of the proceeds that was acceptable to both of us.
 
The mom who took the photo wasn't a professional so how would she know anything about copyright or registering her images? Does the average person ever think about that? It was only after the incident happened that she asked a friend who was a professional photographer what she should do.

The shop wasn't out the cost of the frame. The frame was correct. They were out the cost of having the photo reprinted but that still does not give them the right to sell the one they messed up on. A customer's personal photos are their private property.
 
Back
Top