[John Diamond]

Without going into too much detail, I am interested in the forums feedback on the principle of the matter raised.

I run a crew company. We have a hand in a lot of productions and events in the areas we service. We recently launched our new website. The vast majority of the feedback has been positive.

However since launching the website a competitor has raised issue with a single image that includes (alongside our staff members at an iconic venue) an element of an event that the competitor had provided staff to help construct. (Their client is a sub-contractor to the venue). The competitor indicated to us that the image could be misleading to the fact that: we were involved on the construction of the specific element because it is shown in an image on our website.

Despite us having no prior knowledge of their involvement until they raised the issue, their subtext is that we should remove the image because we would be 'doing the right thing'.

Permission to have a photographer present to take photos of our staff was sought and confirmed with all clients in advance of launching the website with the express intention of using images for publicity.

Given that we are a crew company, if I had to remove images from my website that showed any specific element where my staff did not have a hand in actually installing it would be a pretty ugly website.

No where do we lay claim to specific elements that we have not worked on and we are happy to respond honestly to enquiries regarding what we did on what production or event. Our clients are happy to acknowledge that we have done all we can to make sure their event or production is a success.

Based on my line of business and the facts above, my question is: is this an issue I need to seriously address/consider more carefully in future or is it someone having a slow day in the office with nothing better to do with their time?

Personally, I do not see any reason why I should remove this image. What do you think? What do you think I should be giving more consideration to?

Pointing no fingers, naming no names, all in the interests of open debate. But. If you need to know what the specific image in question is please feel free to PM me.

[David Lee]

Out of interest, which image? Surely we don't need to PM you about it as you are very happy to have it on your website?

If they are a competitor then they are justified to ask you to remove images which may imply that you worked on an element that they actually worked on. How this legally stands up, I have no idea.

Looking at your website, the only picture I see, that could be a problem is the one with two crew in the foreground and the arena seating in the back. Pretty much screams out "we done that".

[Jivemaster]

But in many cases the equipment supplier has not also laid the floor built the walls etc. Can the issue be addressed by adding an appropriate caption.

[David Lee]

Quote

Can the issue be addressed by adding an appropriate caption.

Is the easiest answer

[timtheenchanteruk]

Personally, I can't see any REAL problem with any of the images, unless I have got it wrong, you only supply STAFF, so IMO, anything else in the pics is merely set dressing. If this isn't the case, then the site has more problems than its pics!!

[kerry davies]

Hi John, you have the permissions required and if anyone in this business is precious enough to be concerned about their labour on someone else's equipment then they have many more problems than any photo.

Nowhere do you claim to own a castle or vast quantities of seating or to have built either. I cannot think of a single photo on a single events website that does not have some element of somebody else's kit/effort shown.

My response would be to have a cup of tea and possibly a nice biscuit. Mind you that bloke in specs does the website no favours. Can't you get him to wear a bikini?

[cfmonk]

Almost all the photos on my website have things that other people have provided / built / installed / done. As long as they have SOME stuff that's our own work then it's perfectly valid to have them there.

If the image in question, however, ONLY shows something that somebody else has done then it could be considered bad form to have it there.

Legally they don't have a leg to stand on though. The photo is owned by the person who took it, pretty much end of.


Chris

This post has been edited by cfmonk: 02 August 2012 - 10:54 AM

[the kid]

What about if you bought a stock photo from getty or the like? In-fact who is to stop you using a random image from stock of 2012, plenty of reputable papers have used images to suggest things that did or did not happen.

Either way I don't see the issue, you have all the permissions you need showing your staff doing things they were employed to do. IT wouldn't hurt to do captions for "we provided xyz at this event and abc at this event" if only to sell your self a bit more.

This post has been edited by the kid: 02 August 2012 - 11:27 AM

[Bobbsy]

If you have all the permissions, so be it. But, are any of the photos on your site really worth the risk of giving a competitor ammo to say "and look at Diamond--the picture on their site shows the thingamyjig that WE built so clearly they can't be trusted".

Sometimes fighting for a principle can be counter-productive.

[Junior8]

If the image is in the selection on the home page I can't see what anybody would have to complain about since no claims are made under any of them. If you want to take pix at events it seems to me inevitable you are going to have other firm's stuff in shot, providing no claims are implied by captions they are pictures nothing more.

I would refer them to the case of Arkle v Pressdram.

[kerry davies]

Aaah Roger, indeed the Arkle vs Pressdram response is what I was hinting at. For the uninitiated the full explanation from Wikipedia seems appropriate.

Quote

An unlikely piece of British legal history occurred in what is now referred to as the "case" of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971). The plaintiff was the subject of an article relating to illicit payments, and the magazine had ample evidence to back up the article. Arkell's lawyers wrote a letter which concluded: "His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply." The magazine's response was, in full: "We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: ###### off." In the years following, the magazine would refer to this exchange as a euphemism for a blunt and coarse dismissal: for example, "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram".

[David Lee]

Now that is sheer genius

[StevieR]

Hey, John.

Funnily enough, this reminds me of a call a few years back from another well known Edinburgh company, claiming that we had used an image from one of their events on our website. We pointed out that while the venue was indeed one of their 'regulars' that it was not as exclusive to them as they would hope and that this was taken at an event that we had supplied and installed exclusively. Slightly put out, the person then went on to claim that we had stolen their lighting design - not that the use of uplighters is anything new! Naturally, we declined their request to remove the image.

Wonder if we are talking about the same people??? PM me and let me know.

Steve

[rossmck]

StevieR, on 07 August 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

Funnily enough, this reminds me of a call a few years back from another well known Edinburgh company, claiming that we had used an image from one of their events on our website. We pointed out that while the venue was indeed one of their 'regulars' that it was not as exclusive to them as they would hope and that this was taken at an event that we had supplied and installed exclusively. Slightly put out, the person then went on to claim that we had stolen their lighting design - not that the use of uplighters is anything new! Naturally, we declined their request to remove the image.

Wonder if we are talking about the same people??? PM me and let me know.

I can think of a company up that way that did something similar - although in my case they used an image of a show they had nothing to do with that *I* had taken....


Would be quite amusing if we're all thinking about the same person

[Stuart91]

A few years ago I got an email mailshot from a projector manufacturer, which used a photo from my website. It was a very distinctive photo of an unconventional installation. It turns out that the marketing drone who put the mailshot together had just typed "projector installation" into google images and we were the first useable thing to appear.