Lost Job, unreal reason

[Robert Harshman]

I'm a commercial photographer. I expect to lose at least 20% of all my quotes for price sensitivity, but I have never lost a job because a "competitor" insisted that no one else but their chosen photographer(s) could shoot.

I was asked to shoot a very expensive property coming up for sale. The price, end product, time frame were all agreed to and we were just working out the dates for the shoots when I got a called saying they were sorry but it could not happen as the magazine that was shooting the property too insisted that no one else be allowed to shoot the property, and if they needed more than the 3 pictures they would let them use, then they had to use one of there photographers and they could not use the same angles, positions, etc. that would appear in the magazine.

Uh?

The magazine is not a place where properties are listed for sale, but features properties for their architectural beauty. Hardly any type of direct competition. Has anyone ever run into anything like this before? It seems like a pretty clear case of restraint of trade but of course the magazine could simply say they would not shoot or feature the property if the owners did not play ball.

This is a new one for me, hard for me to believe such draconian control measures. I guess if you think you own the world and all of the images your photographers make, then you believe you should have exclusive rights to make images of it. WOW.

Regards,

Robert

[Petrjay]

One detail that seems to be missing in your story is a written contract. Next time, have one ready to be signed the moment both parties agree to the terms.  

Peter J

[Kirk Gittings]

Seems like your client allowed themselves to be bullied by a magazine with an overreaching sense of proprietorship. Frankly this will hurt your client too by limiting both exposure and interpretation. I have not experienced your issue directly. However, I recently lost a huge commission for a high profile international architect because there was a brief window of time for the shoot to take place and the building owner had already scheduled another photographer in the brief time slot. Nothing I could do but have a tall one. Best of luck with this. IMO It would be far too expensive and tenuous to try and tackle this legally.

I'm a commercial photographer. I expect to lose at least 20% of all my quotes for price sensitivity, but I have never lost a job because a "competitor" insisted that no one else but their chosen photographer(s) could shoot.

I was asked to shoot a very expensive property coming up for sale. The price, end product, time frame were all agreed to and we were just working out the dates for the shoots when I got a called saying they were sorry but it could not happen as the magazine that was shooting the property too insisted that no one else be allowed to shoot the property, and if they needed more than the 3 pictures they would let them use, then they had to use one of there photographers and they could not use the same angles, positions, etc. that would appear in the magazine.

Uh?

The magazine is not a place where properties are listed for sale, but features properties for their architectural beauty. Hardly any type of direct competition. Has anyone ever run into anything like this before? It seems like a pretty clear case of restraint of trade but of course the magazine could simply say they would not shoot or feature the property if the owners did not play ball.

This is a new one for me, hard for me to believe such draconian control measures. I guess if you think you own the world and all of the images your photographers make, then you believe you should have exclusive rights to make images of it. WOW.

Regards,

Robert

[Robert Harshman]

IMO It would be far too expensive and tenuous to try and tackle this legally.

I have no plans to pursue any type of legal action, I agree not worth it and I have plenty of other clients and work.

I posted this as I am curious if anyone had run into a similar situation and wondered if it's actually legal. This is a national magazine, very well know, thats part of a much larger publisher and expect this is how they do business on a regular basis.

Regards,

Robert

[Kirk Gittings]

I do allot of work for national magazines. The usual questions are about past publishing history of the residence or who else has plans to publish and when. And these concerns are real. Unfortunately through a mix up I once had the the same image on the cover of two magazines on the stands at one time and there was hell for me to pay even though it was not actually my fault (on one I had submitted images to their book publishing wing and someone kicked them over to the magazine-all along I thought we were talking about a book project down the road apiece-it was a mess). Many magazines want to be the first or the only one on the new stands with this house etc. But I have never heard of one insisting that no one else could even shoot it. Was that contractual or just a policy statement? I don't know of a well known architect who would agree to such nonsense.

[Robert Harshman]

But I have never heard of one insisting that no one else could even shoot it. Was that contractual or just a policy statement? I don't know of a well known architect who would agree to such nonsense.

I understand about wanting exclusive publishing control for whom ever they think are their competitors, but perhaps I'm not being clear; this was not for the architect, but to help sell the house. I was being asked to do a extremely high end real estate shoot and VRs and then have a private web site built that would be invitation only -  i.e. you have to prove you could buy it before they let you see it. It's that expensive of a property.  

And from what I've seen this architect either does not care about great photography or does not know it as their web site is filled with really bad images. I was surprised how bad most of it is.

Anyway, I did not speak with the magazines representative directly so I'm not sure if it's in the contract or was presented as policy, I would assume the later as putting that into a contract could probably be easily challenged and dismissed as not binding.

Regards,

Robert

[Kirk Gittings]

I guess this is unknown territory for me. Most of my work is for architects (or magazines buying one time rights) who are trying to get as much exposure as possible. Good luck.

[Justan]

Eh…………..they are flakes. Be happy you got away easy. I agree with the other writer who suggested having a good contract. Dealing with flaky people predictably leads to problems.

[roskav]

After a brief read of this two things strike me:  Who owns and has access to the property?  They have final say on who can work on site.  If they are folding to the wishes of the magazine then their priorities have changed since they commissioned you to do the job.  They are ultimately responsible. Also .. did you consider that the owner/agent might be trying to get copies of the magazine's photos? ... Again the magazine cannot implement this policy without the cooperation of the owner of the property.  Thats not to say that someone can't drive up and photograph the property from the road... but it does sound like that you wouldn't be able to see it from there!

Ros