Is This An Ethical Business Practice??

[Ando74]

Yep, I'm guilty.

Removed my Fisher stickers and replace them with Origin, but you won't see my boat on the Origin website promoting them. (I also have a Shimano sticker on my esky and an ARB sticker on my bullbar if that counts, as well as one from a uni pub crawl!)

How ever you will see my boat, as well as an image of me in it, on the Fisher website promoting the boat for sale. The photo was used without my permission, and hasn't been removed even after I asked them to do it. (Which was over 6 weeks ago now)

Not happy about it, and think it is unethical.

[Jarrah Jack]

A rough meaning ethics is: a code of behaviour considered correct, especially that of a particular group, profession or individual. (thanks online dictionary)

Been a long time since I studied this sort of business but basically from what I have read on this thread is that WE as a particular boat interested community overwhelmingly agree that the practise was wrong by our code........We may not be able to explain it well but we all know it.

So to finish off.....yes it is unethical behaviour. Why is it unethical behaviour? Because we feel and know it is.

(Now for some more red)

[Lovey80]

Yep unethical IMHO. On 2 counts, Fisher MKII didn't design or build the boat nor did they have permission to use the photos. I doubt fisherII really give 2 cents what fisher one owners opinion of them are.

Cheers

Chris

[TJ Bear]

!00% agree with Jarrah Jack, unethical becuase deep down we all feel and know it is. I think we all know the ethical thing to do would be to call and ask the owner of the boat if it was ok to use the pics in that manner, most would be happy to oblige and if they said they did not want them used in this manner you don't use them, this is simple good ethics that I think we would all agree with. Fisher Mk11's pratices in this instance are simply unethical, maybe not illegal but definatly unethical.

[kingtin]

peterbo3
There is one simple question
Who actually took the photo?

If it wasn't you there is nothing unethical about it

If it was someone else, who hadn't given permission, if there was someone in the picture who hadn't given permission, then it is not only unethical but illegal.

kev..................I'm a photographer...........trust me

[ifishcq1]

it all depends on how they got the pics
if they were given them, they could reasonably expect the photos were taken by the giver and use them freely
but if they pinched them to use for gain then it is more than just unethical

cheers

[peterbo3]

Storm in a teacup, but well orchestrated - No wonder Fisher are going so strong

Dawn,
You seem to have plenty to say about how great Fisher Mk2 are going but you have been pretty quiet about the original topic.
I have provided the additional answers that other posters requested to clarify a couple of points so the information is there.
So, do you think that using photos for commercial gain without the permission of the photographer is an ethical business practice?

[kingtin]

How does this work, vis a vis the paps? They make buckets out of taking pictures of people without their permission.

Sorry, I should clarify. I was speaking in relation to this particular case. (see bold). A person’s image is not protected by copyright.(In Oz) However, in some cases, using a person’s image without permission may be prevented under other laws, such as the law of passing off, the Trade Practices Act 1974 and State and Territory fair trading laws. These areas of law concern conduct which may mislead or deceive the public

I would conclude that there is a fair case for pursuance of legal action in this case, under all 3 statutes...........but I'm not a lawyer..........just a retired photographer who's had to take legal action in the past re use of some of my pics without permission, even though I had stated that by simply asking, I would likely grant permission............they obviously couldn't be arsed or thought that it was too demeaning to ask a mere photographer for usage.

Of note: the question may be asked, "then why do some paparazzi get sued and others don't?" well it's all down to that bold stuff again: "which may mislead or deceive the public" The taking of the picture isn't illegal, but how the images are represented may be. eg If a court decides that the picure, or any accompanying caption/text somehow infers an untruth, then the publisher/photographer may be liable

My apologies to the original poster for going off topic but the above para and this, may be of interest: Even where the photographer doesn't have copyright ie if commissioned, or taking a picture as part of his employment, he/she has a right to have the image attributed to him/her. Failure to do so, or somehow inferring that the picture was taken by someone else, can lead to a civil action.

kev

[kingtin]

Dawn,
You seem to have plenty to say about how great Fisher Mk2 are going but you have been pretty quiet about the original topic.
I have provided the additional answers that other posters requested to clarify a couple of points so the information is there.
So, do you think that using photos for commercial gain without the permission of the photographer is an ethical business practice?

Well, if it's illegal I would say it's unethical, wouldn't you?

kev

[finga]

Bugger eh. A lot of posts gone. Probably for the better too.
It sounds like a few blokes did not want their pride and joy's in the advertising but they are still there.
Can you give permission for the use of pictures and then something happens and you don't want your boat there anymore have you got any rights for the pictures to be taken down or are they stuck there for good??
I suppose it would depend on who took them....

[peterbo3]

Sooooooooooooooooo Dawn, you don't think it is an ethical business practice, however you think it is a "redicules" question of ethics & you are not sure of my motive.
Have I got that right?
It is a bit hard to decipher your convoluted grammar but thank you for your support.

[Nancy_S]

First light,
Everyone wants to stick to the post and talk ethics as most people are ethical……
Having read all your posts as First light you might fool a lot of people but you won’t fool me ……… what is it ……. Fishertoo tomorrow?
For you to promote yourself as someone else on here that has had a fisher built by fisher mark 2 and wish yourself all the best is a total bloody joke, also shows a lot of ethics….
Too late for a storm in a tea cup
BTW…… It’s not healthy pretending to be someone you’re not and is that really you with your 6.2 mtr boat in the avatar??

[Tangles]

Not an ethical practice irrespective of copyright which is a separate issue, cowboy stuff more like it, and displays a lack of basic respect,

also Peter had to field queries whether he was selling his boat, if that isnt motive enough i dont know what is, fielding questions if your selling something because of an act of a third party for their own gain, gimme me a break.

[kingtin]

Or the bloody photog never answered his emails - they never bloody do... :p

No emails mate. They'd been using my images for a year before I found out and I only found out by this little freebie..still in it's infancy http://www.tineye.com/plugin

kev

[finga]

Not an ethical practice irrespective of copyright which is a separate issue, cowboy stuff more like it, and displays a lack of basic respect,

I think Mike has nailed it.
It shows lack of respect. A lack of respect to all those who have asked for pictures of their boats to be removed but have not.
It has nothing to do with who legally owns them or not.
It shows a lack of respect to those who have brought a boat at some considerable expense which has given food on the table and a roof over the head of the company and it's employees...and then, basically, been told Stuff ya. They're pictures we took (or were on a computer that was taken over by the new Fisher) so they're ours. Bugger off and don't bother us.
In my books respect is very, very closely related to ethics and should come hand in hand.

A question: How would you feel if the photographer at your first wedding still used your image in their advertising all the time in the area where you live BUT you and the bride in the picture hate each others guts now and you have remarried to the loveliest person on earth??
The photographer owns the pictures so should he still use them regardless of what emotions it raises in yourself, your new bride, your family and your friends??

Sadly been shown a lack of respect in this manner does not promote the 'wanting' to go back for repeat business by the owners of the boats in question and all the people they would have contact with.

So then we can look at the situation in a business sense.
Do you annoy the people who have used you in the past??...taking into account every smart business person knows it takes not much at all to keep a client or customer but costs a bucket load of cash to find a new client or customer.
Personally, I'd be doing all in my power to keep the existing clients happy as Larry.
So if that is considered then it does not really matter about ethics or respect. It's all good business sense if you want to keep going with greater profit margins.
So in my opinion all 3 items seem to be hand in hand.
Ethics, respect and good business sense.
The use of pictures in direct opposition to the boat owner wishes exhibit non of the above traits.