I wanted to start a new thread because this is a trend that I'm seeing by "newer" Labrador photographers lately. It's not just the LQ, but on the internet, websites, FB, etc.

As someone who has my dogs professionally photographed, I seek out someone whose work speaks for itself. I want them to show off my dog to its best. I do not want to see their signature scrawled across my dog and detracting from it. It is not their photo to advertise their name on by signing across the dog whether it is to prevent being cropped out or not. I am the one paying for it. It is of my dog not to advertise their name front and center over the dog.

Any good photographer knows where to put their signature to prevent it from being removed if photos are cropped to fit a page and used for advertising. However, most photographers know what the dimensions of the magazine is and will already have the photo cropped to fit.

One of my favorite photographers, who shoots all breeds for major advertising campaigns, is Miquel from InFocus. I can always recognize his photos well before I notice his signature low to the ground in front of or next to the dog. The focus is where it should be, on the dog/handler.

I notice a few Labrador photographers who scrawl their name over the dog and it makes me wonder if the photo is a proof or an advertisement for the photographer. If the photo is good enough, trust me, people will know who took it. I do not want a signature across my dog's body and will not use anyone who does this. JMO.

Please note that I am in no way "critiquing" the ads in the LQ. I just notice a few photographers that practice this and as an advertiser and reader, I find it distracting. I'm just expressing my opinion.

I agree distracting. Thank you for posting.

Because you pay a professional doesn't mean you "own" the photo. Most professionals never give the negatives (or digital files) with the prints. The owner of the digital file or negative is the "owner" or whoever has the copyright, or whoever took the photo. A photographer can put their name on a file where ever and however they see fit. Stealing of photos is a huge problem these days so the name must be easily visible. Not getting paid as a photographer is a much bigger problem with those that have their name in a tiny little discreet corner of a file that is easily and eventually cropped out.

Most photogs sell you a high resolution file which is like a negative. I pay for the noncommercial copyright and am free to print up my own 8x10s or submit it for magazine ads as I please. I paid for a service. I have certain rights to its use. I got the product I sought and as long as I am not reselling the product for my own profit, there is nothing wrong with owning the digital negative. And just because a photog writes across a dog, if some one wants to "steal" the photo, it is easy to erase the name. It does not stop unwanted use.

I agree with the others, it's very distracting. IMO, any photographer who feels the need to claim their photo by scribbling across the subject is tacky, unprofressional and detracts from the overall look of the photo.

So you sell someone a high resolution file in which you always keep a copy for yourself that you "own". If you one day saw that photo in an advertisement, then who could sue, you or the person you sold the hr file to, or both?

Typically photogs will sell the high resolution file to you at a premium with the idea that you probably are going to use that file for advertisement. That might cost you $50-100 per photo...the agreement that you are allowed to use that photo in print as part of the deal. Many photogs will then sell web images at a more cost friendly price for your website and facebook pleasure at a much lower price.

But in the end, the photog owns the photo and you buy the rights. How much rights you have to use will depend on the quality of the file and the price you pay.

You didn't answer my question. Who can sue if the photo was used in an ad because it was stolen and never intended by either party to be used in commercial advertising?

If you purchased a hr file, with nc copyright, it is your right to use it as advertising your dog.. Commercial right would be more along the line of making money off the picture by selling items (mugs, totebags, etc) that have the photo. If the photog sells a photo of your dog and uses it without the permission of the model's owner (without a signed model release), they could be sued the same as if the person used the picture to make money off of. I would hope that in those cases both parties would talk to each and work some thing out.

As for photogs not getting paid for their work, just like in any business, there are deadbeats. You learn who work with and who not to do "favors" for in promiise of being paid.

I totally disagree.... When I go to the Art Musem all of the paintings are signed.. Photography is an art and as an artist they have the right to leave their signature on the photo's so show the quality of their art work.

I have to honestly say that I was turned off by a Huge 2 Page Ad advertising a particular dog. I personally know who took the photo as it was on the individuals FB Page with the signature but for some reason the signature was removed for the LQ ad.

I don't think anyone here is saying that photographers shouldn't sign their work. Just sayin' that maybe it should be discreet and should NOT be covering up part of the dog or distract from the dog in anyway. Seen it a lot on the web.

I'd like to know how anyone with a camera can call themselves a professional photographer.
This cracks me up. I think they should have some credentials if they are taking money.
I mean some have not even taken a freakin class and they are trying to charge for pix.

Professional in any arena is someone who is paid for their work. We all know professionals in the Labrador community. They should put their signature on their work. When you purchase a picture from a professional photographer you own the copy right now and can use it how you please. This is why you paid for it.

If I ask you to take pictures of my dogs and I pay you. I would want the photo to be mine. And with the 2 or 3 photographys I have used this was how it worked. Yes, signature on it small. Stayed on if I used for any adv. but mine. I do think some have gotten carried away with it. Sort of bragging. It should speak for itself.

I just got a win photo and the photographer, who has done many of my photos for years, is now going to an email only system. You provide her with a credit card number and when she takes your photo she emails you the full resolution file. It states "...for full resolution with copyright release".

Another show photographer I recently did business with had my proof ready on a Monday following a long weekend of shows. I paid for it and immediately was emailed the full resolution file. I can have it reprinted but in reality, I much prefer just have a digital file.

Both photographers did an outstanding job.

I do think in this day and age with every thing going digital, this is way to go.

The photographer has the right to sign their work any way they wish to. If you do not like their method of signature, don't use that photographer.

Some people just have more self confidence than others and they don't feel the need to use a huge signature or smear it all over the dog. If someone likes a photographers work you can be sure they will look closer to see who the photographer is. When you go to a museum or gallery and look at a painting or even a photograph, the first thing you see is NOT the signature, and it shouldn't be.

I was thinking this exactly. Why would a breeder pay lots of money to take a picture of its super champion dog and receive a big signature with a dog behind it?
When I pay, I want a picture of my dog, not advertise him (the photographer).
Art in its highest level is different. If you insist on saying that having the photographer's signature on top of the dog is accepted because it is art, the picture should be at the photographer exhibition, not in a Lab magazine or website. Artists, real artists, do not sign their work ON the art piece, but discretely on a side or behind it.

A "Real" gallery artist may sign below the work and in the corner but their work stays on the wall. There is no chance of it being copied and used elsewhere. How many photographers, real digital photographers, have had to go after someone that has stolen their "work". The thief will post photos on their website to imply that their dogs look just like the ones on the home page, when in fact those are someone else's dogs. Photos are constantly lifted. The name should be close to the center of the subject on a digital masterpiece.

You are incorrect. Masterpieces are copied all the time and prints are sold. The prints all bear the artists signature. My college dorm room was decorated with Degas, Monet, and Matisse. If a popular artists is alive, he usually makes most of his income by the mass production and sale of prints of original paintings.

I agree with both posters. That said, I personally would not use a photographer that feels the need to put their name on the body of my dog. That shows lack of trust and self worth. I've only seen 1 photographer that does that and it's only in the past year. Perhaps it's become a new fad and I've missed others.

I find it distracts from the subject, which is my dog if I used the photographer, finding it to be extremely tacky and noticeable. Just because 1 person may have cropped out the photographers signature doesn't mean the next 99 will. There is more I could say but my tongue is almost bleeding from biting it.

To each their own but my own would be my dog; without a photographers signature plastered across it.

Unfortunately as someone whose photographs have appeared in LQ, I can tell you they are very cavalier about removing photographers' "signatures" which are discreetly placed on the edge of photographs, even when there are copyright symbols placed next to the name. They do "correct" these "mistakes" when the photographer notifies them, otherwise they do not correct them at all. This is especially galling when you read their policy about how others should not violate THEIR copyright on items in the magazine
(see the box at the end of the magazine). After being burned, a lot of photographers just moved their signature and copyright symbol more to the middle of the photograph, in self-defense.

Just a question, if someone took one of your dogs and started showing it under their kennel name without giving you credit, how would you feel and what would you do about it? Now you know why photographers are making their names more visible on their photographs.

Wow! I thought this was just my pet peeve. I have been noticing that in the past several years photographers have been scrawling their signatures in contrasting colors across the body of dogs. Digital photography has brought new issues as to who has what rights mainly because we are no longer working with negatives.
Most of us in the dog world simply want great photos of our wonderful dogs. We are not interested in stealing, forging, or sticking it to the photographer. Unfortunately, some of the new photographers are too paranoid about not getting credit for their work which is mediocre at best. They all seem to think they are the new Stieglitz and their photos are museum quality art. A few pieces of pricey camera equipment give them a big head. It is all about money and ego and some of them even pretend to like dogs. I find it appalling that they are concerned about who they can sue.
I too wanted some nice pictures. I found a great guy doing field work. He comes to hunt tests and if you give him your dog’s number, he will take a series of shots. We worked out the details beforehand. He e-mailed me samples and I chose the ones I wanted. He sent me a full resolution file as well as a RAW file of each picture I liked at a set price each. I could do whatever I wanted with the files. I like people like this. I can edit them, print them, or resave in a smaller resolution for my website. He does not bother with prints; he loves taking pictures and is a good businessman. He will also meet up for a session in the area. His photos are some of the best that I have seen and the only thing you will see is my dog.
I checked out other photographers and their list of restrictions made my head spin. You really have to work out the details early. I don’t mind if there is a small mark in the bottom right corner but if you have really great photos of your dogs people are going to ask you who the photographer is and what his/her number is. Sadly, removing a signature is quite easy to do and those with malicious intent are going to do it anyway. So, why should the rest of us put up with someone else’s brand splattered across our dogs? We can find other photographers; they are out there.

My photos are discreetly marked with my name and will stay that way. Many of my photos have had the signature removed, or croped off, and stolen, but I will continue to put my name anywhere on the photo I damn well chose and in whatever color I decided. I don't take photos for others much anymore because of BS like this. I am still asked to take them at shows but it's comments on here and this attitude that turn me off to the whole thing. I don't do it for the money. I do it so the owner is excited that they finally have a good photo of their dog. I have even done field photos for free. I work very hard to bring the best of the dog to the photograph. It has taken me many years to perfect my method and hundreds of dollars in classes and equipment. You can bet I will have my signature on all of my photos. I EARNED the right to be proud of what I do. My dues have been paid for many years. There is one particular picture that has been used consistently for about 8 years now on websites and ads and from day one my signature has been cropped off. I never said a word. Yes there are as many new photographers as there are birds in the sky but it's easy. If you don't like what you see or what they are calling art, move on. The proof is in the pudding.

I have read both post - and as a part-time professional photographer, I feel I should chime in. I do have a degree in Photography, but choose to keep it as more a hobby than a trade. I have shot many pictures over the years, and prior to the digital/internet never felt the need to put my name across the picture, but would make sure the back was signed. Still to this day, I do not brand my photos with a large mark. As for dog pictures, if I post them on FB or my site, they do get my signature. It is not small, but it is not obtrusive either, and never interferes with the integrity of the dog. If I have taken pictures for a person, I will email them a small version, with my signature, so that they can post them where they want. The "originals" are sent via a cd with a note asking if they do post them to please mention who took them. I have a few clients that will often post pictures on their websites, not usually the ones that have my signature, but will always give credit to who took the pictures. I am more than fine with that. They are my work, but they are also of their dog - they have paid me - we are both happy. I have seen a couple of my pictures with my mark removed on the web that were not authorized to use - I was able to get them removed by the people. There is no way to police everyone who surfs and copies. My job is to present the subject that I am shooting in the best possible way - 2nd is to get credit. The picture is about the subject, not about me.
jmho

Well said!

Seems it's like anything else these days, we need to determine in advance, what will be provided, and get it in writing, and be able to make an informed decision on whether we want to buy that photo or not. I was perturbed enough when someone I co-own a dog with paid a photographer and the signature was prominently displayed beside the dog and was a central focus of the picture. Seems that was nothing compared to the signatures right ON the dogs. I personally would not agree to or pay for either. When we buy photos we do have the right to use the pics for our own advertising, and the person who mentioned that we don't have rights to the picture for tee-shirts, mugs, etc was correct, at least as the laws have always been here in Canada.

This discussion will at least alert folks to see a photographer's work before agreeing to a photo session with their dog, and agree in advance in a contract, as to what comes with the picture and what doesn't, and that can include the location of the photographer's signature.