Is This An Ethical Business Practice??

[peterbo3]

I have been getting a few phone calls from people I know asking why I am selling my boat. I have a Fisher 640, shown in my avatar, which Col Svensson built for me. I took delivery in early 2008. A quick look at Boatpoint produced the following.
First three pics are not great as I had problems transferring the page to a file. Had to print, then scan, then copy & upload.
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m31/peterbo3/CCF01032010_00000.jpg
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m31/peterbo3/CCF01032010_00001.jpg
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m31/peterbo3/CCF01032010_00002.jpg
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m31/peterbo3/IMG_0351Medium.jpg
This is not the exact pic in the ad as I did not keep every photo in my file. It was taken just before Drumbeat passed the houseboat.
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m31/peterbo3/bd4902072352823224129.jpg
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m31/peterbo3/bd5323644148538373435.jpg
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m31/peterbo3/bd5260284260907424931.jpg
These pics were not taken for advertising purposes. They were taken for my personal use on the day the boat was sea trialled. At no stage did Fisher Mk2
contact me & ask for permission to use them. They just photoshopped the boat name, faces & my Landcruiser plate & went for it. The same photos were on the Fisher Mk2 site, again without my permission.

Fisher Mk2 was using them to promote one of their boats.............one they do not have a pic of because they have not built a 640. They have also used pics of another Fisher 680 to promote their wares & they had to remove those also.

I contacted Fisher Mk2 today & told them to remove them. They did, but only because they did not have a leg to stand on. The "manager" to whom I spoke, Tony, did not give a rat's arse about his shoddy & underhand marketing.
Well Tony, lots of boaters read what is written here. But they love pictures to go with the story. The pics are up there. I am sure that readers will draw their own conclusions.

[krazyfisher]

I would not mind if I was asked but without being asked I would not be happy

[reddybayfisher]

Definitly should have asked for permission......there is that element that potential buyers want the boat in the photo....not a standard model....

A dog grooming company took a picture of my dog without permission & I was angry as it was my dog on the back of the bus advertisment and I had no idea.....they apologised and gave me a few free clips but I have not been back there....what else are they not telling me about?

[bluefin59]

Maybe someone here may be able to give you some legal advise but i think they would be fine having photo shopped everything but it just goes to show the lack of ethics these people have ,they seem to stoop to a new low every other week . ::) ::) ::) ::) matt

[murf]

Gday Peter

hows it going :)

yep they have gone down another notch in my book like Matt just said

still love your boat though :)

cheers Murf

[kingtin]

A simplification: Copyright lies with the person who took the pics and they should not be used without express permission from the photographer. A model release form is also required from any person's in the pics if the pics are to be used for financial gain. They should also not alter an original without express permission.

Clearly, Fisher mk 2 have adopted a dubious practice if they haven'y complied.

kev

[finga]

To be advertising a boat as your own product when it is not is pretty low.
Using someones property to advertise your business without permission is pretty low.
I'll leave it at that because I don't want to get angry.....
But as the rest have stated ....what do you expect from Fisher MkII??

Maybe a Mod can put this in the boating section where it belongs.....please!!

[devendiva]

What's all the talk about "What would you expect from Fisher Mk 2?

What else have they done recently to deserve all this negativity? I'm not sure if there is something else I don't know about but I picked up my new 600 Maxi from them late last year. They told me it was boat # 2. I asked them what all the other boats were there and in photos I had seen in the background of my photos during my build process to which they replied it was all the Fisher Mk 1 boats they had fixed under warranty or completed.

They reckon they had burnt a ton of money but they were committed to fixing and completing everything from Fisher Mk1.


So if anyone has any other REAL information to the contrary I would be interested in hearing it.

Chris

[peterbo3]

Hi Chris,
Would you say that this is an ethical business practice? Or did I just invent that story to stir things up??::)::)::)::)

[pog mo hoin]

It just seems like it is getting harder to be able to trust your hard earned, I mean all the drama with Fisher, now Seastorm, I mean whats next?

[Greg P]

I asked them what all the other boats were there and in photos I had seen in the background of my photos during my build process to which they replied it was all the Fisher Mk 1 boats they had fixed under warranty or completed.

They reckon they had burnt a ton of money but they were committed to fixing and completing everything from Fisher Mk1.


ROFL - they have to be kidding ;D;D;D;D


My boat is on their web site and I have asked for it to be removed - Col S had permission to use it but not them.

[Chooksy]

I have agree with Greg P, a mate of mine has his boat photo still being used to advertise a model range, yet his boat was built and completed a long time before the take over.
His boat has never been back to Fisher for repairs or warrenty, and after chating to him earlier tonight, Col S had permission but not the new management.

Makes you wonder sometimes.

[Braddles]

Ethically, not really a sound business decision I would have thought.

Legally - a bit of a grey area. So long as a person is not appearing without consent, I can take a picture of any car or boat you own, in a public place, and put in in the courier mail if I want to. The photo of a material item, such as your boat, is actually owned by the photographer, regardless of who's boat it is!. The only exception to this, is if a police officer or The Court Seizes a photo under an Act... and you (may) loose the rights to that photo.

Where they may come unstuck is, if you took the pic - you own the copy right to it - and they are breaking the law by publishing this without your consent. If they took the pic, or had someone commissioned to take the pic (ie a prof photographer), then its theirs to do what they wish with it on the provision it has no identifying features (rego plates etc), and no person (minor or otherwise) is appearing unconsented.

If its your pic they have published, that would really P*ss me off too, and you may be entitled to financial compensation, if you should wish to pursue this avenue.

[Ando74]

Still waiting for mine to be removed, it also has me in the picture.

May have to chase a bit harder as others seem to have had theirs removed.

[finga]

What's all the talk about "What would you expect from Fisher Mk 2?

What else have they done recently to deserve all this negativity? I'm not sure if there is something else I don't know about but I picked up my new 600 Maxi from them late last year. They told me it was boat # 2. I asked them what all the other boats were there and in photos I had seen in the background of my photos during my build process to which they replied it was all the Fisher Mk 1 boats they had fixed under warranty or completed.

They reckon they had burnt a ton of money but they were committed to fixing and completing everything from Fisher Mk1.


So if anyone has any other REAL information to the contrary I would be interested in hearing it.

Chris
It's not just a matter of recently but through out the Fisher take-over saga.
Do a search for Fisher in the boating section and read the threads.
Some truths come out there like the shifting workshops, seemingly, over night with no notice.
Here's one
http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/showthread.php?t=145976&highlight=fisher+boats
Here's just one other of many
http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/showthread.php?t=149082&highlight=fisher+boats

The supporters of Fisher MkII will put up the favourable threads too I am sure just to keep the thing balanced.

And no...I am not a fan of Fisher MkII nor do I know anybody from Fisher MkI...The only way I know of Col and Nancy is that they lived a couple of doors from my aunty at Bribie
I just did not like the way things happened whether they be legal or not.

[kingtin]

just a thought you said sea trialling it . had you actually payed for it yet if not than your a quest . which wouldn't give you much to stand on .

Doesn't matter a jot. If they didn't take the picture, then they have no legal right to reproduce or alter in any way, without permission from the person who took it. They also need to complete a model release form giving permission from any person in the picture, as they appear to be using it for monetary gain (advertising or otherwise).

kev

[Mindi]

Nice boat Peter...wish it was mine..........of course its unethical IMHO...if I could possibly work it into the thread topic I would give you my recent experience with one of the big banks to put this into some perspective.........but it really would be a lonnnng way off topic even for me.

[Lucky_Phill]

The topic is a question and it relates to the " practice " and not really the business as such.

Without going back to old posts and opinions etc.... we should keep the answers / opinions, if you have any that relate directly to the topic.

That is..... " is this an ethical business practice "?

IMO< it can be summed up in one of the following words.

NO. or YES. or MAYBE.


LP.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[Scott nthQld]

OK I was a bit confused there for a minute, just to clarify, that is not YOUR advertisement on Boatpoint, but Fisher Mk2's ad for a new boat package?

Firstly, how did Fisher Mk2 get their hands on the photo's?

Depending on that answer and the legality of the 'hostile takeover' is whether it will be ethical or not, ie, were those photo's given to Col (Fisher Mk1) for use, and did Fisher Mk1 have permissions to use them for advertising, which has now changed hands to Fisher Mk2?

It can be very technical, and if you handed them over and gave Col S permission to use them, then its more than likely there will be a way around the whole copyright issue for Fisher mk2.


But without getting into all that sort of detail, if permission has been obtained from the original photographer then yes, quite ethical, but has you have indicated, no permission was given to Fisher Mk2 so, definitely not the right thing to do, let along leaving all the identification on both vehicles (car and boat)

[Steeler]

Unethical,YES.

[peterbo3]

just a thought you said sea trialling it . had you actually payed for it yet if not than your a quest . which wouldn't give you much to stand on .

Oz,
Actually I had paid for it. That is why it is hooked up to my Landcruiser.::)::)::)::) So I don't think I was a "quest" or did you mean guest.
But this is not about Col or the original Fisher boats. It is about the business ethics or lack thereof shown by Fisher Mk2.

[bennyboy]

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 your photo how did they have the photo and why did they have it?

[bluefin59]

If these people are doing SO well ,why arent they using photos of the many they supposedly produce Yes very unethical...matt

[Three08]

I haven't read all the reply's yet so this may have already been said. Them taking the pictures down is not enough, they were using your work for financial gain without your permission, if it was me that took the pictures they would be finding themselves in court.

[firstlight]

So define ethics, Fisher 2 putting a photo on the net saying you can purchase this boat package for a recommended price or origin removing Fisher stickers off Fisher products and loading them with origin stickers suggesting they built this product and as a demo you can purchase this product through orinin even tho the product provided was originally built by Fisher....Ethics ... Hmmmm

[MikeyS]

As to whether their conduct is illegal, it's fairly well summed up here. There are quite a few issues- copyright, privacy (not that it exists in this context), Trade Practices

http://www.artslaw.com.au/legalinformation/StreetPhotographersRights.asp

I'd give you my legal opinion but you might not like it. And it would only be worth what you pay for it.

As to whether it's ethical, well, who cares? Karma has a way of working these things out.;)

[peterbo3]

Hi Benny,
Some of the pics that day were taken on my camera by me, a few on my camera by my mate, & some on Col's camera by one of his mates. I sent Col some of mine & he sent me some of his, as I was on the boat & could not get on the water boat photos.
They were never used in a commercial way until now, nor was written or verbal permission given to anybody to use them.
Seeing that a number of other Fisher owners have complained that their boat pics were also used by Fisher Mk2 without permission, it would seem that Fisher Mk2 enhanced their ads with whatever they could find in the office.

[finga]

Ethical or not, legal or not you'd think they'd be able to put more up to date pictures up in their advertisements.
Early 2008 makes the pictures 2 years old.
You'd have thought the boats would have been upgraded in the last two years with all the promises of better boats been produced given by Fisher over that period of uncertainty that's known as the 'take-over period'??

Or you could simply look at it as a compliment.
You could say my boat is the best boat Fisher has produced in 2 years because they use it in their advertising :D

As a side note if Fisher MkII thought it was legal, and if they took ethics into account, when they used the old pictures why did they take the boat name off, delete the car, trailer and boat rego numbers and blurred the peoples faces??

[andoland]

If the business owns the plans to manufacture this model of boat and if they own the right to build this model of boat and if they own the right to sell this model of boat, why is it unethical for them to display a picture of what the finished boat looks like?

I don't know about your specific case but in some cases when you purchase goods or services the sales contract has a clause giving the business owner the right to use images of the product for their purposes, such as advertising and promotion.

In any case you can look at it from Finga's point of view - your boat is so good it is worth showing.

[SNAPPERCOFFIN]

So define ethics, Fisher 2 putting a photo on the net saying you can purchase this boat package for a recommended price Col took those photos of many of the boats on Fisher Mark2 website so I am guessing he owns them also some of the photos on there are of boats he built and designed as Fisher Boats or origin removing Fisher stickers off Fisher products and loading them with origin Origin Boats have not removed any stickers of Fisher Boats and replaced them with Origin stickers Owners have contacted us to ask for them as Col built and designed them in fact we have had to order more from such a big demand owners can put whatever they like on there boats stickers suggesting they built this product Col did build and design them and as a demo you can purchase this product through orinin Origin boats look nothing like the fisher more moden in design have you seen them ? In fact you may notice a lot of second hand fishers on the market I had only ever seen 2 in 5 years of building them now there are atleast 8-10 many owners selling there Fishers and buying Origins because they like the look of the Origins even tho the product provided was orininally built by Fisher....Ethics ... HmmmmFisher Boats doesn't exist anymore so who are Fisher Boats at the Tinnie and Tackle Show don't see Fisher Boats Australia talk about Ethics bit of a play on the name. Also have you even met Col you were not tied up in anything of this you bought your boat of Fisher Boats Australia so maybe one day when you may meet Col you can thank him for designing a nice boat for you.

[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 ;D

[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.:-X:-X:-X:-X
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. ;D

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.:-X:-X:-X:-X
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? :o ;)

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?:o :o
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:smartass: :smartass:
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.