Photographer's watermark

[speedracer 36]

A friend of mine just had a few pictures taken of her for her senior pictures and she got a few of the pictures, Then the guy who took the pictures wont give her the rest of the pictures without having his website across the front. Should she have to pay to get a digital copy without the website across the front? And would it be unethical to try and remove the website on photoshop?

[mjs1973]

Did your friend read/sign a contract with the photographer? It is pretty standard practice for photographers to watermark their proofs for the client. It helps them to make a living. If he gave her the proofs without it, what is to stop her from scanning them and making her own prints? Then the photographer is out a sale. Too much of that and he would be out of business. The photographer is well within his rights to do so.

Is it unethical to remove the watermark? The simple answer, yes. I'm sure your friend knew that by hiring a photographer that she would need to pay for those services, and the prints. If she want's prints or clean digital files, then I would suggest she finds the money to pay for them, other wise it is stealing.

[speedracer 36]

Ok, I was just curious. cause she asked me and I was not sure what the right answer was.

[n8]

...not to mention I think that'd be quite a pain, and you'd be hard pressed to get a quality image with how much repair it would take to clone out a watermark that covers a lot of the image.