PetaPixel

Protect Your High-Resolution Photos from Dishonest Clients

This comment posted (and deleted) by Reddit user WonkoTheLucid shows why photographers need to make sure their websites are secured properly:

My friends wedding photos were posted with watermarks on a photo reprint site for sale. The prices were a bit outrageous. Another friend who does web design clued me into manually entering the photo address to display a full resolution photo without a watermark. I wrote a script and downloaded 500 free high res photos. Burnt many dvd copies and mailed them to a bunch of random people who were at the wedding.

If you’re a professional photographer that lets clients review proofs online, make sure the high-res, non-watermarked versions of the photos aren’t accessible by simply changing a portion of the URL.

As a professional photographer, this really makes me angry [Reddit]


 
  • http://www.tyleringram.com Anonymous

    You could probably make use of the htaccess file too so that people can’t access them directly. You could also have PHP (or another server-side language) watermark the image itself (combine the watermark with the image to become 1 photo).

    bunch of different ways to go about it.

  • http://twitter.com/gmjhowe Jake Howe

    Or, you could be kind and actually offer the full copyright and images for the couple to use however they like.

  • Kim Siebert

    Well,how do you do that??????

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=647659950 CJ Schmit

    This is another reason why I only upload low res and small version of my work on my site. Go ahead and download but it’s going to be crappy :)

  • Samantha

    As a photographer, it’s your responsibility to secure your images.
    Watermark them, upload only the low-res if you have questions about the service you’re using.  There are many available out there, paid and unpaid, that will properly secure your photos.  (and if they don’t, it’s on them)

    I think across the board people don’t understand how easy it is to find “back-doors” and kudos to the people who find them – the photographer should take it as a lesson and use the experience to secure the photos better in the future.

  • Tzctplus -

    A photographer that know what htaccess, PHP and server-side languages are should put the camera down and do IT instead, it is far better paid :-P

  • http://twitter.com/FrozenEvent Frozen Event

    I think the problem is that photographers who run their own website don’t understand web security. That is one (though not the most important) reason I’m launching a new website to allow event based photos sales (shameless plug: http://frozenevent.com). As a web developer i’m more likely to get it right than your average photographer. 

  • http://twitter.com/FrozenEvent Frozen Event

    I think the problem is that photographers who run their own website don’t understand web security. That is one (though not the most important) reason I’m launching a new website to allow event based photos sales (shameless plug: http://frozenevent.com). As a web developer i’m more likely to get it right than your average photographer. 

  • Ben Lukoff

    This is what our wedding photographer does, and from what I can tell his rates aren’t above average. So we were able to do what Wonko did (mail out a bunch of data DVDs) without breaking the law. Our photographer provided the original RAW files as well as JPEGs. Probably wouldn’t have used him if that wasn’t part of the deal.

  • Ben Lukoff

    This is what our wedding photographer does, and from what I can tell his rates aren’t above average. So we were able to do what Wonko did (mail out a bunch of data DVDs) without breaking the law. Our photographer provided the original RAW files as well as JPEGs. Probably wouldn’t have used him if that wasn’t part of the deal.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=5213726 Spencer Hopkins

    But far less enjoyable… to me at least. I do all the coding for my site, including SEO and all that, because I’m interested in it and don’t have $$ to pay someone else to do it for me. I wouldn’t like to do this day after day after day for someone’s site I don’t care about.

  • http://www.lauribakerphotography.com/ Lauri

    Most wedding photographers do give the images to their couples as part of the wedding package. Not the “full copyright” but a license to print whatever they want for personal use. Whether or not the best man is given any photos is up to the couple, not the photographer. The watermarks on the images in an online gallery are meant to protect the couple from unscrupulous people like their best man, and the photographer’s copyright from people who might steal the image and use it in some commercial billboard ad in Singapore (really happens.) This groom needs to learn patience… if the gallery was still online, it likely means that the couple hasn’t even completed their album order yet, and perhaps they were going to gift him something as a thank you. (I cannot emphasize enough how much of a jerk he is.) The bottom line is this: regardless of whether the images were included in the wedding package, photographers should get paid for their work just like everyone else gets paid for theirs. Why are photographers expected to just “be kind” and give their work away? What would be the whole point of spending hours and hours doing the work then?

  • http://www.lauribakerphotography.com lauri

    A good reason to apply watermarks in photoshop before ever uploading to a web gallery.

  • http://profiles.google.com/mjpark Michael Park

    Wait, the guy stole from the photographer because he didn’t think the bride and groom gave him enough for being in their wedding? Also, how does a best man spend $1,000 on someone else’s wedding? Must’ve been a killer bachelor party.

  • http://blog.wingtangwong.com/ Wing Wong

    Not surprising. Ran into something like this a while back. You can see the watermarked image on the page. However, if you mess with the url a bit, you can access the full size(as full as was uploaded) image without the watermark. If you can code or script a bit, you can pull the whole gallery. Yes, the provider in question is still in business, and yeah, they still have that url bug. Don’t know if it is the same provider as the reddit one, but the one I ran into caters to wedding photographers and event shooters, so I’m going to guess it’s kinda important. :(

    Photographers can be proactive and inquire, but at the end of the day, the service provider controls how the images are presented and how their application stack behaves.

    In any case, buyer beware. :(

  • http://blog.wingtangwong.com/ Wing Wong

    Yep… just checked… loophole still there. Just remove one URL parameter, and the watermark goes away. -_- *facepalm* Time to write another email to the service provider.  Hint to service providers: make it easy for those of us who find these bugs to send you bug reports so you can fix it. 

  • http://blog.wingtangwong.com/ Wing Wong

    Yep… just checked… loophole still there. Just remove one URL parameter, and the watermark goes away. -_- *facepalm* Time to write another email to the service provider.  Hint to service providers: make it easy for those of us who find these bugs to send you bug reports so you can fix it. 

  • http://blog.wingtangwong.com/ Wing Wong

    In many cases, it isn’t a website run by a photographer. It is an event/wedding photography print sales online site. Their application stack assumes security through obscurity and when someone digs a bit deeper under the surface, it turns out you can “turn off” watermarks by changing one element. In that case, that blows. 

    Photographers can’t be expected to be app developers and security specialists. But the service provider who hosts the images should be. 

  • http://blog.wingtangwong.com/ Wing Wong

    In many cases, it isn’t a website run by a photographer. It is an event/wedding photography print sales online site. Their application stack assumes security through obscurity and when someone digs a bit deeper under the surface, it turns out you can “turn off” watermarks by changing one element. In that case, that blows. 

    Photographers can’t be expected to be app developers and security specialists. But the service provider who hosts the images should be. 

  • http://blog.wingtangwong.com/ Wing Wong

    So true. The thing is… it isn’t rocket science for a service provider to address these issues. It really isn’t. But they aren’t always on prowl for it because it’s an edge case… or people aren’t complaining about it enough.

  • http://blog.wingtangwong.com/ Wing Wong

    Not something a photographer can do:
    – if they are not tech/html/php/javascript/url modification savvy
    – if they don’t have access to the source code, if they are hosting images through a print fulfillment portal
    – if they are working through a service group, which uses a certain provider, and thus has no choice in the matter

    Not everyone is a security minded tech savvy individual. Those of us who are, do our best to steer clear and take the necessary precautions, but that isn’t always enough.The one in question is probably a simple url mod. But unless you knew where to look for it or what to look for, would probably not have been obvious.

    Ignorance is not a crime.

  • http://blog.wingtangwong.com/ Wing Wong

    Not something a photographer can do:
    – if they are not tech/html/php/javascript/url modification savvy
    – if they don’t have access to the source code, if they are hosting images through a print fulfillment portal
    – if they are working through a service group, which uses a certain provider, and thus has no choice in the matter

    Not everyone is a security minded tech savvy individual. Those of us who are, do our best to steer clear and take the necessary precautions, but that isn’t always enough.The one in question is probably a simple url mod. But unless you knew where to look for it or what to look for, would probably not have been obvious.

    Ignorance is not a crime.

  • http://schrijfblokje.nl Kimberly

    I’d say: just upload small photos or email them a “contact sheet” this way they can still pick their photos and nobody else can steal them… Done.. no problems at all

  • Anonymous

    I would never hire a photographer who held RAW files ransom.

    You pay a photographer to shoot and usually edit. What the customer does with those files is up to them.

    “But that hurts the photography business!”

    Yes, new technology often disrupts old ways of doing business. I bet the carbon paper companies were pissed when copy machines came out.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Daniel-Austin-Hoherd/576367461 Daniel Austin Hoherd

    People pay the photographer to do what he does best: take photos.

    The photographer should pay web monkeys to do what they do best: make secure websites.

    Not securing your business assets creates a business liability.  Anybody who doesn’t do this is not as business savvy as they should be.  Unfortunately this is a big problem with photographers… they are good at taking photos, but aren’t good at business.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=5213726 Spencer Hopkins

    I’ve never and will not give clients RAW files, it’s in my contract. They can get the finalized/touched up hi-res JPEGs. I present myself and my work as a final product, so if someone wants to give away their RAW files (obviously keeping a copy), fine and dandy. Not for me though.

    Great wedding photographer Marcus Bell wrote in his book, Masters Guide to Wedding Photography, that if a potential client wants to change something in your contract, that you should suggest (nicely) that they find another photog.

  • http://twitter.com/kiffbackhouse Kiff Backhouse

    So maybe we photogs should review which sites are deemed safe to display our photos and which have holes.

    Kinda name & shame those that don’t secure our work properly.  

    It’s not that difficult to block downloaders and web developers should be protecting Photographers’ images.

    I’ve removed my images from one site earlier today because after a month they still haven’t plugged the gap that I pointed out to them!

  • http://twitter.com/kiffbackhouse Kiff Backhouse

    So maybe we photogs should review which sites are deemed safe to display our photos and which have holes.

    Kinda name & shame those that don’t secure our work properly.  

    It’s not that difficult to block downloaders and web developers should be protecting Photographers’ images.

    I’ve removed my images from one site earlier today because after a month they still haven’t plugged the gap that I pointed out to them!

  • http://facebook.com/swiftmed Andrew MacDonald

    Im with you on that one. When I do wedding photography, Its in my contract that the client will get a DVD which will contain all finalised, edited copies of their images, but I will not give out unedited files that I do not feel reflect my image or my desired level of quality. The file format they will get is high-res JPEG, never RAW files.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1469663692 Jason Heilig

    It’s about quality control, trust, and reputation. 

    If I gave out RAW images to someone who re-edited them in a style that wasn’t my own, it’s a poor representation of my work. When photography is a referral based business, I don’t want people seeing anything I don’t have complete control over.

    Trust, is required, that I’ll live up to my end of the contracts and not be a dick about things. There is also trust that I’ll provide a good product. If I don’t provide a good product, I won’t be getting those referrals. 

    If a couple took a RAW image and got it printed without any editing, they’re going to end up with a very inferior product. When their friends see it, that reflects on me. 

    I provide quality edits, and high end fine art products. That’s how I need my work to be seen, in order to represent me as a brand.

    If you don’t understand any of this, feel free to use any of the Craigslist amateurs charging $800 for full coverage and a CD.

    Comparing the experience that you’ll get from those kinds of photographers, to what you’ll get from a fully trained and accountable professional, is like comparing McDonalds to a 5 star restaurant.

    What I am paid for is not to “shoot and usually edit.” I’m there to provide a complete service, from start to finish. It’s a full service process, based on customer support and happiness.

    Any photographer who gives out their RAW images has just thrown away complete control to the quality of their work and how it is viewed. Good luck to them, but they’re idiots.

    What you’re essentially asking someone to do is act as a second shooter for your wedding. This isn’t how it works, and you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about.

  • Anonymous

    “…you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about.”

    Actually, I do. I know, for a fact, that I wouldn’t hire a photographer who holds the images ransom for exorbitant printing or rights fees. I feel like you are assuming that since I was critical of some pro photogs, that I am not one myself. I am though. I don’t have a studio (because there isn’t real money in it anymore) but don’t pass up a freelance job if one is offered. 

    A good friend of mine just hired a photographer who treated her images this way–and after the wedding when all was said an done, she felt as if her wallet was raped. She hasn’t stopped ranting about what a horrible experience it was. This is not good word-of-mouth advertising. I would have shot the wedding, except I was one of the groomsmen and had to be in all the photos. 

    People will edit your photos whether they are RAW or jpg, they just might look okay if they start out as RAW files. I have seen plenty of brides and families take the photos from a photog and throw 4 iphoto filters on top (sepia tone seems to be a running theme). I have even had it happen to me. You can’t prevent this when everyone has computers with free editing software.

    “What I am paid for is not to “shoot and usually edit.” I’m there to provide a complete service, from start to finish. It’s a full service process, based on customer support and happiness.”

    Still sounds a little ambiguous to me. I’m not an idiot, I know what a pro photog does. I assume by “full service process” you are talking about providing proofs, etc. Well that goes without saying. The only reason I said “usually edit” is so that you didn’t try and pick the statement apart saying that each service is itemized. 

    I’m sure your work is great. The sad truth, however, is that most normal folks think that photos shot by a 17 year old with a D90 and a prime, edited to high hell look just as good as a talented photog’s strobe-lit, color balanced images from a full frame camera with pro glass. I’m not saying I like it, just that it is what I have seen–people ooohing and ahhhing over over-sharpened and saturated garbage shot by a total amateur. 

  • Anonymous

    They often then take those jpgs and run them through iPhoto, sepia tone them, and then paste them on their Facebook wall as your work. Sad but true. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=5213726 Spencer Hopkins

    That may be, but a RAW file is not a final delivery platform, as I’m sure you know, it is an uncompressed image not suitable for easy viewing. It’s meant to be compressed into another format for easy handing, viewing, and printing. Why should the bride and groom have access to these files? In my eyes, they paid for a final, polished product. Unless the photog has a policy or makes an exception where they shoot the pics and pass the files on without edits. But what is the purpose of this? Why would the bride and groom need RAW?

  • Peter Charlesworth

    Pfft, what this points at is the old-school film shooter approach of manipulating clients to spend more than they first expected by locking down their rights and access to images. In my opinion, this approach is nothing but theft and lies for financial gain, in the absence of any real rationale or need. I am a full time pro specializing in wedding photography and I am watching operators who insist on manipulating their clients in this way and they are all dying a slow death.  My clients pay me for quality imagery nothing less. What they do with the photos is their decision as I am AN EMPLOYEE to them. My booking sheet is full to 2014 because I dont manipulate anything. WAKE UP AND BE HONEST.

  • Anonymous

    I didn’t say anything about not delivering polished jpgs, but if the customer requests the RAW file (which in itself would suggest competence) why should they be prevented from having them? They can edit a jpg too, but at least an edit from RAW might turn out half-way decent. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1469663692 Jason Heilig

    Firstly, as someone with a studio, I’ll have to disagree with you. Take a look through the benchmark survey from PPA and it’ll quickly show you on average retail studios were doubling the total sales of home based studios. That’s not even the best case, that’s the average. Studios younger than 5 years still take in total sales on average of 70k more than a home based counter-part. The research has been done, and the facts are there. Moving on.

    If your friend had a bad time, that wasn’t a reflection on the industry, or an indicator of exactly how things should be done. She could’ve picked a photographer more in her price range, or perhaps the photographer didn’t deliver the kind of experience she wanted. I personally don’t want that kind of review, and I’d do anything to avoid it as much as the next sane person.

    I don’t doubt that people will edit what they will, but what they can do with it afterwards is slightly determined by how that file is delivered. My goal, and any successful photographers goal, should be to provide such a quality of service that they don’t feel the need to make such changes. Sure, it’s strictly in my contract that they can’t do it, but that doesn’t mean they won’t.

    It’s more than proofs, though I don’t know many people who use them anymore. In the survey, of 250 studios only 25 were still using paper proofs. Projector based sales are simply a better sales tool, and lower your own costs dramatically. Plus it’s greener, so hooray! Perhaps I was ambiguous in my statement, and that’s fine, because it covers so many things. 

    I’m not a “fire and forget” style photographer. The business model of shooting an 8 hour wedding, burning a few disks and waving goodbye to the couple isn’t the kind of business I want to run. I’m not out there to get clients, I’m out there to build relationships. As much as it is about money, it’s about authenticity as well.

    Most normal folk, who feel the way you describe about photography simply aren’t my clients. Most, isn’t all, and the people who expect more and want more know they’re going to have to pay for such a service.

    As much as the $800 Craigslist photographer isn’t my competition, the couple that would hire him aren’t my clients. As a matter of simply staying in business I could not attempt to cater to those people, and don’t want to. 

    When my base packages start over 2 grand, a couple looking for that $800 photographer simply isn’t in my range. As much as they may not be able to afford me, I can’t afford to work for them either. Even if I worked every weekend a year with that business model, I’d be walking home with under 14 grand as a salary, given average costs for home studio expenses.

    Can you live off $14,000 a year? I certainly can’t.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1469663692 Jason Heilig

    You’re simply providing a different kind of service, to a different kind of customer.

    I wouldn’t operate the way you do, but that’s more about my happiness and financial stability. You may be busy, but I’m seriously curious about your experience and knowledge in managing a business. 

    It’s not about manipulating clients for more money, if people are working it that way then yes, they’re idiots. It’s not theft, and I don’t ever lie to a client.

    The main reason to maintaining rights, and levels of access to images, is simply to keep creative control over the product that is out there with your name on it. Anything that is out there is a reflection on you.

  • http://twitter.com/2thirtyone Chris Weaver

    Amen to this! Clancycoop, are you implying that photographers shouldn’t be able to sell their ‘product’ (the edited photos) after charging the client for their ‘service’ (actually shooting and editing)?

    These are two very different things and as Jason said, some photographers (or worse, fauxtographers) will offer a whole wedding day and DVD with edits for $500. Good for the clients, but the photographer will soon be out of business.

  • Anthony

    “The main reason to maintaining rights, and levels of access to images,
    is simply to keep creative control over the product that is out there
    with your name on it. Anything that is out there is a reflection on you.” – 100% with you Jason.

  • Anthony

    “The main reason to maintaining rights, and levels of access to images,
    is simply to keep creative control over the product that is out there
    with your name on it. Anything that is out there is a reflection on you.” – 100% with you Jason.

  • Gavin

    Hi Guys, I think the issue is about people stealing your work and not paying for it. In this case in question, it was not even the couple that paid the photog who stole the work, but a disgruntled bestman – that says a lot about his character, but hey, lets not judge. He also stole the high res finished product and not the RAW files. I believe that people hire photogrpahers to deliver good quality Hi-Res FINISHED products and that is what they pay for. Sometimes a photogrpaher takes more pictures than requested, and some might need work to make them stand out.

    If a client is a photographer and would like the raw images, that should be negotiated upfront, but this would be highly irregular to say the least.

    We need to address the question about safety on the internet for your images in this discussion and create another discussion about what gets delivered to clients. rememebr you get what you pay for. If you buy a movie, you get the finished product, not the raw footage – as simple as that.

  • http://blog.wingtangwong.com/ Wing Wong

    Re: Giving Clients The RAW Images

    Seriously, there is no reason for the client to have the RAW images. What they need is the final adjusted/fixed/etc. output file, normally in JPEG. 

    People who feel they have been ripped off were probably not properly informed and presented with their options. Ie, If they wanted the full rez printable files, there would be a fee for the right to use the images as they desire, ie. personal printing.

    As others have noted, if a client wants a run-gun-burn photographer, there are plenty that will fill that niche. If they want a photographer who will provide the whole experience from hello to here are your beautifully arranged and professionally created albums that they have worked on together, then that is another photographer entirely.

    Everyone runs their business in the way that best suites them. A lack of understanding on the part of the client is usually the result of the photographer not doing their part educating and informing them of what options are available and what the costs are, up front, for what it is they want. If the client changes their mind after all paperwork has been signed, ie. they originally didn’t want the images on file, but then decide they do after the wedding, that isn’t the photographer’s fault for requiring that the client pay more for the rights to use the images. That isn’t a “ripoff”.

    If a client has problems because they are working with a bad photographer who fails to outline and inform the client of photography practices and pricing, the answer is to find a good photographer, not berate all photographers who has a similar pricing structure, but who work hard to properly inform their clients. They have happy and satisfied customers because of the extra customer service they provide.

    I would go so far as to say, if your client insists on raw images, despite being informed of your policies, then it would be in your best interest to introduce them to a fellow photographer who is willing to provide that service, as continuing forward with requirements that are at odds between client and photographer, makes for a strained and problematic business relationship for both. :(

    Re: Images online

    The best option would be a service that displays watermarked images from the full print rez images you upload. Tag your images with your copyright information. This won’t prevent people determined to take your images, but it will present a stronger DMCA and Copyright infringement case against those who do try to steal your images.

    Right click protection is pretty much pointless, as they are javascript-based. Protection needs to be server-side based, not client-side based. 

    Anyways, enough ranting. 

  • http://blog.wingtangwong.com/ Wing Wong

    Re: Giving Clients The RAW Images

    Seriously, there is no reason for the client to have the RAW images. What they need is the final adjusted/fixed/etc. output file, normally in JPEG. 

    People who feel they have been ripped off were probably not properly informed and presented with their options. Ie, If they wanted the full rez printable files, there would be a fee for the right to use the images as they desire, ie. personal printing.

    As others have noted, if a client wants a run-gun-burn photographer, there are plenty that will fill that niche. If they want a photographer who will provide the whole experience from hello to here are your beautifully arranged and professionally created albums that they have worked on together, then that is another photographer entirely.

    Everyone runs their business in the way that best suites them. A lack of understanding on the part of the client is usually the result of the photographer not doing their part educating and informing them of what options are available and what the costs are, up front, for what it is they want. If the client changes their mind after all paperwork has been signed, ie. they originally didn’t want the images on file, but then decide they do after the wedding, that isn’t the photographer’s fault for requiring that the client pay more for the rights to use the images. That isn’t a “ripoff”.

    If a client has problems because they are working with a bad photographer who fails to outline and inform the client of photography practices and pricing, the answer is to find a good photographer, not berate all photographers who has a similar pricing structure, but who work hard to properly inform their clients. They have happy and satisfied customers because of the extra customer service they provide.

    I would go so far as to say, if your client insists on raw images, despite being informed of your policies, then it would be in your best interest to introduce them to a fellow photographer who is willing to provide that service, as continuing forward with requirements that are at odds between client and photographer, makes for a strained and problematic business relationship for both. :(

    Re: Images online

    The best option would be a service that displays watermarked images from the full print rez images you upload. Tag your images with your copyright information. This won’t prevent people determined to take your images, but it will present a stronger DMCA and Copyright infringement case against those who do try to steal your images.

    Right click protection is pretty much pointless, as they are javascript-based. Protection needs to be server-side based, not client-side based. 

    Anyways, enough ranting. 

  • http://blog.wingtangwong.com/ Wing Wong

    I hear ya. I emailed a service provider about a hole in their service and have not heard back from them. :( Thankfully, I’m not a customer of theirs, but a fellow photographer is. :(

  • Marja

    Re: Clients hit up for more money; files “held for ransom”

    I don’t see how this happens.  Don’t photographers put everything into a contract?  At our studio (and all the other photogs’ I know), we have packages that list everything you get, and we modify packages if you need something different.  The contract itself lists everything — how many prints, albums, whether you get a disk or not — we also give them a price list for add-ons if they want something more.  They know exactly what they’re getting, and they have signed papers stating it all.  Heck, even in our proof albums, we have spaces for family and friends to fill out what they’d like to buy, and we tell the couple each person’s bill (Aunt Bob ordered $50 worth of pictures) so they can collect it.

    So, is it photographers aren’t doing this?  Clients should demand it, get everything in writing.  Whether a package is $500 or $5,000, that’s a lot of money to give a company, what you receive needs to be IN WRITING.

  • Marja

    In regard to the guy who stole the photos —

    That’s awful.  If he had even grabbed some just for himself, that’s one thing.  But to grab 500 and send them out to everyone, good job!  You’ve just wiped out a source of revenue for a small business owner, because you feel you spent too much money at your friend’s wedding!

    Some people may consider that selling more photos is a bad thing, but it’s offered in case relatives or friends might like to have a nice photo of the wedding, but don’t want to have to go through hassles of getting the couple to add into their contract a random extra number of prints.

    Most important, though, the website really needs to fix that problem.  If photogs are paying for hosting, that’s a big problem.

  • rgeorge1

    if they can’t secure their work, they don’t deserve to be in business.

  • Rainer Lucks

    Sure! You would like that wouldn’t you? I allow my Client to print the Photos I created for them providing they use a reputable Photo print service provider and do not pass my work on to other third party without my permission.
    That would be the fair thing to do of course. But this obviously did not come to your mind. You must be one of them who want Photos for next to nothing all for kindness?