There’s currently a heated dispute going on between two photographers over the issue of a signed “no compete” contract for teaching photography.
Arizon-based photographer Lisa Holloway is accusing Texas-based photographer Kyiera Jones of violating an agreement she signed back in July 2015 when she purchased 4 of Holloway’s videos that contained 14 hours of editing examples and instruction.
Holloway has strict no compete terms that every customer must agree to. “Videos and recordings are not available to those who do ANY mentoring of any kind,” she writes on her product pages. “Videos and recordings are not available for purchase by those who reside within 75 miles of Kingman, Arizona.”
Her lengthier Terms of Use page prevents customers from teaching photography and post-processing for 2 years after their purchase:
You may not produce any videos in the form of a photography and/or post-processing workshop/tutorial either for sale and/or free for two(2) years from the time that you signed up for a workshop. Even if you cancel your workshop you are still held to this two year condition.
You may not produce any Photoshop actions or Lightroom presets either for sale or free away for two(2) years from the time that you download your first one.
Holloway’s records show that on July 2nd, Jones purchased 4 of her instructional videos for $424.50:
“She has now breached contract by opening up her own editing webinars a mere few months after purchasing my tutorials,” Holloway tells PetaPixel.
Holloway went public with her side of the story last Friday by publishing this post on Facebook:
After addressing this issue privately and being assured that it would not happen again and apologized to, once again,…
Posted by ljholloway photography on Friday, October 23, 2015
The post has received hundreds of likes and comments from supporters, but Holloway has also received hate messages as well.
“Unfortunately, in this industry, you are a hater and a bully if you dare enforce your terms (that no one forced anyone to agree to – they are all free to NOT purchase and teach to their heart’s content),” she tells PetaPixel. “I’ve gotten some horrible hate mail since this all came out from people completely uninvolved in the situation who just couldn’t resist putting in their 2 cents.”
“Everyone wants to be a victim, no one wants to do what is right or admit when they are doing wrong.”
Jones responded to Holloway’s accusations in a comment on Facebook, saying that her style is completely different and that she’s simply showing how to use actions purchased from an entirely different photographer:
The problem is, Holloway’s “no compete” terms are broad, and the wording restricts customers from doing any kind of teaching, regardless of whether the technique was learned from the videos that were purchased. And Jones did agree to the terms by buying the videos.
Jones declined to comment on this story, telling PetaPixel that she’s “not looking to get involved with it.”
“My attorney is on this case and LJ can expect a cease and desist letter coming her way,” she says.
http://ift.tt/1MRFOWj
Who do you side with in this “no compete” dispute?
Image credits: Header photo by @sage_solar
from PetaPixel http://ift.tt/1MqUVvC
from WordPress http://ift.tt/1P3l1DP
No comments:
Post a Comment