I'm not an attorney but based on a layperson's understanding of antitrust law, this is entirely bogus.
The Sherman act was put to test and resulted in the need to apply what's known as "rule of reason". Specifically that "only combinations and contracts unreasonably restraining trade are subject to actions". I doubt anyone in their right mind would think that photographers who are otherwise not collaborating in any way asking each other about pricing information (which is often posted publicly) is unreasonable.
The Clayton Act is pretty much about discrimination among customers, anti-competitive contracts, and conflicts of interests of directors in competing companies. I doubt any of this is relevant.
Also, the stock market is so cutthroat competitive that I doubt anyone can prove any kind of detrimental customer impact even if every photographer in an online forum decided to match their prices.
In my opinion - making a mountain out of a molehill.
Maybe some of our members who are attorneys can chime in here.
Guy
Posted by Gary Crabbe on January 21, 2007 at 4:25 AM
I was at Carolyn's Law presentation this morning at NANPA; and she did a great job trying to get across complex rules with equally strict and vague terms to an audience who only has a passing knowledge of such issues.
I think it's a moot point, I've been using pricing guides for years. Plus you can log onto any number of stock agencies, plug in the same type of use, and average the price.
My understanding is that there is a factor that determines the size and reach of the communication (number of people vs. size of market, and whether or not it is a trade association or affliated organization. For example, if 3 photographers in a town of 4 photographers get togther and agree to undercharge, to effectively remove someone's ability to fairly conduct business...
OTOH, ASMP years ago stopped publishing their pricing guide to specifically distance themselves as a professional organization from appearing to recommend certain pricing.
Furthermore, any individuals should be harmless if cached in the terms of " ** I ** charge..." and NOT "I think ** you **should charge...".
I've never agreed that Jim should have banned such discussions among individuals here, espcially if the site isn't advocating that anyone follow any particular pricing model, but simply fostering the free exchange of info. Provided they're expressed as above, there shouldn't be a worry. However, the potential threat of being clubbed with a lawsuit or criminal charges should be factored by anyone before the stand firm or tuck tail.
Caveat: Any legal opinion expressed here is worth the paper that you're reading it on.
Discussion
2 replieshttp://www.photoattorney.com/2007/01/antitrust-activity-and-price-fixing-by.html
I'm not an attorney but based on a layperson's understanding of antitrust law, this is entirely bogus.
The Sherman act was put to test and resulted in the need to apply what's known as "rule of reason". Specifically that "only combinations and contracts unreasonably restraining trade are subject to actions". I doubt anyone in their right mind would think that photographers who are otherwise not collaborating in any way asking each other about pricing information (which is often posted publicly) is unreasonable.
The Clayton Act is pretty much about discrimination among customers, anti-competitive contracts, and conflicts of interests of directors in competing companies. I doubt any of this is relevant.
Also, the stock market is so cutthroat competitive that I doubt anyone can prove any kind of detrimental customer impact even if every photographer in an online forum decided to match their prices.
In my opinion - making a mountain out of a molehill.
Maybe some of our members who are attorneys can chime in here.
Guy
I think it's a moot point, I've been using pricing guides for years. Plus you can log onto any number of stock agencies, plug in the same type of use, and average the price.
My understanding is that there is a factor that determines the size and reach of the communication (number of people vs. size of market, and whether or not it is a trade association or affliated organization. For example, if 3 photographers in a town of 4 photographers get togther and agree to undercharge, to effectively remove someone's ability to fairly conduct business...
OTOH, ASMP years ago stopped publishing their pricing guide to specifically distance themselves as a professional organization from appearing to recommend certain pricing.
Furthermore, any individuals should be harmless if cached in the terms of " ** I ** charge..." and NOT "I think ** you **should charge...".
I've never agreed that Jim should have banned such discussions among individuals here, espcially if the site isn't advocating that anyone follow any particular pricing model, but simply fostering the free exchange of info. Provided they're expressed as above, there shouldn't be a worry. However, the potential threat of being clubbed with a lawsuit or criminal charges should be factored by anyone before the stand firm or tuck tail.
Caveat: Any legal opinion expressed here is worth the paper that you're reading it on.