Pro Photographers that Will Sell the Copyright? 351
Shook asks: "Today, my fiancee and I talked to a wedding photographer known for being technologically savvy. (He uses fully digital equipment, the couple can make changes to the album online before printing, relatives can order prints of specific pictures online). I knew going into this that professional photographers generally retain the copyright to the images and all requests for reprints must go through the photographer. During our consultation, I asked him if it would be an option to obtain the copyright from him and get CDs of the original high-resolution images. He said that he has never sold a copyright, was not sure what he would want to charge, but he said it would 'be expensive.' In the end, the photographer is too expensive for our budget ($2000-$4500), so I didn't discuss it further. With the ongoing extension of copyright time limits, when does it even expire? What if my grandchildren want copies of my pictures? Do they need to track down his corporate (or actual) descendant and get permission? In addition, there is the classic issue, what if I can't find him in 20 years?"
"He did go into the artistic reasons why he retains copyrights. He said we may make reprints of the photos at a low-quality shop and tarnish his professional reputation. He did say he does provide 'middle resolution images' on CD or password-protected FTP free of charge.
All this seems backward to me. He wants us to pay several thousands of dollars for pictures of ourselves, and we don't get the copyright as part of our package? As we have heard endlessly on this site, record companies own the copyrights to the artists' works. As the paying party commissioning this artist's work, it would seem sensible to me that we also get rights to reproduction, publication, modification (even sale) of the work. Isn't our position similar to that of a record company?
I know that the photographer retaining copyright is standard business practice, so this is not a dealbreaker for me. Still, I'm interested in this issue. Has anyone found photographers that sell their copyrights? Has anyone been able to negotiate copyrights as part of a professional photography package?
On a related note, the photographer mentioned that before he was a photographer for weddings, he worked mostly for sports magazines and for a fast food chain. In the business world, does anyone know who keeps the copyright? Would go to Weightlifting Monthly and Burger Shack, or does Photo Joe keep the rights?"
What about my right! Damnit! (Score:3, Interesting)
On a related note (but not quite as 'bitchy'), at my brother's wedding the photographer set up a black backdrop in front of an portrat B/W camera, everyone was able to make a "special' pose, and there wasn't any of the 'over the table scraps' shots.
He should get paid and be happy (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems like a good photographer who is also a good businessman would calculate the profit (not gross - he has costs in it) to be expected from selling to your relatives and sell you the copyright for seventy five cents on the dollar of the expected profits.
It's only fair that he be compensated for his loss of revenue.
He can then spend the time he'd spend managing printing to go shoot another job.
The prints do make money, yes, but the big drop in the bucket is the initial fee for shooting the wedding.
A smart photographer would do more weddings and make more money.
Re:He should get paid and be happy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about my right! Damnit! (Score:5, Informative)
Firstly, as far as creative control... You wouldn't realize how much of the quality of a print comes from the actual printing process. I maintain a full color and black and white darkroom as well as do digital work with labs I've used in the past. A great image needs careful printing to become a great print. Since most business is booked via word of mouth, you don't want someone showing some cheesy ink jet print off. Your paying for the time it takes to make that print, the test prints, the times i have to stop and just stare at it trying to decide what wil make it really sing. You're paying for an artist to capture the moments and present them as best they can. You can get all the same songs a dj will play and some stereo system to play it through but it won't be the same.
Secondly, you see these as photos of yourselves. I don't see it that way. I see it as my photo of you, or my photo that you happen to be in and sometimes even just my photo and you completely dissapear in it and all i see is my work. I guess it depends on the photographer. What I do is try and capture you as I see you. While I'm a fairly cynical and sarcastic jerk I do have a love of people and emotions and try and catch people through the rose colored glasses that sometimes fall on my head.
You're not buying a picture of yourself, you're buying how I saw you, wanted to see you for that moment. It takes a lot of time, effort and dedication to be able to do that in some cases though there are more standard type shooters. People sometimes ask me why I have so few photos of myself. The answer is, well i'm behind the camera :) But my private answer which I feel sounds too conceited is that I"m in every photo I take. I worked hard to take it, I worked hard to print it and it's very personal to me.
There are lots of people that will give you all the negatives, cd,s prints etc at the end of the session, some of these people are quite good, others are just your generic shooter trying to accomodate the new demand for such. Prices vary widely for each.
In addition to weddings, I also do a fair amount of intimate type portraiture. Same deal applies, copyright is mine and it's my work. I've photographed all kinds of women from really hot models to women you might not even give a second look at and they've always been very happy with the results, some brought to tears when they see the photos. Even women that have gone to other photographers. I guess there are photographic technicians and there are photographic artists. My desire is to be the latter. Just like there are system integrators and developers... some people have a passion to create not just replicate.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is find a photographer who you like and see what you can work out. Do you really need 1000 negs of your wedding? If so find someone that will give them to you. A lot of photographers will be somewhat accomodating.
The big issue isn't so much owning the copyrights but having the rights to reproduce. I would never give up my copyrights but I do sometimes make arrangements in regards to reproduction.
On another note, keep in mind, this person has to pay his expenses, (eqiupment, rent, insurance, assistants, accountants, lawers, etc.) There is a lot of work that goes into a wedding from the consultations to the shooting, to the final output. If you want someone to show up, get paid for the day, give you the film or cd at the end of the day and be done with you you can find those people as well.
Re:What about my right! Damnit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, you see these as photos of yourselves. I don't see it that way. I see it as my photo of you, or my photo that you happen to be in and sometimes even just my photo and you completely dissapear in it and all i see is my work. I guess it depends on the photographer. What I do is try and capture you as I see you.
When I write software at work, I see it as my solution to their requirements, or my software that happens to solve their problem, and the company completely dissapear (sic) in it and all I see is my work.
Funny... the company still keeps its copyright. It's called a work for hire. Get over yourself - we're all professionals - and when we're getting paid, we're serving our employers.
Re:What about my right! Damnit! (Score:3, Insightful)
If I'm consulting as a work for hire situation, as most other people do, you charge 3-4 times your hourly salary to account for your overhead, time spent hunting down new leads/clients, etc. You may make 50/hr on salary bu
Re:What about my right! Damnit! (Score:3, Interesting)
The issue is that when you're a developer for hire for a company, in virtually all instances you relinquish copyright to your code to the person who hired you.
The point of my post was that I don't see the distinction between getting paid to write code, or being paid to photograph an event - with respect to copyright of the final results.
Re:What about my right! Damnit! (Score:4, Insightful)
In the business world, and a lot of artistic areas too, when you are hired to do a job you relinquish copyright almost every single time. Whatever I do for my company is owned by my company.
I still don't get why it has to be different with photography.
Yes, I asked you your view of my wedding. I'm f#$%ing paying you for it, so at the end it should be mine. Which doesn't mean you can't get credit for it.
When you hire a contractor, they don't leave with the furniture they built. When you hire a portrait painter, they leave you the frame. When you hire a software engineer, they don't leave with their code.
So why when we hire a photographer he leaves with the pictures!
Re:What about my right! Damnit! (Score:3)
You people should really spend more time getting to know what free software is all about. It is getting old seeing OSS advocates misquoting the GPL and other facts about OSS organizaitions. I suggest you read this page entitled Why the FSF gets copyright assignments from contributors [gnu.org]
A quick excerpt:
Re:What about my right! Damnit! (Score:3, Interesting)
You want to use the same libraries for this project. You can't though. You don't have the right to do so. You're no longer the owner. You can recreate it but you're still probably violating the copyrights you signed away.
This is a real sore spot in software development. You can't know where to draw the line between "trivial" functions and copyrighted functions protected further by non-competition clauses.
A previous employer could drag you into court for anything, and it would have just enough bite to
Re:What about my right! Damnit! (Score:3)
Oh no, don't for a second think that I somehow believe that photography isn't hard "work", nor that it does not require artistic talent to produce that work. Also don't for a second think I'm commenting on photography.
My point is that there's a difference between freelance work and work for hire. From what you describe, wedding photographers seem to be taking the best of both worlds and for no good reason.
In a freelance work, you take the photos, write the article, or write the software yourself and y
Re:What about my right! Damnit! (Score:3, Interesting)
If the bride and groom provided the photographer's camera and film/media, computer, etc, hired a darkroom/Mac on his behalf, paid him hourly to operate them, you might have a point.
But, the photographer provides his own equipment, and the deliverable is an album full of prints. It's more like shrinkwrap software than code.
So, y
Re:What about my right! Damnit! (Score:4, Interesting)
Who provides the equiptment etc. is irrelevant.
What is relevant, the ONLY thing that is relevant is what the employer wants.
If I want to hire you to do a piece of great art that can turn ugly Aunt Joan with two moles and a hump into a thing of desire, then you should keep the copyrights.
If on the other hand, I just want you to take some photos, that I expect to be of at least good quality, then I should be able to get that done.
Yes, photographs CAN be artisticly meritous. But not everyone wants to get that high end quality stuff. Most people just want a resonable set of photographers and if they had the guts they would demand the copyright. The problem is that most wedding photographers have an inflated sense of there worth.
Lets be honest here. Wedding photographers are NOT the high end photographers. Yes most photographers forced to make there living as a Wedding Photographer likes to believe that they have huge talent,are destined for greatness, and are just biding their time till they are discovered. But most of them will not become the next Ansel Adams. So they get on their high horse, demanging Great Artist rights to copy-rights, when they and there work is merely above average stuff.
We are the clients. We decide what we want. We don't want the next masterpiece. We just want a photograph of Grandma Ida before she dies. We want reasonable quality stuff, and for the Great Artist prices you guys insist on charging, we should get the copy rights.
Moral Rights (Score:3, Interesting)
The rights to not have your work butchered and presented as your own or misrepresented as someone else's are protected even if you assign the copyright... at least that's the case in Canada.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/38965.html#rid- 3 9073 [justice.gc.ca]
I'm not sure about the U.S... A quick Google turns up stuff which makes me wonder if the U.S. is screwed up in this regard:
http://www.rbs2.com/moral.htm [rbs2.com]
Re:What about my right! Damnit! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well I see it as I am paying you to take pictures of me and my wife. If I paid you to write a program, manual, ad copy, or even a book I would own the copyright. The photographer that we used at our wedding is offering to sell me the negatives for $75 three years after the fact to clean his files out.
Yea if you hire the model I do not see a problem with you keeping the copyright but if I am paying you then like any other situation like that I should own the copyright.
Re:What about my right! Damnit! (Score:5, Interesting)
You're not buying a picture of yourself, you're buying how I saw you, wanted to see you for that moment.
That's lovely. You can see it however you want, the fact of the matter is you were hired for the end result, and in *every other for-hire situation*, the result is what the customer owns. You said it yourself; the customer is buying your work. It should be theirs. You poured your soul into it, and then you sold it to them.
It's a good thing you're an artist, because the rules would be different if you produced any other type of product, regardless of how much of yourself you put into it.
I'm not saying you shouldn't cover your costs. Charge what you need to, or even what you can get away with...
You're right about one thing though. There are plenty of photographers out there that understand the way the rest of the world works. The people who hire a photographer who keeps the copyrights are the people who don't understand what they're getting. Anybody else would have no trouble finding a way to get the rights to their images.
As for this:
Do you really need 1000 negs of your wedding?
In 50 years when you're dead, and your customer wants a fresh set of prints from their wedding, if they have the negatives they're fine. If they don't, the best they can do is get high res photocopies of whatever prints they happen to have. As somebody who loves their work, I'm sure you know what the quality difference there is. Chances are, you're never going to do anything with those images again (unless your real reasoning is gouging your customers on reproductions, which is counter to what you're claiming). You'll have other work of subject matter you actually care about that you can enjoy and the rest of your work that you did for-hire will be rotting away somewhere instead of being appreciated by the only people that actually care about it. Is that the best way to treat something you claim is very personal to you?
Re:What about my right! Damnit! (Score:3, Insightful)
That's rediculous. That's like asking if you give your customers access to your darkroom. When you write custom code the customer gets it, and exclusive rights to it, in almost every case. Every software contracting job I've worked on has had a boilerplate work-for-hire form that I had to sign a
Re:Eh? (Score:3, Informative)
The way you print a negative will make a big difference when it comes to the final quality.
With machine printing, there are some things you can control. Primarily, overall density and color balance. With digital minilabs you have some control over contrast as well. In addition, the quality of the p
Re:What about my right! Damnit! (Score:4, Interesting)
Some people do, some people don't. Some people also don't know the difference between a really good steak house and Outback, some people are content having all their meals come in little paper boxes. Some people can also appreciate all different forms of satisfying their hunger. People have different tastes.
"and as the artist is payed (usually ALOT) it is more then reasonable that the person hiring the photographer gets copyright. Like for ANY other hired artist situation."
I'm all for this. Some work I do I bill an hourly rate for all the time involved plus expenses. Considering a typical wedding will take about 80-100 hours of time and I consider a decent work for hire rate at LEAST $50-80/hr or more sign me up.
When people ask for copyright I quote them a fair market value. If you don't think my time and services are worth that, find someone else. There are plenty of people to chose from.
Fuck it. (Score:3, Insightful)
P.S. That means you Sears Photo Center. You will not receive one more dollar of my money.
Re:Fuck it. (Score:4, Informative)
- EOS 300D at ISO 50 [dpreview.com].
- EOS 300D at ISO 200 [dpreview.com].
- Pro 1 at ISO 50 [dpreview.com].
- Pro 1 at ISO 200 [dpreview.com].
The ISO 200 shot from the Pro 1 is actually noiser than the Rebel at ISO 1600 [dpreview.com]! Are the extra couple of megapixels and the more flexible bundled lens worth that much noise, lower battery life, icky electronic viewfinder and poorer autofocus?Re:Fuck it. (Score:3, Insightful)
A good photographer is 50% Ansel Adams and 50% Professional Cat Herder, at least for the formals. You probably have a good eye, but judging by stacks of photos I see passed around at family gatherings most people don't.
P.S. That means you Sears Photo Center. You will not receive one more dollar of my money.
I take it you weren't satisifed with the 1998-era inkjet printer portraits with ungodly diffusion dithers in the light area
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Fuck it. (Score:3, Funny)
"Hold on, let me compose this shot... good. Now, hold this and press that button when I go up there and kiss."
Unless you have a third hand and eye, you're still going to have to hire a photographer. Remember, unless otherwise stated in a contract, the copyright belongs to the person who takes the photo, not the owner of the equipment.
Re:Fuck it. (Score:2)
Besides, I cut him a deal on his computer/networking when he needs it (and boy sometimes he needs it) so what goes around, comes around.
Anyways it's all good!
Keep looking, I found one (Score:5, Informative)
(a) I would own the negatives (so I could get whatever prints I wanted, whenever), but
(b) they could keep copies as examples to promote their work.
I found some that way, and also by posting to the *.photo.* groups on Usenet.
Did the same for our wedding videos, too.
A lot of them will turn you down. Just keep looking. Letting them keep the negatives is a sucker's racket. Don't say you weren't warned.
That is silly (Score:2, Interesting)
How we handled this... (Score:5, Interesting)
How we handled it: We hired a newspaper photographer who was primarily a photojournalist, but who also had a little bit of wedding experience. We told him to "cover" the wedding like an event -- shoot half of it in black-and-white, half in color, absolute minimum of formal shots, etc.
Oh, and we told him to crop everything he printed for the best, most dramatic shots - no need for standard sizes/ratios like 8x10", etc.
Bottom line: We paid $400 (OK, so this was 14 years ago -- still damned cheap at the time), we've long-since digitized all the negs and slides, and our wedding album is the envy of everyone who sees it.
I can't recommend this approach highly enough!
Re:How we handled this... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How we handled this... (Score:5, Interesting)
I had a leg up on the process, since I was a city editor at the time, but that was only a minor advantage.
I'm not encouraging you to do anything illegal... (Score:3, Interesting)
perhaps you should just do what you like with your photos?
Re:I'm not encouraging you to do anything illegal. (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, the problem is not paying the guy - it's getting access to the hi-res originals. No guy, no originals, no hi-quality reprints.
Re:I'm not encouraging you to do anything illegal. (Score:2)
Re:I'm not encouraging you to do anything illegal. (Score:2)
Step 2: scan it
Step 3: print it.
But I agree that its not the optimal solution.. which would of course be to have the negatives.. or the original high res digitals..
My point was that if you can't find him in 20 years and don't have the negatives.. then worrying about copyright is the least of your issues.. just copy the damn things and if the photographer appears out of the woodwork then the problem is solved (but possibly a new one created
I've heard this before (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I've heard this before (Score:2)
Wow.
Quite frankly, that's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.
And I think the reasons are obvious.
Re:I've heard this before (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I've heard this before (Score:3, Insightful)
The mother of the bride doesn't give a stuff about the soul and personal values of your friends (who she probably doesn't approve of either). She wants perfectly lit, perfectly posed, crystal clear images of her family looking healthy and prosperous that she can impress her friends with at the bridge club. That's why people hire pros who've done this hundreds of time before, bring studio lighting with them
Here's what you do. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Here's what you do. (Score:2)
Re:Here's what you do. (Score:2)
It all depends on the contracts (Score:2, Informative)
Not all photographers are like that (Score:2)
And other photographers will happily sell you the copyright, no questions asked.
Photographers are as diverse in their copyright views as software developers, some want to retain absolute control over what they consider to be their artwor
It's your wedding, and you're are the customer (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell them that if they won't give you the photos, then they won't get your business. Be nice to them and promise to not sell the photos or use them publically, whatever.
It may be their intellectual property, but it's YOUR WEDDING and YOUR MEMORIES. This isn't just some business transaction, it's YOUR sacred moment.
Re:It's your wedding, and you're are the customer (Score:2)
More to the point, it's a tough economy particularly for photographers. With the rise of consumer equipment, and everyone and his brother thinking he can take a picture, the business side of professional photography has recently been mired by people who don't have the business knowledge required to be pros. A lot of newspapers, magazines and websites want to use your pictures for free. Why? Because someone who doesn't know better is willing to give it to them j
Re:It's your wedding, and you're are the customer (Score:2)
And at some point during the negiotiation, offer them additional money for the photos. We spoke to two wedding photographers, and I think they both thought that $800 - $1000 was reasonable for about 200 wedding negatives.
Everything is negotiable. (Score:5, Informative)
Don't go for it. Eventually you'll find a good photographer who will agree to your terms. Don't get frustrated with the assholes who try to belittle your requirements, just hang up on them.
Cheap prints erode my reputation (Score:5, Insightful)
- Why would I make a crappy print to put in my album?
- If a relative made the print, exactly what is the probability they remember the photographer who took the shot?
- How many people actually decide on a photographer based on the the quality of the print and not the person's opinion of the photographer?
I'm all for making money, but at least give me a plausible reason why I shouldn't own shots of myself.Re:Cheap prints erode my reputation (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, people will take the cheap way out.
People often decide on a photographer by looking at photos. You show some prints from a Canon 9000 that have faded out the Cyan so everything has an orange cast and YES people will think "Crappy photographer".
While the relative might not remember the photographer, they could
Just got married (Score:2, Informative)
Overall the photography costs came to about $2,300. Their general policy is that after about 3-5 years, they'll sell the originals for another $500 or so. That way they get the majority of the revenue from people who want copies, but eventually we get
No use without a release (Score:4, Informative)
The photographs taken of you are of no use to the photographer without a release, I've done this with customers in exchange for a lower rate for the job.
The only thing the photographer can ever do with the pictures from your wedding legally without a release is to put them in his book. He cannot really even sell them to your relatives, although it is accepted practice.
Look for a photographer that will do the job as 'work for hire', he provides the equipment, skill and time to take the photographs, you provide the film or payment for film and you process the film and have pictures made.
With a traditional wedding photographer your paying for a lot more than simply someone who 'takes pictures', your paying for a variety of professional services (overhead, knowledge, poses, processing, album, packaging, and a lot more time than you realise).
Put an advert in the paper asking for a work for hire photographer and require samples.
Re:No use without a release (Score:3, Informative)
Pros tend to be inflexible, first-class twits. (Score:3, Insightful)
Your best bet is to find someone who's not a pro, but has real skill. Someone who has another day job, but who loves to shoot as a hobby, has a pleasant personality, has years of real wedding experience, and who moonlights. These people will deliver quality results, but will gladly hand over the copyrights. Often, their only requirement is that they can use a few shots from the shoot for their own portfolio.
This type is harder to find than a regular pro since they don't advertise in the yellow pages, but it's worth looking into. Your best bet is to go to a high-quality local lab, the sort of place that us freaky amateur shutterbugs go to, and asking the employees there directly. You'd be surprised; some of the best wedding photography I've ever seen was done by a mining engineer and a building supply store's shipping clerk.
As with any photographer, ask to see a portfolio of previous wedding work, ask them for references, and shop around for several candidates first. This is a buyer's market, after all.
All this takes some legwork, but in the end you'll have professional-level results, and the legal right to make a copy of any shot for anyone you damn well please.
Re:Pros tend to be inflexible, first-class twits. (Score:2)
Work for hire... (Score:2)
Make sure he/she understands that you're hiring him as "Work for hire". Then use the images as you wish. If he want's to sue you, the burden of proof will be on him to prove that HE owns the copyright of the images that you _hired him to create_. It's doubtful that he'd sue you, but if he did, he'd have a lot of prove. He would likely lose in court, and you'd get the rights to your pictures.
IANAL-BMGI (But My Girlfriend Is) and as such, my advice is exactly that - just advi
Re:Work for hire... (Score:2)
Contracted employee (Score:2)
Here's how a friend did it. (Score:2)
I suggest, first of all, that you *do not* spend 4 large to support this scam. You must have a couple of good friends that are reasonably good with a camera. Get them to help and pay them well.
ours sells them for cheap (Score:2)
What my sister the bride told me (Score:5, Informative)
Admittedly, hers was a charmingly small and intimate wedding at a spa resort (look, I have to say this, my sister might read this post, and she was a radiant bride and my brother-in-law was a proud and loving groom), and my sister tells me the photographer explained that he's have charged more for the copyright, perhaps up to $600, had the wedding party been larger.
This, of course, is because the larger the wedding party, the more people who want to buy copies of the pictures, and by retaining copyright the photographer has a monopoly on those pictures. While he can't, simply for market reasons, charge outrageous prices, he can certainly make sure that he's the one paid for copyright, developing, printing, and mailing the pictures, and add all those fees to the final price.
That being said, my sister's wedding was held at an out of the way ("exclusive and secluded") resort, so the photographer's normal business includes stuff like local college and university publicity pictures, and -- according to his daughter, who was also taking pictures -- executive retreats. So basically he's selling the copyright to my sister for the price he'd charge business clients for copyright to their promotional pictures. (And speaking of local colleges, the excellent wedding violinist was a local college professor of music - and really good.) Prices might -- or might not -- differ in metropolitan areas, and no doubt vary from one photographer to another.
What this comes down to is negotiation: you're the one shelling out the major cash, and the photographer is the guy looking for a gig. Explain that you're shopping for his time and the copyright, and that you're willing to pay a bit more for it, as you understand the copyright has monetary value to him if he keeps it. But also explain that if he keeps it, it's speculative value, based on who may or may not purchase copies over the months and years ahead, whereas a fee is cash money is his pocket now. Google on "Time Value of Money", and see what I mean.
Finally, whenever I've been hired as a programmer, it's been taken for granted that I'm doing "work for hire", and my (copyrighted) source code belongs to the business hiring me for no additional consideration. Not only that, I'm expected to assign any patents I design on the job to the corporation hiring me.
While the case of a photographer is not entirely parallel -- he provides his own tools, and takes the risk of badly developed photos -- I'll maintain that the most important tool used to write code isn't a computer or a compiler, it's in the 1400 grams of brain I bring with me to the task. And if it's a question of creativity, I'll submit that a code writer -- any good code writer -- is as much an artist as any wedding photographer.
Your wedding photographer should be there to commemorate the day, not to cynically calculate how to separate you from your shekels by squeezing your sentimentality down through the years. Recognize that he's a professional, and let him know you're not a chump, and work out a price that is fair to him and gives you the rights to your own memorabilia.
PS: I've written a number of Slashdot comments, and I've gotten a decent amount of praise for them: a bunch of +5 mods, and even some encouraging replies ("occasionally, just occasionally... there should be a +6... to memorably mark such insightful posts.", "one of the greatest and most interesting posts I have ever read on Slashdot"), but I have to say I was absolutely blown away by the love letter my sister had written to her future husband, which she read to us at the wedding dinner. All my cleverness and ranting and fulminating, about Ashcroft and civil liberties and how to write code the right way, is so much ephemera next to my sister's amaranthine words of love.
Sis, I wish you and my brother-in-law -- and "Percy" -- the best for years and years to come.
Re:What my sister the bride told me (Score:2)
While the case of a photographer is not entirely parallel -- he provides his own tools, and takes the risk of badly developed photos -- I'll maintain that the most important tool used to write code isn
You can find them... (Score:2, Informative)
Probably not a pro (Score:2)
For the thousands of dollars they'd charge, you can very easily buy your own top of the line digital camera and a tripod. Then make sure you know what you're doing and take the pictures yourself. And the rest of the money would go towards printing.
The irony... (Score:2)
Yes, They Exist (Score:3, Informative)
I was just married about 2 weeks ago and my wife and I are extremely pleased with our photographer and the way that he handled the copyright issue (we interviewed several and this one was far and away the best). He shot everything with both film and digital cameras, first off. It turns out that though the digital has plenty of resolution to make large prints it doesn't capture as many levels of contrast as the film does, but it's easier to work with. So he shoots both.
On the digital, we have the copyright immediately. I already have a CD with all the images (hi-res), plus he puts up a site where anyone can look at the digital proofs and order high-quality prints. The photos on the site have a watermark-looking thing on them, but the ones on the CD are clean.
With the film, we get the negatives and the copyright one year after the wedding. The reason for this is that photographers are out to make a living too and they make a lot from relatives and such who want to order good quality prints (photo dye on 100-year archive paper as opposed to ink jet, for instance). After a year, we get the negatives and the copyright. This seemed quite reasonable to me. Also, the photographer retains the right to use the photos for publicity purposes, which also seemed reasonable.
And, yes, we do have a signed copyright release stating all this (the photographer actually told us that many photo labs will not make reprints without this, even if you do have the negatives, so be sure to get one when you find a photographer that's willing to give you copyright).
I'd suggest shopping until you find a similar deal. If enough people do this, it will put competitive pressure on other photographers to adopt similar measures.
If anyone's wondering, the photographer we used is Steve Wille [stevewille.com]. The samples and digital proofs [stevewille.com] are on the same site (yes, the photos are real, not using a backdrop or edited -- Colorado's a beautiful place). Unfortunately, I can't post the URL to the CD photos as my server couldn't handle the potential load.
I would highly recommend Steve to anyone getting married in Colorado.
Fly him out (Score:2)
I dunno about all the claims from photographers that they need to retain copyright. I don't do photography, and I would assume that a photographer probably doesn't get constant work. Plus, he has to buy his own equipment.
Still, it seems like there must be a better solution (like having a number of photographers go into business together and be more
A response from a photographer (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me ask this question for when your doing sys admin work.
Do you hire someone with 5 years experience, an RHCE, and whatever else to manage your pool of 100 machines cranking a billion dollars a month?
Or, do you hire the guy that just graduated high school, used linux at home on his workstation and may have compiled a kernel once.
The question remains the same for hiring a pro photographer vs. hiring an amatuer. I've seen many to that point. It seems 50/50 for experience vs. high school graduate.
Now about copyrights and the subject at hand. I always retain copyright for every photo I take unless I am very well reimbursed for each image taken. The only time selling the copyright is really an option for me is doing commercial work that is extremely targeted to something. ie: shooting a layout for honda, no one is going to use it but honda and they have paid very well.
For weddings, I will give customers, for a fee, a copy of the images for them to get printed themselves; however I will typically suggest that they use my services for the primary wedding album. The reason for this is that I will guarentee my work and something that will be very nice and professional. The typical person will have grand dreams but not quite get it set up right or not be happy with the end results.
My fee's for record are very similar to what was listed in the original article.
What a pro wedding shooter should have:
Errors and Omissions insurance - if the wedding photo's completely suck, you can have it reshot by the photographer and all of it paid for. This cost about 150 a year.
Two to three cameras minimum. If a camera breaks during a shoot, you either have one or not. My cameras and lenses together probably cost about 9k apeice. I shoot digitally so there is no film cost per say. The rig has to be replaced generally every two or three years, especially the body.
Computer systems. I use a laptop on-site to burn to DVD and download from the film. Typically this is done by an assistant during a break. Then I have a color calibrated system that I use for photo editing. I give a low rez CD to the couple and let them select the ones they want for an album and have an online gallery.
From the gallery, people can order prints which are sold. Same old same ol, but it's a way to increase revenue. Why do that? To be able to stay in business.
Let me ask another question. For those that have done the set themselves, have they gone in and cleaned up the photos? Airbrushing zits, blemishes, etc.? This takes a lot of time to do. Pro's can do it pretty quick but it still takes time per image. What is that worth?
I should mention that to edit roughly 1000 photo's with basic things such as color adjustments, airbrushing zits, etc. can take a good 30 to 40 hours.
I dunno, should a photographer be allowed to try and make the most money they can off of 80 to 100 hours of work?
If there is anyone in the Northern Arizona area that wants to see what really goes into all of this stuff, post here and I'll contact you. It's not as easy as it sounds.
I'll watch this thread for a couple of days and offer to answer any questions.
Re:A response from a photographer (Score:2)
You can tell.
_________________
---I'm a computer geek, RHCE etc. and also a pro photographer w/ the PPA.
Is that sentance to gain "acceptance" within the limited copyright geek crowd?
---Let me ask this question for when your doing sys admin work.
---Do you hire someone with 5 years experience, an RHCE, and whatever else to manage your pool of 100 machines cranking a billion dollars a month?
---Or, do you hire the guy that just graduated high school, used linux at home on his wo
Re:A response from a photographer (Score:3, Insightful)
Does this insurance cover flying all the friends and relatives back into town, paying for their hotel stay, hiring the caterers again, renting the facilities for the wedding and reception, decorating it with flowers, renting the limosine, and restaging the entire wedding and reception just so you can reshoot it?
Builders (Score:2)
That is, you pay them to build you a wall for $500. BUT.. they retain all rights to the wall. So if you want to knock it down, you need to get their permission (and pay them). If you want to move the wall, you need to pay. If you want to grow plants up the wall, better get permisson first!
Copyrights are all well and good in some areas.. but in personal photography? They should hold onto it for a couple of months while people get photographs
Professional event photographers... (Score:2)
End of story.
There is no other way for a person to make enough money doing photography full time without this business model.
Further, they are (or consider themselves) to be professional artists. When they make a shot the shot is a combination of their skill and equipment. They own the copyright just as an author's skill and equipment allowed him to immortalise "It
You're going about it wrong... (Score:5, Informative)
Now, many wedding photographers make their real cash from the prints, and so will refuse to sell the negatives anyway (or only after a substantial period of time), but you have to ask in their language in order to get anywhere.
Additionally, if they are a pro that does journalism/advertising work as well as weddings, they're going to immediately wonder if you're trying to screw them. 99% of commercial clients who ask for all-rights contracts don't really need all the rights they ask for (a frank discussion of what the client actually wants to do will usually result in a more sane limited-rights contract being signed for less money), but requests like that can also be a red flag that the client doesn't really understand/care about copyright and is likely to play fast and loose with your images (omitting credit lines, retouching without offering first refusal, reselling the work as their own, never paying you, etc.)
Just so you know where I'm coming from, I'm a freelance illustrator who avoids all-rights/work-for-hire assignments whenever possible, and I bought the negatives from my wedding photographer last year.
chriscroy.com (Score:2, Interesting)
I was out of town when my wife and mother-in-law chose the photographer, but from what I understand of their conversations he what I consider
How to solve this (Score:2)
I'd look for referrals from friends or interview graduate students at a local university. Make it clear that they are working for hire, and that is not negotiable. If they would like to use your photos for a portfolio, grant them a license in exchange for a discount.
Re:How to solve this (Score:2)
Does the photographer own the copyright? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Does the photographer own the copyright? (Score:5, Interesting)
Proof, law, sources please?
Does that mean that National Geographic photo's are un-copyrightable?
What you say peaks my BS-O-Meter
Re:Does the photographer own the copyright? (Score:3, Informative)
Proof, law, sources please?
Well I dug a little deeper in order to rise to your challenge. Here's a summary of what I found, model retains copyright is correct in the UK where I'm from, but not in the US. I'd assumed that because I found references for such forms in the US they were for the same purpose. They're not, the US releases pertain to privacy laws of which there are none in the UK. FWIW the difference seems to due to there being no "work for hire" provision in UK law. In the UK copyright tra
Re:Does the photographer own the copyright? (Score:3, Interesting)
What I don't have is the right to use the image in certain commercial purposes. Think of hidden cameras on the news. The person isn't even aware that they are photographed and they don't have to sign a release for it to be seen (though they sometimes have to blur the likeness) because it's for editorial
For even more fun with photographers... (Score:2)
At first, he looked at me like I had 3 heads. Then he explained to me that he's never lost a file, never had any reason to fear losing a file, and he's been in the business for 15 years and keeps all his film negat
Copyright vs. Unrestricted License (Score:3, Informative)
There's no need for you to strip that from them, which is what you are asking for when you ask for their 'copyright'. What you want is a license with reasonably loose restrictions.
It's true that many wedding photographers developed their craft in a day where production costs (for film) were relatively high and the fee they could charge for a wedding was comparatively low. Thus, they retained reprint rights so that they could recoup a better margin over time.
However, this is changing rapidly, largely because of the far lower production cost involved with digital photography, and the emergence of the photojournalistic style. More and more photographers, including my fiance [jessicaverma.com], whom I'm shamelessly promoting, are more than happy to provide you with full resolution digital images for private printing. More often than not, clients who aren't tech savvy, or don't have cost-effective access to professional quality print labs, come back to the original photographer anyway. And even if they don't come back, releasing the images amounts to one less hassle for the photographer five years from now when your mom wants a few new prints.
However, they will usually try to retain copyright, though, since it's often far more valuable to them them than it would be to you.
In summary: don't worry. There are an increasing number of photographers out there who provide exactly what you need. Just keep looking, and good luck on your wedding!
Re:Copyright vs. Unrestricted License (Score:2)
Aquiring full copyright is typically very expensive in any work-for-hire. Musicians who release copyright to record companies are either desperately starstruck, or getting paid very high fees.
To return to photography, the fees that advertisers and magazines pay to photographers for 10 or 15 images and an easy hour's work are around what this guy wanted to charge you for 6 or 8 hours in front of 100 people. If you think of it that way, you get a better grasp of
We found one that gave us the HiRes images (Score:2)
Like other posters have said, retaining the copyright is not as high of an issue. We ended up using one of the images on our thank you cards! Ballsy? Yes. Stupid? Probably, but all we got were ooh's and ahh's (maybe the CaD letter is in th
zerg (Score:2)
Get Married Abroad (Score:2)
rus
As a wedding photographer... (Score:5, Informative)
You can certainly find photographers who will either include reproduction rights with their packages, or who will sell them to you for an additional fee. Notice, I didn't say "copyright." No photographer will ever sell the copyright. See, there's two parts to copyright. First, you have the right to make any copies of the images you want. Second, you can prevent anyone else from making copies. Many photographers will let you make whatever copies you want, but no photographer is going to give up his right to make copies.
Essentially, it works like this. Let's say that for a particular package the photographer realizes that he needs to make $2,500 on the wedding in order to make it worth his time. That's a reasonable fee for a small package. Consider that we bring about $45,000 worth of photo equipment to a wedding, which all has to be paid for, maintained, insured, repaired, replaced, etc, and then use another $20,000 worth of computer equipment to edit, retouch, and archive...that adds up. Then there's business overhead from taxes, office supplies, advertising, etc, and on top of it we have to put food on the table and pay for health insurance and what not.
So, $2,500 in gross sales in the goal. We know from past experience that we can expect $500 in additional sales to friends and family after the wedding. So, the couple (or mom & dad) pay $2,000, and the other $500 comes from friends and family later. If you want to have the high-res digital files, that's fine! But it's going to cost $500, because then we know we're not going to get any reprints from friends and family.
Shop around...this is a completely free-market enterprise. There are NO requirements to be a wedding photographer. Any asshole with a camera can call himself a professional photographer, as no licensing or oversight is required...that's why there are so many bad photographers out there, and why a photography business it the most failure-prone business venture next to a restuarant. You can pay as much or as little as you want, but you get what you pay for. You can hire a student from the community college for $200 plus the cost of film and he'll hand you the rolls at the end of the night, but he's probably going to be using sub-standard equipment, and have very little knowledge of posing and lighting, and there will be no retouching, editing, or album design. Or, if you're interested, I know several fantastic photographers who will produce stunning works of art, but you're going to have to pay them $15,000. Shop around until you find the photographer who'll give you price you want and the quality of work you're willing to settle for. Good luck with your wedding!
Re:you need to cut costs (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oh, I understand. (Score:3, Informative)
Backup copies (Score:2)
Get the negatives (Score:2, Informative)
Although that was important to us, it was much more important that he could straddle the line between artsy and archival. He took b&w as
Buy the film (Score:2, Insightful)
We went to a few photogs before one agreed, then kept the negatives after the wedding. Needless to say - he signed the contract and we got our negatives. Which we promptly had scanned, archived on CDs, and uploaded to shutterfly.com to allow anyone to purchase any photos they want without hav
Keep asking - there will be one (Score:2)
a) reasonably priced
b) will let you have the negatives, photo-CDs etc
c) is not hung up on copyright
Be prepared to walk away from a few before you you find the one you want. What you're looking for is someone who will produce the photos as "work for hire" and is prepared to make his money on the day, and no more after that.
I am a commercial photographer... (Score:5, Interesting)
When I am comissioned, my clients pay my for an agreed period of time, for a minimum number of images, of subject matter and style they specify.
We discuss the shots, we discuss the intent of the shoot, and I go to work. I then provide the customer with the copyright, a full set of RAWs, TIFF and JPEG versions of the postprocessed images (straight RAWs are never at their best, but give more versatility for the customer if they want to do other things with the images).
My fee is for hire of myself and my equipment, along with my expertise. I give the customer the photos that had they owned what I own, in terms of kit and ability, they would have wished to create.
As part of my agreement, I buy limited rights back from the customer to use as portfolio shots.
And I seem to make enough money... the market for fully-owned images definitely exists. My per-hour fee is higher of course than some, but not so very much higher.
My advantage is that I don't have to worry about being a reprographics business as well as a photographer! The shoot's done, and I can worry about the next commission.
digital photography copyrights (Score:3, Insightful)
What I've found is that most photographers-who-have-gone-digital fail to understand that the release of a raw image or "prime distributable" (aka full-res JPEG) is simply the transfer of a copy and is, in and of itself, simply a form of publication. In the film days, the release of the negative was "the end" of the usability of that photo for the photographer. Indeed, it would mean several things: no more use for self-promotion, loss of portfolio, and no more ability to make money from copies or archive being the foremost of them. Naturally, in the digital age, this is no longer true, because every transfer is really just a copy. Even if I put all the raw files on CD and hand them to the client, the original raw files may well be sitting on the camera's microdrive, and maybe on my hard drive, too -- at least until I "take care of them."
In reality, though, if I release raws (rare) or prime distros (common), I simply ask the client as to whether or not they'll sign off that I have the right to continue using the image(s) in the promotion of my services. It's a fair-and-equal exchange world, right? (or, it should be). In other words, we tend to equate the release of a prime distro with release of copyright, but that's not necessarily true.
Copyright, per se, in the digital realm, does not really mean "the right to make copies". Think about it....if I sell "copyright" to a newspaper, but they ask me to maintain a searchable archive for their convenience (almost all of them do), how can I do so without making copies? I can't even back them up on CD without doing copying the original files.
So what's being bandied about in most cases as "copyright" is really "right of publication". When I ask a client to allow me to continue limited use of the photos and they grant it, what is literally happening (and what the contract language stipulates) is that the client is being awarded non-exclusive publication rights, and I am signing off that I will limit my use of the photos.
All that having been said, if I do sell Copyright in the traditional sense, that's another matter. After ten-plus years as a photographer, I find that Copyright only gets sold to newspapers, other publishers, and the government. In those instances, it is more apropros to say that I am granting those institutions exclusive publication rights. The simplicity of maintaining an archive means that I retain copies even of these files, but have signed an agreement that forbids me their tangible use.
To address the original post more directly, your cited photographer comes across as a bit of a knucklehead to me, and with all due respect, you were asking for the wrong thing. What you should have asked for was simply copies of the prime distros and exclusive or non-exclusive publications rights, with the photographer committing to limited use and/or publication rights.
In truth, though, in a fair-and-equal exchange world, it benefits neither the client nor the photographer (of a wedding, anyway) to limit the photographer's permissive use of the results of his/her own creativity, and some photographers would indeed find the premise rather offensive. I'm just an easy-going guy who has learned that Copyright and Publication in the Digital Millenium are sorely misunderstood, so I've come to offer variances in the wording of things that seem to make everyone happy. However, if a wedding client was absolutely steadfast about wanting Copyright (in the traditional sense), forbidding me the use of my own creative impetus, well, it's almost like a hostile bid in a corporate takeover: it makes nobody feel good about what they do. There are several ways I rid myself of such clients; the easiest is to jack my prices so high they no longer want me.
I got my negatives, and a statement for $100 (Score:3, Funny)
I talked to the photographer durring all of the shoots about photoshop, and got her really stoked. She thought it was great that I would touch up the photos myself. I ended up giving her $100 over the package price, and she burned the 100+ photos to CD for me, and typed up a document that releases all claim on the photos.
(These are the reduced images, of course)
http://sbnsor.com/familyphoto/Wedding-07
Moral of the story? It pays to shmooze...
It's a racket.... (Score:3, Interesting)
When I got married, I found an excellent photographer. He's actually an architectural photographer. He had so many requests for weddings, he hired an assistant just to shoot weddings.
Now, he doesn't want to have the hastle of keeping an expensive office just to make people feel good when they come in to order prints. And he doesn't want to have to pay a secretary to sit and take orders all day. And he doesn't want to deal with endless orders for reprints.
All he does is send out the assistant with a medium-format to shoot pictures, send out the film for developping, proofs, and an initial package of prints. He gives you the whole mess - including the negatives. Then he tells you the photo house he sends out to for prints, and lets you get whatever you want.
He told me that just by hiring the assitant (who actually does TERRIFIC) work, his income jumped up by $70,000 per year. Now, for a lot of people, just making$70,000 per year would be very welcome. For him, it's just a raise for sending someone else out to do the work. And he still charged us much less than any of the other bidders.
Here's where it gets really good: We wanted a 16x20 print to hang on the wall. We took it to the photo house he recommended, and had it printed. It was done at exactly the same place it would have been printed at had a "traditional" photographer done it for us. But it literally cost us less than one-fifth of what the "traditional" photographers wanted for their prints.
It's really just a racket. Photogs keeping their negatives is just a protectionist movement designed to keep them in business, it's a tradition going back to the inception of guilds and before. And to boot, a lot of "wedding photographers" are nothing more than someone who bought an SLR and want to think that they're big-time.
There are photographers who truly are artists, and whose art truly deserves recompense. But when someone shows up, spends an hour taking pictures of your $2,000 wedding dress, your $5,000 ring, your $5,000 reception, and you, I find it truly hard to accept that they themselves have created a piece of art, of which they should retain copyright (and profits) for the rest of eternity. You paid for everything, you did all of the planning and work, and it's your image. They showed up, called up the family members, and told you where to stand. You should retain the copyright.
Like so many other businesses ($100 chinese-made polyester wedding dresses selling for $1,000 or $50 worth of titanium selling for $500 because it's in a ring-shape), they're just jumping on the "Wedding Gravy Train".
steve
Re:What we need... (Score:2)
Re:Work For Hire (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be easier and more useful to make a registry of, y'know, good photographers?
Re:Nothing odd here -- except YOU (Score:2)
Re:Heh. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, they're hanging on my wall, along with my parent's weddings photos, and my great-grandparents' wedding photos. Thanks for asking, though.