The Art of Intellectual Property

dpilgrim writes "When digital technology meets intellectual property, most of the attention focuses on the movie industry or the music business. I was surprised to discover how much of an impact there is in smaller areas like professional photography, and put together some reflections on my experience." This is why when I get married I want to make sure I contract only for the photographer's labor.

Comments

Echoes of the RIAA?

[Teknogeek]

The problem is this: she is still living in a world of 20 years ago where the primary means for viewing and distributing photographs was as a print on paper.

The problem is this: they are still living in a world of 20 years ago where the primary means for listening to and distributing music was as a casette tape.

Our photographer thinks she is in the business of providing high quality printed photographs. In fact she is in the image-capturing business, and as the business shifts from printed to digital format, she will either adapt or fail.

The RIAA thinks they are in the business of providing high quality music CDs. In fact they are in the audio-distribution business, and as the business shifts from CD to pure digital format, they will either adapt or fail.

Re:Echoes of the RIAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget.. Photographers own the moment! Not the subjects. ..Kinda like how the RIAA owns the music, not the artists :p

photographer vs. artist

[NixterAg]

Whenever you commission a photographer to photograph an event, he or she usually retains all rights to the photographs taken. However, when you commission an artist to do a painting, all rights to that painting belong to you. For example, if someone wants to include the painting in an art book, getting permission from the artist typically does no good. You must get permission from the person who owns the painting. Photographs cannot be reprinted without permission of the photographer since the photographer typically retains all rights to his or her pictures.

I agree, it's time for photographers to get with the times.

Re:photographer vs. artist

[cenonce]

Actually, no you don't, it is the same thing. The artist retains all of the bundle of rights associated with the work. You simply own the canvas its on, thus you can sell it, you can even (maybe) destroy it, or hang it upside down. You cannot, under the normal law of copyright, reproduce, display publicly, make derivative works or any other right that the artist retains.

-A

Re:photographer vs. artist

[NMerriam]

However, when you commission an artist to do a painting, all rights to that painting belong to you.

eh? I would recommend you review your law books -- when i paint a portrait I'm certainly not selling the copyright to the sitter. If he wants to print it on the cover of his autobiography, or an art book, the publisher had better call me and write a check. You sell the painting, not the copyright. Frequently artists will even retain the right to borrow the painting for purposes such as exhibition.

I can reprint all of my paintings without anyone's permission (except of course ones for which I have sold reprint rights). The owner of the canvas certainly cannot do it without mine.

Re:photographer vs. artist

[Anonymous Coward]

1)You are a work for hire
2)The sitter owns his image
Your copywrong is nixed.
"Frequently artists will even retain the right to borrow the painting for purposes such as exhibition"
Not if you don't get past my shotgun.

I hope you don't use BSD or Linux with your attitude on the "IP".

Re:photographer vs. artist

[NMerriam]

1)You are a work for hire
2)The sitter owns his image
Your copywrong is nixed.
"Frequently artists will even retain the right to borrow the painting for purposes such as exhibition"
Not if you don't get past my shotgun.

1) No, I'm not. I have done work for hire, but portraiture is not work-for-hire, by the standards of the IRS or the standards of any normal portraiture contract.

2) Everyone owns the right of exploitation of their image, but that doesn't mean they own everything with their image on it. I can reprint a painting in my "works of" book without the sitters' permission (not that I would), but I can't sell it to be used on the cover of Time Magazine.

"Frequently artists will even retain the right to borrow the painting for purposes such as exhibition" Not if you don't get past my shotgun.

It's a term in the contract -- if you don't want it, it isn't necessary, but most people who pay for portraits are honored that their portrait will be recognized as a work of art by the public and exhibited. I don't believe many artists would be interested in exhibiting an image if the owner wasn't willing to have it on exhibit.

Re:photographer vs. artist

[TFloore]

Blockquoteth the poster:

"Frequently artists will even retain the right to borrow the painting for purposes such as exhibition" Not if you don't get past my shotgun.

It's a term in the contract -- if you don't want it, it isn't necessary, but most people who pay for portraits are honored that their portrait will be recognized as a work of art by the public and exhibited. I don't believe many artists would be interested in exhibiting an image if the owner wasn't willing to have it on exhibit.

And this illustrates one of the things that exists but is being ignored in most paintings, and seems to be a problem with photography.

If you commission a painting/portrait, you are probably familiar with the works of that painter, and probably respect their work as an artist. You may have met them at a gallery that exhibited their work once. You probably have a decent relationship with this person.

You probably don't have an adversarial relationship. The artist may not be a real friend, but I doubt they are someone you would go after with a shotgun. This is a person you chose to deal with because you liked their work.

We seem to have a lot of fun around here hating the evil corporation, and making it into an adversaial relationship. I'm tempted to say they started it, but that sounds so incredibly childish that, well, maybe it fits the topic pretty well after all. :)

When you're dealing with a person, talk to them and ask questions. When you're dealing with a corporation, you don't usually have that option. This is where a lot of the problems come in. Take advantage of the fact that you are dealing with a person, and talk to them.

Re:photographer vs. artist

[NMerriam]

When you're dealing with a person, talk to them and ask questions. When you're dealing with a corporation, you don't usually have that option. This is where a lot of the problems come in. Take advantage of the fact that you are dealing with a person, and talk to them.

I think this hits the nail on the head. my honest first reaction to the story is that i was surprised the guy didn't understand he wouldn't get the negatives or a high-res scan, or didn't ask about them earlier.

in most weddings, you'll literally spend hours with the photographer just discussing what kinds of shots you want, getting engagement photos, getting bridal photos days before the wedding, deciding on a basic package of prints.

Surely at some point, he saw a price sheet and was able to judge whether or not they could provide what he wanted. i don't klnow many creative people who won't be flexible with a customer, but asking after the fact and being disappointed at the price is not a very valid criticism of the business (IMHO)...

Re:photographer vs. artist

[mangu]

my honest first reaction to the story is that i was surprised the guy didn't understand he wouldn't get the negatives or a high-res scan, or didn't ask about them earlier.

What I was surprised about is that he didn't get the negatives. I think it's so obvious the negatives belong to the customer...

in most weddings, you'll literally spend hours with the photographer just discussing what kinds of shots you want

So the photographer isn't doing any truly creative work, is he? The photographer is a craftsman exerting his skill. He is like a weaver, making a tapestry designed by somebody else. A good photographer will make better pictures than a mediocre one, and a good weaver will make better tapestries. But they aren't creating anything, from the intellectual point of view, so the IP doesn't belong to them.

Re:photographer vs. artist

[Anonymous Coward]

If a plumber didn't explicitly state his intentions of claiming work on my toilet to be /his/ intellectual property, I'd call him a con-artist. I hired the joker to do a job, period. If his small area of expertise has factors that are contrary to what people have learned to expect from the real world, it's his obligation to point these unusual aspects of the work first and foremost.

But naturally, people are often under a great deal of stress during wedding plannings. And it's during these confusing times in life when the con-artists line up to take whatever they can get. Get you when you're not thinking clearly and then lay all sorts of unfair and counterintuitive terms on you. And then to get offended when people call them on this. You folks can just go suck a dick. How about that, artiste-photographer?

Stand up and join the ranks of the textbook companies who screw the young and stupid as they enter college with their small piles of money, and whatever other con-artists that line up to fuck people during other rites of passage. Fucking vultures.

Re:photographer vs. artist

[istartedi]

I've never commissioned a work of art, but I did on one occasion purchase an original canvas. The artist made it clear that I was purchasing the original, but not the right to reproduce. This was fine with me because I figured that if it were ever reproduced in some popular context, my original would become far more valuable. For example, IIRC the originals of Dogs Playing Poker have auctioned for upwards of $30,000-$40,000.

Now, this business of the artist coming back to borrow the work; that's just ridiculous. No way would I agree to let somebody randomly redecorate my living space.

Re:photographer vs. artist

[NMerriam]

What I was surprised about is that he didn't get the negatives. I think it's so obvious the negatives belong to the customer

in a vacuum, maybe -- but after 6 hours of conversation about what kind of prints you want to buy, no. I can't imagine somebody walking out of that conversation without understanding they didn't own the negatives (if they did, why would they want to pay a thousand dollars for a set of prints?). It's all spelled out in the contracts, too, which aren't particularly lengthy for this type of work since it's usually a small operation and there isn't any publishing involved.

So the photographer isn't doing any truly creative work, is he? The photographer is a craftsman exerting his skill. He is like a weaver, making a tapestry designed by somebody else. A good photographer will make better pictures than a mediocre one, and a good weaver will make better tapestries. But they aren't creating anything, from the intellectual point of view, so the IP doesn't belong to them.

Well, it's not really a discussion that would go anywhere on /. (suffice it to say I have known more than a handful of technically proficient camera operators who wouldn't be considered artists). But as to "IP" belonging, you're talking about a strictly legal issue, and the IP belongs to the photographer under US (and most international) law.

Re:photographer vs. artist

[dhogaza]

Not getting the negatives is the norm for wedding photography contracts. You may be surprised but the author of the article has no excuse because, unlike you, at some point he or his future spouse had the contract in front of them and could read this with their own eyes.

Uh, no, she's not like a weaver making a tapestry designed by someone else. Have you ever taken a photograph that any sane person wouldn't just flush down the nearest toilet? If you had, you'd understand the absolute idiocy of your words.

Re:photographer vs. artist

[yeOldeSkeptic]

Everyone owns the right of exploitation of their image, but that
doesn't mean they own everything with their image on it. I can reprint
a painting in my "works of" book without the sitters' permission.

IANAL but, Really? Then you are getting yourself into trouble.
A photographer has no right to publish pictures or portraits
without the permission of the person in the picture or portrait.
That is why there is such a thing as a model release form.
Even when a playboy or penthouse magazine photographer takes photographs
of a model paid professionally, the model still has
to sign the release. So how can a photographer or an artist
have rights
to a picture for which he (or she) has been paid to create?
By all rights the client has the right to the image.

The only case where a photographer is allowed to publish
a portrait (or picture) is when the person in the picture
is a public figure. The reason being that publishing
the picture is covered under the freedom granted
to journalists.

In another post, you or someone else reasoned that
since you applied your skills (lighting, posings, etc)
to create the image then by all rights you own the image
you have taken. But, the client owns the wedding and
has paid for the location, therefore the client has paid
for the means by which you have created your work. The clients
money allowed you to create the work. So the location and
the event is the client's IP. Right? Think about it.

Re:photographer vs. artist

[Djinh]

This may be true in some far away parts of the world, but in most places the situation is like this:

The photographer can do many things with the picture: print it, display it in a gallery and charge admission. He can even print it and sell the prints for money.

What he cannot do without a model release in most parts of the world is sell it to IBM to use in their new ad campaign.

The person in the picture is only allowed to hang the picture on his wall, assuming he or she has bought a print from the photographer.

when new technology != more freedom

[cygnus]

the scary thing about the advent of technology in media is that while we expect that it would enable more "use" out of our media in various ways -- take for example the CD-ROM of this guy's photo album -- in fact, so many companies are endevoring to turn this tech revolution into a way to either provide less to the consumer or charge more for what they already have.

for instance, divx, god rest it's soul, was basically an effort to remove our ability to purchase and watch our favorite movies again and again, by luring us with better image quality and sound. there are plenty more examples of this, and plans for even more.

it's up to people like us, who realize when people are being ripped off by technology because they don't know better, to get them riled up over the issue. send more people to the EFF et. al.

Re:when new technology != more freedom

[Blue Stone]

I just bought a DVD Player for the first time.
I'm incensed that I'm forced to sit through a 10 second copyright notice AND the distributor's splash, before I can watch my movie.

EVERY SINGLE TIME!

I sit through them, cursing them, swearing at them, and telling them that I hope they rot in hell.

I'm sure my shouting at the screen will die down over time, but my anger at their act of compelling me to do something like this, giving me less controll than over a video I purchased, will not go away.
How they thought they could do this without causing resentment, is beyond me. Maybe they just don't care.
(Big mistake.)

Re:when new technology != more freedom

[t]

Where the hell have you been? If you're that pissed about that, don't ever buy a Disney flick. The rest of us have learned to pop the disc in long before we want to watch it, that way it will always be sitting waiting at the play button. Kinda tivo-ish with commercials eh? The next lawsuit will be the movie people requiring that whenever the dvd is playing that the image must be shown on the tv screen with the volume non-zero.

Re:when new technology != more freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

How they thought they could do this without causing resentment, is beyond me.

Maybe they figured you were just a whiny little putz and that you're only redeeming attribute is the ability to simultaneously pay them money while ranting at the evil megacorps?

Re:when new technology != more freedom

[mitheral]

Now imagine you live in Canada and contemplate how irritating/amusing (depending on my mood) the FBI warning splash screen is. I've even seen a VCD rip that included the warning :).

Intellectual Property?

[cscx]

According to RMS, that's not even a valid phrase in the English language.

Re:Intellectual Property?

[JabberWokky]

He says it's not a specific enough phrase to discuss. And I agree with him - when you talk about "Intellectual Property", what are you discussing? Copyright? Patents? Trademarks? EULAs? Right of purchace? Fair use rights such as excerpts? Parody? NDAs? Clean room reverse engineering? Trade secrets?

If you ask him his opinion on "Intellectual property", he'll simply ask you to be specific. It's a bit like my asking you your opinion on "Computers". Or what is your opinion of "Politics". You can randomly choose one aspects of these things, I suppose, but you can't really answer the question correctly.

Incidently, to show how absurd the term "Intellectual Property" has become, a bottle of Soy Sauce I bought recently has a big warning on the back: "Intellectual Property Rights Reserved". What the hell does that mean? Legally, it's nonsensical, as IP doesn't realy mean anything, but refers to a wide class of legal constructs. And how it could apply to a bottle of Soy Sauce is beyond me - the title and logo might be Trademarked, but there's no reason to have this odd disclaimer on the bottle to support that.

--
Evan

Re:Intellectual Property?

[the eric conspiracy]

According to RMS, that's not even a valid phrase in the English language.

Then why does he apply a strict copyright and license on every bit of code coming out of the FSF?

Re:Intellectual Property?

[Anonymous Coward]

As an attempt to combat copywrong. If there was no (C) there would be no need for the gpl etc.

Re:Intellectual Property?

[Anonymous Coward]

i belive that its so that you cant reproduce the mix mutch like a coder cant reproduce code from another closed source program...

Re:Intellectual Property?

[kz45]

As an attempt to combat copywrong. If there was no (C) there would be no need for the gpl etc

Ok, let's say in a stallmanized world, copyright did not exist. What would then stop me from taking FSF code, re-bundling it, and selling it for a profit (without re-releasing my source).

Re:Intellectual Property?

[Waffle Iron]

Ok, let's say in a stallmanized world, copyright did not exist. What would then stop me from taking FSF code, re-bundling it, and selling it for a profit (without re-releasing my source).

You would not make any profit, because there would be no way to restrict others from freely copying your binary. Without the artificial scarcity introduced by copyright, the marginal dollar value of your product would be almost zero. Therefore, you probably wouldn't bother to try that.

Re:Intellectual Property?

[cpt kangarooski]

Unfortunately reverse engineering is alive and well, whether you analyze the chemical composition and published nutritional information of soy sauce to reproduce it, or decompile and study the output of software to reproduce it. (remember the IBM BIOS?)

Trade secrets aren't as great as you might think they are.

Re:Intellectual Property?

[SquarePants]

Soysauce wants to be free!!!

Re:Intellectual Property?

[Anonymous Coward]

The IBM BIOS was pre software patent law. Today, IBM would have patented its BIOS, and sued for treble damages, anyone doing a reverse engineering.

Prior to software patents, someone could come up with a good idea, and others could reverse engineer it. Now, trivial ideas (one-click) are patented, and duplicating them leaves one open to mega-lawsuits.

Re:Intellectual Property?

[shepd]

>Today, IBM would have patented its BIOS, and sued for treble damages, anyone doing a reverse engineering.

True, but the IBM BIOS wasn't reverse engineered.

The specs to it (similar to those available for patents) were given to expert assembly language coders who had never touched the PC platform before (and Compaq was VERY careful about that). They were told to create a BIOS that would perform every single feature listed exactly as listed, without looking at a single byte of code from the IBM BIOS. The basic word for this is "black-box" engineering. It isn't reverse engineering, because you don't get to see how they did it. You only get to see the results from what they did.

The only thing that wasn't duplicated, (IMHO) due to time constraints, and the waste of effort involved :) was BASICA. And that's why some PCs say (drumroll) "No ROM Basic Installed" when they have nothing to boot from.

I am unsure IBM would even be granted a patent for a BIOS that wouldn't be heavily contested by prior art. I seem to recall virtually all home computers having a similar (in idea, not in code) bootstrap/BIOS burned into them at the time.

Re:Intellectual Property?

[Anonymous Coward]

You, my friend, are stupid. Read his writings, then shut the fuck up.

Re:Intellectual Property?

[dhogaza]

There are plenty of BSD-licensed counterexamples to that fine theory ...

Re:Intellectual Property?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't listen to this guy! *Don't* read his tedious crap, get a life, and never ever visit this stupid fucking website!

Re:Intellectual Property?

[Anonymous Coward]

But the point remains; patents cover ideas and copyrights cover specific implementations. Compaq could duplicate the BIOS because it was covered by copyright, not patent, as the software patent law hadn't been enacted (yet). Since the software patents have been enacted, I am sure that IBM would get a patent for it because the examiners in the Patent Office would be (and still are) unaware of any prior art. S100 bus??? What's that??

Once IBM had a patent on BIOS, Compaq could not create a clone without being sued, as Compaq would then be duplicating a patented idea, not a copyrighted idea.

I'll go further and state that Microsoft wouldn't be in the position it is today, if software patents existed at that time. For example, if the creators of VisiCalc had patented the microcomputer spreadsheet, Lotus 123 and Microsoft Excel could have never been made, without infringing on the VisiCalc patent.

I personally view software patents as a bad thing for the reason just stated above; come up with a single good idea, patent it, and no one else can use it. This would have dramatically choked/eliminated the innovation in the microcomputer industry.

I'll also note that Open Source is vulnerable in the same way. If it duplicates a patented idea, even if it was created in a "clean room environment", the duplicate and its creators are infringing, and open to lawsuit.

Re:Intellectual Property?

[arkanes]

Not really. Nobody makes any money off of unmodified BSD code, except in the case of people paying for it just because they don't know better (ref. that guy who stuffed CDex into a spyware-laden installer), and while that'll make you some short term cash, you won't get anywhere with it in the long run. Sure, there's lots of commercial code derived from BSD-licensed source. But any of that's actually succesful, is because of added value, which, of course, you don't have access too.

Re:Intellectual Property?

[mitheral]

apply a strict copyright and license

You've notived he doesn't apply a strict IP to his code. The term IP is so broad and encompassing that it is practically meaningless.

Copyright is Copyright

[phliar]

You have to respect the photographer's copyright.

Just like with source code -- it is up to to the producer of the source/photograph to decide what copyright terms to attach to the product. You don't like the terms, go elsewhere. Once this gets off the ground there will be photographers (or artists in general) making "Open Art", and there will be the ones making "Closed Art." You can't get on a high-horse and say that "Art Wants To Be Free" or anything like that.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[aaarrrgggh]

The problem isn't as much as the idea that the photographer has a copyright on the images, but rather that they are performing a work for hire.

The truth today is that there isn't as much value in the duplicate prints of keepsake photographs. There is more value in the ubiquitous distribution of the composed images, via the internet or sending someone a CD.

Ultimately it is an issue with contracts. The problem is that the photographer historically provides artistic service in composing the shot, and in printing the image. The wedding photographer's competition isn't digital copyright infringement, it is the throw-away cameras that are put up on all the tables.

All industries must continually evaluate where they add value. Duplicate prints aren't where a photographer should make their money today.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[Hairy1]

When you contract someone to do something - whether its writing software or taking a photograph, you own the copyright. The only exception is when you sign a contract giving the copyright to the contractor.

So in effect it is up to the client who contracts the work to decide on the license, as they are the owner, not the contractor. This does not depend on any "Art WantsTo Be Free" argument - it is simply a fact of law.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[Blue Stone]

I have to say I'm not sure I agree with copyright on photography.

Fact is, whilst the professional photographer in the article, said that she considered it her property because of the lighting she created, the pose she directed etc. the same copyright law applies to a photograph of a field in bight sunshine.

If I go and stand in the same spot, with the same make of camera/film, a second after the initial photographer, chances are that I'll make an indistinguishable copy, to all intents and purposes.

So what in the photograph is of the photographer? Not the sun, the field, the angle, the light: all are free; communal.

What is it that the photographer really made, that merits protection in law, for the resulting image printed on a piece of paper? Both the photograph of the natural setting and of the artificial one get the same protection.

I think the law regarding photography, needs to emulate that regarding paintings.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[phliar]

The problem isn't as much as the idea that the photographer has a copyright on the images, but rather that they are performing a work for hire.

This is what a contract is for. When you decide to hire the photographer, you sign a contract. It is up to you and the photographer to negotiate on who owns the copyright etc. Why is there any issue here? It's just contract law.

Duplicate prints aren't where a photographer should make their money today.

Where is this written? There is no should -- a person can make money in any manner as long as it is legal.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[phliar]

I agree completely. This is just a matter of contract law. It may be that there is a social expectation that in contracting with a photographer you assign the copyright to him/her. But this is totally up to the client -- just make sure the contract does not say that the photographer will own the copyrights.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[phliar]

I have to say I'm not sure I agree with copyright on photography.

I think we actually do agree. My statement was about the copyright on the photographs, not on any kind of "ownership" of the scene by the photographer. I don't believe that a person can own a view.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[sdb6247]

There was no high horse. You have just re-stated the author's point. Obviously, he's now forced to respect the photographer's copyright- he wasn't allowed the CD of pictures. His point was just that this particular photographer will not stay in business for much longer.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[jago25_98]

"You have to respect the photographer's copyright"

> I don't respect copyright and this is why it's changing

Ownership and possession. I own your mind

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[91degrees]

Where is this written? There is no should -- a person can make money in any manner as long as it is legal.

But it also has to be profitable. If people are making their own copies, whetherlegitimately or not, it's time to change to a different revenue stream.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

It's legal to imply that you will provide top-notch wedding photography service, and then once the once-in-a-lifetime experience is over, refuse to provide any real service at all?

The stupid bitch might just as well only offer sequia-toned tintype pictures in postage stamp dimensions.

I can't wait til they're all bankrupted and out of business. Hope she can flip burgers, because I doubt she has any other trade worth knowing.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[jago25_98]

"Where is this written? There is no should -- a person can make money in any manner as long as it is legal" > can't base a business on promises, even legal promises. In order to achieve this you need to control your customer, using the power of the law; EULA's, patents. I remind that the law was insufficient in preventing impersonators of famous composers in the Classical era of music for example. Also didn't work for cassette tapes and ultimately digital data. Whatever the moral answer, I shant be basing my business on hopes that: - people will not break a legal agreement - law will enforce the unenforcable

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[abe ferlman]

the work for hire point is good

But there's another point worth considering- the original source in many of these photography situations is *you* and/or your family- just like nike can't run a commercial with Michael Jordan without talking to (and no doubt paying) him first, you should own the rights to pictures of you by default, which is not to say that the photographer can't share those rights, only that she can't exclude you from them.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[phliar]

I'm disturbed by your vehemence.

Jesus! The photographer is just someone trying to make money in a legal and ethical manner. What do you mean by:

It's legal to imply that you will provide top-notch wedding photography service, and then once the once-in-a-lifetime experience is over, refuse to provide any real service at all?

The service the photographer provides is: "I will come to your wedding and take pictures; and I will provide you with prints as requested." What do you mean by "refuse to provide service" -- are they refusing to sell you more prints? That was the original agreement, surely?

If you want the copyright on the images, you pay. If it wasn't in the original contract (which means you paid less money), you can enter into a new contract and purchase the copyrights. Right or wrong, this is what copyright is -- it establishes a right that can be sold.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

The only problem is that in this case the art that is produced is commissioned buy the couple, not purely a creation of the photographer.

If I do a code for a company, then the company owns the entire work. no matter how many (or few) lines it takes. Just as long as the job is done and done well.

If I code on my own time and dime, then I can decide the whom, what, where, and when it should be distributed.

These are important questions that should be asked prior to the hiring of a wedding photographer, or any other short-time contract job that is influenced by the computer revolution.

Just my [ 2.0 x (10^-2) ] cents

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[NMerriam]

When you contract someone to do something - whether its writing software or taking a photograph, you own the copyright. The only exception is when you sign a contract giving the copyright to the contractor.

This isn't informative -- it is 100% wrong. Copyright is held by the author of a work by default. Barring a contract that explicitly transfers copyright to the buyer, or an employee-employer relationship, the copyright will be owned by the photographer. Copyright is an asset to be sold or bought just as the negatives and prints are, and each has to be explicitly negotiated for.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[NMerriam]

If I go and stand in the same spot, with the same make of camera/film, a second after the initial photographer, chances are that I'll make an indistinguishable copy, to all intents and purposes.

I doubt it. No offense, but there is more to it than pushing the button at the right moment. Sometimes in news photography that is all that is necessary, but for a nature shot? There's a reason Ansel Adams sells more calendars than your sister-in-law. Selling photos to National geographic is one of the hardest gigs possible -- and it isn't because people can't figure out how to stand in front of a lion and push the button.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[dirk]

The problem isn't as much as the idea that the photographer has a copyright on the images, but rather that they are performing a work for hire.

Isn't this the same arguement used by the RIAA? Musicians are just doing work for hire, so they don't own the copyright on their works, the labels do? Where exactly is the difference between the RIAA saying a musician is doing work for hire and you claiming the photographer is doing work for hire? In both cases it is someone paying an artist to perform their art (in one case they record music, in another they take photos) and then claiming they own the rights to the artists work because they are paying them. The only difference I see is that in one scenario, it is the "evil RIAA" depriving artists of their rights, and in the other it's you getting you're wedding pics cheaper, i.e. no difference.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Well, if you wish to understand my vehemence, I suppose that is fair enough. Read through other people's experiences. Videographers unwilling to make DVD's... as if VHS hasn't been a dead format for 2 years. As if they'd replace the tape from the digital master for a nominal fee, if it were destroyed. Why the fuck doesn't he just offer it on exclusively film? It would only be slightly more worthless.

Things like that. Then again, just the fact that she intentionally sells low-quality product, when her costs are fixed. Not even willing to sell high qual... it's not a part of her pricing scale, she never intends to do so. Claiming she owns a fucking "moment" for christs sake... she'd do much better if she just provided a photography lighting service. But I suppose that doesn't make her feel artistic enough.

Screw'em all.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

You are absolutely correct. He does have to make himself subservient to the use/abuse of the copyright holder. That, however, is an accident of his own making by not considering the copyright issue ahead of time.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to be an Anonymous Coward, but I'm having problems logging in.
What I wish to say is that:
You pay for quality. Don't wanna pay? Then let your family take your wedding photos and don't cry about it afterwards.

I don't think that this issue will ruin photograhy. People can always go take their own photos, but they don't have the training and won't have the quality.

Photography is an art and it's copyrighted by those who wish to keep that right. Think about it, if good photography were free, there'd be no good photographers.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

So what in the photograph is of the photographer? Not the sun, the field, the angle, the light: all are free; communal.

So why aren't you making tons of money as an art photographer, then? All those things are free, you say. Anyone could push the button and do just as well, you say.

Give it a try. You'll learn that there's a lot more to creating a great photo than just pushing a button.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

bzzt, that's ass backwards. Trying booking a portrait session with Richard Avedon and try to dictate your terms to his studio manager. They'll just laugh at you

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe that a person can own a view.

You can in California.

If you managed to sneak on private property to snap a beautiful photo of some rich fuckers view, you dont own it.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[TC (WC)]

This isn't a monopoly. If you have a problem with the way one person does buisness, don't use them. Don't make an agreement and then whine about it afterwards. If this photographer had agreed to provide high quality digital images and didn't then there's something wrong with this situation. As it stands, it appears that she was hired to take photographs and provide prints. You can't bitch about things when people do what they were hired to do...

If there were a videographer that said he'd provide things on DVD and then didn't, fine, that's wrong. If you hire a videographer and you just expect him to be able to DVD, that's your problem, not his. If VHS were a completely dead format, a person who only sold things on that medium wouldn't survive long and he'd have to adapt or fail.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

you ever try to work with studio lights, bucko? how about sit for hours in a field waiting for the perfect light? maybe you don't fully appreciate the dedication of some photographers.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[TC (WC)]

That comparison isn't really valid. This doesn't even come into the same picture (hehe, picture) here. She isn't trying to sell pictures of this person's family to others...

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

They're paying for quality, and not getting it. The seller, in this case a photographer, has it built into their business model to not offer quality at any price.

Art is about doing something because it's beautiful. If these photographers were artists, they sold out long ago.

And before you whine that they don't make much money, you can't garner much sympathy for those who sell out and sold too low.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[CableModemSniper]

Think about it, if good photography were free, there'd be no good photographers.

Think about it, if good [software] was free, there'd be no good [software developers].

Of course, this post is just begging to be flamed / trolled what have you.

But I think its a valid point. I'm not the best photographer by any stretch of the human imagination but I have fun doing it on occasion. I am sure there are excellent photographers who do it just for the fun of it, just like there are excellent software developers who write code for the fun of it.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[cpt kangarooski]

Actually, it is NOT up to the producer to determine what the copyright is on their work. That's the government's job. The most the photographer can do is to give up some of what he was given by the government.

We have copyrights because we generally view the market as having failed. Your solution, aside from being utterly incorrect, does not help the situation one iota.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[cpt kangarooski]

I'd want to look into it, but I shy away from agreeing with you.

In the realm of patent law, if you create a patentable invention in the course of your duties while working for someone, or even just using their facilities, IIRC, it is owned by the employer. Regardless of any explicit agreement.

Lots of people work creating content for businesses as an integral part of their job -- I doubt a formal agreement is necessary if the nature of the work is intrinsically work for hire. But I'd want to check it out.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

first truth:
make sure it is a work for hire.

second truth:
wedding photographers are scum.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

She isn't trying to sell pictures of this person's family to others...

That is the point. What interest does the photographer have in retaining copyright? Extorting money from a family over a long period of time and using the confusion of a wedding for cover is a pretty fucked up business.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

No, when seperate businesses all coordinate activity to increase prices while providing less service than is called for, it's a trust, not a monopoly.

My boycott is really hurting too, as you can tell. That's an effective strategy if I ever heard of one.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[SquarePants]

No need to look into it. The statement made by Hairy 1 is 100% the opposite from the law. I should know, I am an intellectual property lawyer. When you have no written agreement to the contrary, copyrights belong to the work's author. No gray areas here.

Maybe the poster was referring to a different country or planet. Only in that case would his erroneous pronouncements could be considered "insightful"

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[fyonn]

well, while I don't know for a fact if US law matches UK law on this issue (I really, realy think it does), if you are contracted by person A do create something then the copyright belongs to person A by default. ie microsoft employer lots and lots of ppl to create things for them (ie software) but the copyright doesn't rest with the individual coders but with the company that employs them, ie m$.

now in uk law, if you create something in work hours that has nothing to do with you job whatsoever, then you have a case to keep your copyright, in fact if you create something that is to do with your job but it's so amazing that no-one would have expected such a miraculous thing to have come from the boring shit you were working on, then you also have a case to keep it (that one surprised me), however, in this situation it seems to me like you are hiring the photographer to create something (ie a nice photo) for you. you are paying them to do work therefore the copyright should belong to you (unless signed away by contract with the photographer beforehand).

does this not make sense (both common and legal)?

dave

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[benjamindees]

Contract A: I will pay you to create a work of art.
Contract B: I will pay you for a copy of a work of art.

In contract A, I COMMISSION you to create something that did not previously exist, thus I own the copyright.

In contract B, YOU created the work of art on your own dime/time, thus you retain the copyright and you can sell me a copy.

This isn't rocket science. And for anyone who wants to cry and argue about this interpretation, think about this: COURT REPORTERS, who (one would think) don't create anything, and are actually prohibited from taking artistic license in their work, think they own the copyright to the transcripts they are commissioned to make. This is ludicrous. If you pay someone a fair wage to create something for you, you own it, and all rights to it. If you pay someone a marginal price for a copy of something they made, they own it.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[esper_child]

not only is there the problem of who owns the copyright, but also who owns the negatives. I am not in the business of making prints however, I do not let people just arbitrarily make copies of my pictures. I do however let them make copies if they ask first. However, somepeople ask for the negatives and that is always a strict no (however I have made copies of negatives for people upon request, but usally charge them for that (the equipment for it is isn't cheap and sometimes the film isn't either)).

Another think you might try though is getting a setup where you can make a negative from a print (I do not condone doing this though). You can then make as many copies of it as you want at the local 1-hour photo. Beaware though that this is not a nice thing to do, as you are the holder of the negative and can make as many copies as you want with out the owner knowing. Also, just because you own a print doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want with it, there are legal guide lines, and professional photographers must pay their bills same as you.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[TC (WC)]

And you seriously think that all wedding photographers are coordinating their activities?

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[TC (WC)]

The whole reason for retaining copyright is that she can gain money from the family. It isn't extortion if that's the way you've agreed to do buisness. Nobody was forced or pressured into this situation. If you don't like her system where you need to buy prints from her, then go to someone else or take your own pictures. This isn't a situation where you don't have alternatives.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[esper_child]

The greatest bit about being a photographer is when you get your film developed and see that the once in a lifetime shot you took came out how you wanted it too. It really is an art, the light is your paint, the film your canvas, and the camera your brush. It is all in how you combine these 3 tools that you get your final product. Somepeople have asked me how they can take great photos the only thing I can tell them is to go out and take a lot of pictures, expariment with different lightings, filters, and apatures (sp?). To get a good shot in the wild everything has to fall into place and if it happens once every 100 picturs feel good, you are already beating the curve. The variables are incredible and when they all fall into place it is one of the most wonderful feelings in the world (well to me atleast). I sometimes go rolls without something really good and sometimes I get about half a roll of really interesting pictures (minus the studio work which isn't really that much fun as it is all controlled).
There is also darkroom work, and in this phase of operations you can turn a peice of ordinary work into something truely amasing. You can do things like mask part of a frame and expose it at one level and expose another at a lower level to get the right contrast (there are books out there and classes on how to do these tricks, so I won't get into them here). Also the difference between color and black and white can make all the difference in the world (I prefer black and white when I am not working for someone else (at that point it is their choice usually)) And the tricks you use in the darkroom differ from film type to film type.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Maybe they're all so in sync with each other, and subconsciously aware, that nothing so crass and obivous needs to happen.

I'm not suggesting they all meet 4 times a year, in some abandoned castle and have a "Let's dominate the wedding photography industry, and grind newlyweds into the dirt!" rally, where they all practice their best evil genius "Muahaha" laughs. Sorry if I gave the impression that I was suggesting this.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[WNight]

Wedding Photography is a crooked business, like used-car sales.

It's expected that if someone creates a movie for you that you could get them to provide it in state-of-the-art formats. Would it be valid if they offered only reel-to-reel film without specifically telling the customer?

When you advertise a product there are a few (legal) assumptions you can make. One is that it's fit for the purpose it's advertised. If DVD is the most obvious technology then VHS probably isn't fit for the purpose advertised anymore.

But the WPs are a crooked bunch who know that they can be very unclear with the details and then when they have the customer over the barrel, get concessions they'd have never gotten up front.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[WNight]

I have seen photographers berate someone for doing what to them appears to undercut the industry. On many photography forums people are incredibly rude to the photographers who sell the copyright on their pictures (or who don't withhold them) to their customers.

The luddites are afraid that any customer choice will collapse their dead business model.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[WNight]

Ok, so you're a pretentious artist and want to work on artsy things.

How does this relate to taking documentary photos of someone, on their dollar. And how does it negate the fact that you're working for them, they own your product like a factory owns what its employees create.

Go be artsy. I'll take a good digital camera, a fine yet non-artistic photographer, and personal ownership of pictures I paid for.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[dhogaza]

Actually there are many contractual forms that are legally interpreted as implicitly falling into the "work for hire" category, without explicitly mentioning the transfer of copyright.

Anyone taking your advice at face value might be rudely shocked in the future.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[stubear]

Wrong, wrong, wrong and twice more wrong. Photographers are typically freelancers. In this case (wedding photographer) they are anyway. And as such they maintain the copyrights on ANY work they do, it doe snot transfer unless EXPLICITLY states in the contract.

A work for hire photographer is someone working for a newspaper or other news source and are paid a salary. You can also fall under work for hire if you work with one company for an extended period of time (typically over 3 months) but by doing so the company has to pay you benefits and cover your taxes and other expenses typically paid by an employer. In this latter case you can agree before hand to void this situation but you should have this written into your contract.

How do I know all this? I'm currently a freelance graphic designer and you better believe I know my shit when it comes to copyright. I've been burned once too often by a client trying to take ownership of the work when they had not negotiated this with me nor had they compensated me enough to even consider letting them have complete ownership of the work.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[NMerriam]

This isn't rocket science.

you're right, it isn't rocket science. there is a difference between hiring an employee (a court reporter) and contracting for a service (getting a photographer to shoot your wedding).

The copyright belongs to the "author" of the work, which is either a person or a company. if you work for a photo company, the shots you take are legally authored by the company. If you hire a photo company to shoot an event, the shots they take are still authored by them. If you don't explicitly purchase the copyright from the author, you don't own it. end of story. this really isn't a gray area.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[NMerriam]

...in the course of your duties while working for someone, or even just using their facilities, IIRC, it is owned by the employer. Regardless of any explicit agreement.

You're talking about an employee-employer relationship. Hiring a photographer for a saturday afternoon doesn't make them your employee. Hiring them for a full-time job as a photographer would make your company (for whom they work) the legal author of the photos.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[NMerriam]

Actually there are many contractual forms that are legally interpreted as implicitly falling into the "work for hire" category, without explicitly mentioning the transfer of copyright.

Anything that is of that nature would be an employee-employer relationship (in which case the is no transfer of copyright, because the "company" created the work), or would have to explicitly state it is a work-for-hire AND qualify as a work for hire. Many companies have been burned by putting "work for hire" clauses into contracts for things that cannot be a work for hire. Wedding photography would be pretty tough to shoehorn into a work for hire category.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[NMerriam]

microsoft employer lots and lots of ppl to create things for them (ie software) but the copyright doesn't rest with the individual coders but with the company that employs them, ie m$.

the key word being EMPLOY -- if you are an employee, the work you create is legally made by the company. A guy hiring a photographer is not the photographer's employer, he is the photographer's customer. And customers don't get copyright unless they pay for it!

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[TC (WC)]

DVD isn't the most obvious technology, though. VHS is still in more homes than DVD...

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[fyonn]

whats the realistic difference in this case? you are paying someone specifically to create something for you. it's like paying a company to create bespoke software. if it's completely specific to you then I'd expect you to get the copyright.

dave

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[Blue Stone]

Nah, I paint and draw.... y'know like a real artist. >:)

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[Snaller]

>You have to respect the photographer's copyright.

Why? Oh, the obvious answer is "Its illegal and they'll throw the book at you!" - but the obvious problem with that is usually people obey laws because they agree with them. But nowadays copyright seems to mean "getting lots of money for something you only did once" - I say, you pay a photographer the money, he takes some pictures you get them, AND THAT SHOULD BE IT. I find it directly amoral that he should have any say over them afterwards. Imagine Ford could dictate what you do with a car you bought from them, or the people who build your house could come by and ask you to leave - death to copyrights.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[meta-monkey]

Hey, that's fine, but expect to pay more. I speak from experience, since my wife is a professional photographer (I'm an engineer) and I often accompany her to weddings to carry her bags, lighting setups, cameras, etc, and I handle a lot of the finances.

Anyway, here's the simple facts:

1) You hire a professional photographer because you want professional quality photographs. If instead all you want is 3x5 out of disposable cameras processed at Eckerd's, then have your buddy do it, and you'll have crappy photographs.

2) Pro photographers have to make money. Their equipment setups cost tens of thousands of dollars, and they have to insure it. My wife uses the new Canon D60 digital camera body, which costs about $2600. Each lens is about $1000. A flash unit is about $600. Lighting equipment runs into the several thousands of dollars. Also, you have to have backups for EVERYTHING (flashes, batteries, lenses, bodies, etc). Then there's all the time. The photographer has to spend a few hours before the wedding discussing all the photos and the organization with the bride, travel to check out the location, etc. Then there's about 6 to 8 hours of work on the day of the wedding itself (the setup before the wedding, people like pictures of them getting ready, the guests arriving, etc), the actual event, then all the posed portraits, then the reception, and so forth. It's not just "pressing a button" either. Often, the wedding photographer winds up directing the wedding, too. You'd be surprised how often a bride fails to actually PLAN the wedding, and just ASSUMES everybody will go where they're supposed to, do what they need to, and not assign somebody to coordinate the wedding. The photographer has to corral everybody together, get them organized, and tell them where to go. Afterwards, the photographer will spend upwards of 20 hours retouching, editing, and color-correcting the photographs. That is extremely skilled labor--you couldn't do it. Then they plan the album. They pick out all the photos, order and arrange them, crop and size the photos to fit in the album book. All of these activities take years of training and experience, not to mention a natural artistic bent.

3) If you expect to pay $1,500 for all those services, get the proofs, then scan them and make all the copies you want, you're robbing the photographer blind. When you add in all the planning, on site work, retouching, album planning, and so forth, a wedding photographer probably puts in about 40 hours of time on your wedding. Where the hell else do you get 40 hours of skilled labor for a measly $1,500? Drywall contractors make more than that. This isn't like downloading an MP3 off the internet that you never would have bought anyway. You're not anonymously ripping off some multi-millionaire idiot in Hollywood by not paying him $15 for his CD. You're ripping off a small businessperson in your community, face-to-face, out of about $500 to $1,000. These are the photos of YOUR wedding, which have value only to you and your family, and also to the photographer, who will use them in her portfolio, or enter in competitions. If you want them, pay for them, one way or another. Most photographers WILL sell you the negatives (or in the case of a digital photographer, a CD containing the high-res image files, suitable for printing), but expect to pay more for it. Either pay the $1,500 dollars for the service, allow the photographer to keep the rights to the photos, and then pay another $500 to $1,000 for the album and the prints, or pay $2,000 to $2,500 and get the rights to the images and the negatives, and make your own prints (which, by the way, probably won't be as good, since most people would take them to the local one-hour photo, instead of using a professional photo lab with a $100,000 color-corrected professional photo printer).

Pay for what you get.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[WNight]

And there are more floppy drives than CD-ROMs probably, but if your professional computer guy gave you files on floppies instead of burning a CD, you'd probably be inconvenienced. Only one of my computers, my MP3 server, has a floppy these days. The others are all sitting in box in storage.

Not to mention that DVD is inherently superior to VHS like CD-ROMs to floppies. Any and every person with an ounce of sense would admit it.

The reason the videographer didn't give them a high-quality copy wasn't because they simply prefered the technology, it was to prevent them making high quality copies.

In my mind, the (photo|video)grapher in this situation is a thief. They're selling a service but not providing what people have a right to expect.

Feh. They'll be out of business soon. I'll never recommend someone who doesn't give you the high-quality 'negatives' and in fact I'll alert my friends to the cheesy attitude that infects this profession. A few smart people will change their business model, the rest will go broke and starve for all I care, the dishonest jerks.

Re:Copyright is Copyright

[Snaller]

Lot of good points from meta-monkey (what's that? You are not really a monkey? Hm.. is a human a meta monkey? :-)

However:

>Where the hell else do you get 40 hours of
>skilled labor for a measly $1,500?

I don't know if you can, but it sounds expensive to me.

And as for the quality, I suspect that to a large extent it is with photography like with many other fields: The professionals are more picky that the layman. In other words, a lot of people would be just as happy with the pictures a friend took.

>You're ripping off a small businessperson in
>your community, face-to-face, out of about $500
>to $1,000.

I don't see how NOT hiring someone is ripping them off.

that's why...

[shnarez]

you should require all the products (source, ie negatives, digital hi-res images, etc) in addition to high-quality prints from the start. negotiation that into your contract once you've agreed to the basic service ain't gonna work.

Just ignore them

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose it is all in just how far you want to go. The photographer at my wedding claimed to hold the copyright to my photographs. I simply ignored him and scanned them and posted my 'derivitive' works on my web page.

I don't think the photographer knew (before or after) that I had a personal web page, nor a page for my wedding. He had a stock answer for me the one time I asked him if he minded (and he said he did mind; he "owned" the copyright on the images.)

What I didn't understand at the time (and still don't - any lawyers out there?) is whether or not this automatically is considered a "work for hire?" It's not like the photographer is paying you to get married, and paying for everything involved in making the event worthy of photographing. If the photographer were paying for all the catering, and all the photographic subjects ($500/hr?) then it might be reasonable to claim that he "made" the picture.

Any way, unless things have changed dramatically in the last three years (which they have not) then the photographer won't be able to find your web site (even if you gave hin the URL!)

Re:Just ignore them

[neitzsche]

Forgot to allow cookies. Parent message was from me - I did not intend for it to be anonymous.

Re:Just ignore them

[geekee]

And you wonder why the RIAA and MPAA want encryption and DRM for their copyrighted work. Some people like this guy will break the law without any remorse. BTW, if you're a prof. photographer taking pictures for a news agency, you're not paying your subject either, so your arguement about the photographer not paying for the wedding doesn't stand up to srutiny.

Re:Just ignore them

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG breaking the law! Terrible! Shit laws are made to be broken, especially those of the "IP" variety. IP is not natrual and is a violation of human rights on many levels.

Re:Just ignore them

[geekee]

In captialist systems, people's rights to own their work are protected. If you don't like it, Cuba and China might be places you'd rather spend your days.

Re:Just ignore them

[Anonymous Coward]

So you support the DMCA and the CBTPA? "IP" is not matter.

Re:Just ignore them

[Anonymous Coward]

I simply ignored him and scanned them and posted my 'derivitive' works on my web page.

Right. Because being a sleazebag after the fact is a lot easier than coming to a reasonable agreement before the fact, isn't it?

You were perfectly free to negotiate with the photographer BEFORE you hired him to get the rights you wanted (or hire another photographer, if that one wouldn't agree or wanted to charge too much).

You didn't do that, though. You made a deal and then sleazed out on it.

Re:Just ignore them

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a deep breath. Remember you are talking about pictures of somebody's WEDDING. Have a nice weekend and don't forget your anniversary.

Re:Just ignore them

[benjamindees]

You made a deal and then sleazed out on it.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't in the "deal". This whole argument isn't over what's spelled out in contracts, it's about what the "presumption" is when hiring a photographer or any other artist. If you pay someone to create something for you, do you presume that you own it?

Re:Just ignore them

[meta-monkey]

My wife is a professional photographer, and she does a lot of weddings. The problem with your situation is that you didn't pay for what you got. The photographer was expecting to make more money from reprints and lower-resolution digital images. Instead, you took those things, and didn't pay for them. What you did was despicable, because those are things you certainly would have paid for, so that really was money out of the photographer's pocket.

Next time, be honest up front. Tell the photographer what you want to do, and he will sell you the negatives or the rights to the photos. My wife does all digital photography, and she will sell the high-res digital images and associated copyrights for a few hundred dollars, and then you can make all the prints you want.

You either pay for it up front (that is, really contract for the labor, and expect to pay much more) or pay for it later, by paying less for the labor, and more for the prints. Either way, the artist deserves to make his or her money.

Will always be a need for wedding photographers

[bartash]

Guests at a wedding take lots of photographs, but they are all the same. You get a million shots of the couple cutting the cake, but not many of Aunt May together with Uncle Bruce. As the article says the wedding photographer also composes shots that other people copy.

The other thing is: never hire a friend to take your wedding photographs. Your friends are there to enjoy themselves. One of my friends hired another friend to take the wedding photos. Something went wrong and the photos were never delivered. Those old friends are still not talking. Don't be cheap, hire a pro!

Re:Will always be a need for wedding photographers

[Error-404NotFound]

Will there always be a need? I dunno... maybe by the time they can predict earthquakes (see a few stories back) they can also generate a photorealistic 3D movie from outter space and then let you choose angles and moments to capture... So I say no, there will not always be a need :)

Re:Will always be a need for wedding photographers

[leviramsey]

You also don't get many shots of the best man getting drunk, taking off his clothes, and offering to screw the bride. That's something I'm quite thankful for, actually.

Re:Will always be a need for wedding photographers

[Anonymous Coward]

Stills don't capture bad dancing either. Just hope video doesnt get more popular.

Re:Will always be a need for wedding photographers

[esper_child]

I can't agree with you more on this. It is fine to put out the million camera on the tables (gives the guests something to do, personally I get bored to tears at weddings and like to play with things). But don't let the primary photography be done by guests, that isn't their job. They are there to have fun, not to take pictures. Hiring a professional makes sure that the pictures get taken, and usually taken well. The reason that wedding shoots can be expensive is that they know what to use and when. They have the experiance, but this experience is only gained through practice (which is actually pretty expensive, drugs probly would have cost me less, but I chose to take pictures instead). If you want a bunch of fun pictures put out the little disposables, but I can tell you that the minute you get a dark skined person in a white dress it won't take very well on those. You should deffinately put out the cameras and hire a photographer (disposables for fun, pro for serious)

Re:Will always be a need for wedding photographers

[Anonymous Coward]

The other thing is: never hire a friend to take your wedding photographs. Your friends are there to enjoy themselves. One of my friends hired another friend to take the wedding photos. Something went wrong and the photos were never delivered. Those old friends are still not talking. Don't be cheap, hire a pro!

Dead right! I was at a wedding where the "friend photographer" got sloshed. What few pictures he took were out of focus, had the camera jiggle, were ill-composed, etc. No longer friends. Fortunately, the guests actually managed to put together a pretty good album from their many shots. Not professional, but better than what the pro did.

Re:Will always be a need for wedding photographers

[wisemat]

Personally, I would disagree. Maybe what would you say is true for large weddings, but I had a nice small wedding at which my mother and father played photographers. Especially my mother made certain that nice shots with a variety ofgroups were made, and while not at proffessional levels are certainly more than adequate.

I will also mention that should I ever need to hire a photographer(I probably won't, but we'll see), I personally would insist on a contract that gave me license to do as will with the photographs. Regardless of what they think they normally do in a legal or copyright sense, for me they're job would be to create and then hand over the image. If they do not agree to that, than I am not their customer. But I would make certain it was an explicit agreement and I would advise everyone, regadless of what they think the law says to have explicit agreements. Even if the law defaults to favoring what you want(whichever side of the case you may be on....) having an explicit agreement avaids misunderstandings and protects everyone involved, both the photographer and the client.

Incidentally....

[phliar]

I am in fact a photographer, and I'm also a hacker. The code I write on my time is free; just like the photographs I take of events etc. However, there is code I write for my employer, just like photographs I take on commission for someone else. For this "work for hire" it is up to the person paying to decide what the copyright on the work is. (I might try to convince them to go the free route, but ultimately it is their choice.

Art is like like source -- copyright is copyright, and you have to respect it.

Re:Incidentally....

[Hallow]

Right. If you don't like the contract (all ip rights remaining with the photographer in this case), negotiate the contract, find another photographer, or another solution. (It would have to be as work-for-hire for me.)

It's pretty sad though, a friend of mine was going to get married not to long ago (long story), and couldn't find a single professional (or semi-pro) photographer in the area who was willing to negotiate on the copryright ownership.

That said, I think these contracts should be written to be easily understandable for non-lawyers. If it's more than 1 page of 12pt. double spaced text, it's too freakin' long and complex. I'd hate to think I'd have to hire a lawyer to be able to hire a photographer.

I like the idea of the wedding photograph robot that was posted in the past week or two. :)

Re:Incidentally....

[Anonymous Coward]

I am in fact a photographer, and I'm also a hacker. The code I write on my time is free; just like the photographs I take of events etc.

Not if your employer is IBM or most large corps. Before you're hired, you sign away rights to any code except specifically listed works in your past, which are then exempt. All else from date of hire forward belongs to them, related to their business or not.

Re:Incidentally....

[bfields]

However, there is code I write for my employer, just like photographs I take on commission for someone else. For this "work for hire" it is up to the person paying to decide what the copyright on the work is. (I might try to convince them to go the free route, but ultimately it is their choice.

Who told you this? I believe you're incorrect. See the copyright law (I'm assuming you're in the US.):

A "work made for hire" is-

(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or

(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire....

Note that to fall under case (2) there would have to be an explicit written agreement, and note that as a wedding photographer you are probably not an "employee", hence don't fall under case (1). See, e.g., this summary from the copyright office, for a brief discussion of the relevant definition of an employee.

--Bruce F.

How is it the photographers property?

[Error-404NotFound]

if i hire a photographer to capture an event, the person is doing nothing more than giving a good angle, lighting, etc. on MY actions. It's a capture of MY actions, MY position, it's a capture of ME! I belong to myself, and I say that if i hire somebody to capture that, it's my property.

Re:How is it the photographers property?

[geekee]

It's his negative that captures his interpretation of an event. That makes it his copyrighted work.

Re:How is it the photographers property?

[RebelTycoon]

Well make sure that is what the contract says.. Otherwise you are out of luck...

Re:How is it the photographers property?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then take the photo YOURSELF, A**H***. The you can say it's yours. What a genius!

Re:How is it the photographers property?

[fyonn]

you're implying that ownership of the media is the same as ownership of the IP on that media.

the content on the negatives was not created by the photographer, they may have used their skill to capture the right moments, but they did not create those moments, they merely framed them well, as they were hired to do. why should they own the copyright?

I'm not saying that photography is easy just that they are being hired to create something so the copyright should belong to the person who paid for the creation, thats how it works in other lines of content creation work.

paid coders don't own their work, paid musicians often don't own their work. I doubt that the ppl employed to write the manual for a cisco pix own the copyright on that, whats the difference?

in fact, lets look at that last example. the authors of the cisco pix manual didn't create the pix firmware, or even the pix itself. they merely created a work with pix firmware as a primary subject and used their own skills in writing to produce a manual. this is the same as a photographer. he does not create the subject matter, he merely captures parts of it and presents it nicely, doing precisely what he's paid to do, so why should he keep copyright and not the technical author(s)?

if the married couple to be signed a contract with the photographer explicitly giving away rights to the photo's then fair enough (although that still sucks, I do at least grant it's perfectly legal) but if it's an assumed thing then I think it's wrong.

dave

Re:How is it the photographers property?

[Anonymous Coward]

if the married couple to be signed a contract with the photographer explicitly giving away rights to the photo's then fair enough (although that still sucks, I do at least grant it's perfectly legal) but if it's an assumed thing then I think it's wrong.

In fact, they do. It's called the standard contract. Sheesh.

Re:How is it the photographers property?

[fyonn]

not being married, I have never hired a wedding photographer to take photo's, I've no idea what is "standard". it doesn't mean I like the situation.

dave

Re:How is it the photographers property?

[geekee]

You are confusing a number of ideas into one lump. First, a paid coder is working for a company that own the IP. They are taking the risk, not the programmer who writes the code. This is negotiated when the programmer accepts the job. Paid musicians may or may not own their works based on the contracts they vonuntarily sign with their record labels. Again, a voluntary agreement to give up your IP or copyright. Same thing for trechnical writers as programmers. Now, a freelance photographer is working for himself. Therefore, he owns his copyrighted work and takes all the risks. If you want to own your wedding photos, you can, but you need to negotiate that in the contract you sign with the photographer. Otherwise you can opt for the pay per copy scenario, and allow the photographer the right to retain the copyright. So in short, the difference is that in all your examples, the poepl involved voluntarily gave up their copyright for their paycheck

The photographer is right

[jokerghost]

I have to agree with the professional photographer in this instance. This isn't a case of fighting an uber-huge corporation that has billions of dollars to spare. This guy is effectively cheating a good source of revenue out of a photographer who is trying to earn a living.

Let's face it, photographers are not millionares (for the most part! ;) As one who has tried to get his art featured in several galleries, I can attest to this! Let's face it- photographers earn a living off of one thing- the final proof. It's very difficult to set up a shot, get the lighting perfect, and have a harmony of composition just right- combine this with the fact that many people want their wedding pictures to be *perfect* and you can see the photographer's dilemma. That shot that you've worked so very hard on is being distributed to hundreds of people, who will never pay you a dime for your efforts. Even worse is the person who stands over your shoulder just to snap the same shot you do... Come on people! It's not like the photographer is being unreasonable! She's simply trying to recoup her losses and earn a living... Oh, and if you don't think that photography is an expesnive business, allow me to demonstrate. A medium format camera (5 x 7 negative, which most professionals use for weddings) runs in the range of $1000-$3000 for the body(!!) alone! The lens, on top of that, will run somewhere from $100-$900, depending on what you need. Then, the film itself can cost up to $15 for a single negative! Oh yeah, there's also darkroom costs- chemicals, the enlarger, the processing time.... Oh, and don't forget that photographer might just want to earn some money for the hours that she's spent on site with your family...

So, I'm sorry, but this isn't an issue of "open sourcing" the finals. By giving High-Res pictures to your entire family without paying for each one of those photos distributed, you have cheated and honest, hard-working, photographer out of a living. (I know a few who have been driven out of business because of this.) So, please, spare me the "I have rights to a picture" argument... Sure, you have the right to do what you want with that photo... But by the same tokein, the photographer has the right to not sell you the super high res photo you want.

As an aside, and unrelated, I think that "analog" photography is a much "truer" art form. If anything, you have a negative, which you can use to prove you took the shot- as opposed to a jpg, tiff, or what have you which could be the property of anyone.

-jokerghost

Re:The photographer is right

[settonull]

This guy is effectively cheating a good source of revenue out of a photographer who is trying to earn a living

My reading of the article was that he went along with the terms of the photographer, simply lemented that it was not done differently.

As an aside, and unrelated, I think that "analog" photography is a much "truer" art form
Just as many people think painting is much "truer" than photography. Whatever, art is art.

-chris

Re:The photographer is right

[Anonymous Coward]

News flash: people don't buy wedding pictures to support your art, they buy them to distribute to hundreds of people as evidence of how perfect their wedding was. If you can't make money and give them what they want, either charge more or switch businesses. They're not paying you to take pictures so you can sell these pictures to an art gallery, maybe you should try thinking about somebody else for a change?

-smack.

Re:The photographer is right

[geekee]

What diference does it make if it's a billion dollar company you're cheating, or a guy barely scraping by. Either way it is wrong. The MPAA deserves the same respect that an individual photographer deserves for copyrighted works. Everything you complain about, the MPAA members deal with on the order of millions of dollars instead of thousands of dollars. They're taking risks as well.

Re:The photographer is right

[91degrees]

But this is exactly the same situation that RMS is going on about when he says that software is a service industry that thinks its a mass production industry.

100% of all the software i have written in my career has been custom software written for a single customer. I got paid for the work I did rather than for each copy of the software. While the customer is the owner according to the contract, it makes no difference who owns it. The customer is the only customer because he had very specific needs. I couldn't possibly find another buyer for the same software, and neither could he.

It's the same with wedding photos. Only immediate family will want to spend the full price on wedding photos. They will pay a similar price for the right to make an arbitrary number of copies.

Not only this, but paying for an unlimited number is a much fairer way of paying. Does it take twice as much work for the photographer to make 2 prints of the same shot? If not, then why does the photographer get twice as much money?

Re:The photographer is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Ridiculous.

Not that I plan to get married, but if I had a reason to commission a professional photographer to photograph an event, I'd only consent to a contract where I received _all_ the negatives. It's my damn event.

Leave it up to me to print them myself or take them to a printing service, etc.

If you don't secure this agreement, then what happens if you want reprints after the photographer goes out of business, relocates, or dies ?

That's just a sucker bet.

Additionally, the cost to the photographer is reduced. No need to scan for proofs or make prints. Now, if they want to make a competitive bid on the prints, fine. Capturing the moment and making the prints do not need to be done by the same person. (Why, that would suggest that you'd need to buy your word processor from the same company that sells you an OS.)

Re:The photographer is right

[Anonymous Coward]

wah wah wah!
"Please give me special treatment so I can preserve my revenue stream!"
They said the same thing when Jacquard invented the loom.

RE: The photographer is right

[pyrotic]

Photography as a source of revenue is dying across the board. In the UK, where I work, the newspapers I work for pay the same page rates they were paying in the 80s. Meanwhile equipment is more expensive, and editors are less likely to assume risk for a project. Yeah, just bring us your pics when you get back from Ramallah. That's after you've paid for flights, film, batteries, bribes or whatever. Working for papers has one advantage though, and that is that papers understand that they do not (though some are trying to) have a right to reproduce the images forever. The only people I trust with my negatives/scans with are newspapers. Wire agencies like Reuters or AP get the copyright to your work, and let's not even talk about Bill Gates' Corbis/Sygma, who are trying retrospective contracts to own their staff's life work.

As a photographer operating today the way make money is either to take beautiful pics for rich clients, fashion/corporate style, or to string together a series of pictures as a story and present it as art. Keep the copyright. Wedding photography is a mug's game to be in, as is hard news - because everyone takes the same pictures nobody needs to buy yours.

Re:The photographer is right

[bbtom]

"photographers are not millionares (for the most part! ;)"

Tell me about it. ^_^

Re:The photographer is right

[sdb6247]

And here again, the point of his paper was missed altogether. He is respecting the photographer's rights. He is also stating that, inevitably, that photographer will go out of business anyhow. He's right. Photographs of weddings is a trade, not necessarily considerable as an art form. People will increasingly want the digital forms of these pictures. Those who provide these forms (perhaps at higher prices) will stay in business.

Re:The photographer is right

[abe ferlman]

No no no, they're not cheating you, you're cheating them by scaling your fees according to something other than the actual cost of reproduction plus a reasonable markup. Instead, photographers should sell the scarce part (scene setup, high-res pictures, whatever) for what it's worth, and sell the reproduction services separately for what they are worth, which is almost certainly less.

Perhaps the issue is not that people want to screw such an "honest, hard working" individual as yourself. It's that the world is changing faster than your pricing plan can keep up with it.

As an aside, does it bother you when your eye doctor tries to keep your prescription so you can't buy glasses/contacts from anyone else? Is this any different?

Re:The photographer is right

[Saeger]

By giving High-Res pictures to your entire family without paying for each one of those photos distributed, you have cheated and honest, hard-working, photographer out of a living.

Cheated? Really?! You are being hired for the SERVICE of taking photos. You are not hired to keep someone's wedding negatives hostage so you can gouge per print indefinately. Charge accordingly for your services (with one of those services being the non-exclusive ability to make prints from the negatives made for your employer).

As an aside, and unrelated, I think that "analog" photography is a much "truer" art form.

Mmm. Yeah. "analog" is "truer". Allow me to lift my pretentious left eyebrow and raise my martini glass with pinky extended.

--

Re:The photographer is right

[DwySteve]

That shot that you've worked so very hard on is being distributed to hundreds of people, who will never pay you a dime for your efforts. Even worse is the person who stands over your shoulder just to snap the same shot you do... Come on people! It's not like the photographer is being unreasonable! She's simply trying to recoup her losses and earn a living...

So were the buggy manufacturers, so were the portriat painters, so were the horse-drawn farm implement manufacturers. That didn't entitle them to a profit, and it doesn't entitle you. Not being a multi-milion dollar megacorporation doesn't give you a monopoly on morality either.

By giving High-Res pictures to your entire family without paying for each one of those photos distributed, you have cheated and honest, hard-working, photographer out of a living. (I know a few who have been driven out of business because of this.)

These people weren't driven out of business by people copying pictures (so every time I copy a picture, it takes money out of his pocket PHYSICALLY? Better patent that), they were put out of business by their own dependance on outmoded methods of business. By all means, attempt to convince me that those methods aren't antiquated. You might even succeed. But that won't stop the simple, cold hard fact that your business practices don't work anymore. Adapt! You too will go out of business if you continue to believe that everyone who copies that picture (nay! Looks at it even! It's only logical!) owes you money and you depend on it.

In the meantime, why not assume your customers will copy the pictures? Encourage them to, allow them to. Just plan on it when you hand that person the check. Not profitable? Perhaps. So maybe you should change professions. It seems that buggy maker, or portriat painter might be right up your alley.

Re:The photographer is right

[NMerriam]

Not only this, but paying for an unlimited number is a much fairer way of paying. Does it take twice as much work for the photographer to make 2 prints of the same shot? If not, then why does the photographer get twice as much money?

if you order twice as many photos, i guarantee you won't have to pay twice as much. But if you order one photo today, two photos next week, 2 photos 6 months from now, and 3 photos in a year, YES it does take a heck of a lot more work, and you will be charged accordingly.

Re:The photographer is right

[SerpentMage]

I think with this photgrapher there is a missing of expectations issue. Artists are creative people and some pieces are really good. But the problem with artists is that the vast majority makes no money. To become a famous artist it is not just skill, but luck, timing, etc. So as a result artists have to get real paying jobs. Problem is that those artists consider even their paying work as works of art. A moment to capture.

But the people hiring the artist considers the moment only pictures to share and remember. They do not consider the work as art. Sure these people are "bohemian" in the eyes of the artist, but they people DO NOT CARE.

So when the people ask for high res images and the photopgraher scoffs there is an obvious missing purpose of the endevaour. Who will win in the end? The customer because they will get pissed and bad mouth the photographer. And other photographers that consider taking wedding pictures solely as a job will get more work.

Re:The photographer is right

[halibut007]

Open source philosophy does not work in all cases as the author of the article seems to think. Open source is great but there is a place for it and it should not apply in the case of professional photography. I completely agree with jokerghost. Those prints are the only viable way the photographer is making a living. If they were to give them away they are just throwing money away and no one would have professional photography.

Re:The photographer is right

[llywrch]

> You are being hired for the SERVICE of taking photos. You are not hired to keep someone's
> wedding negatives hostage so you can gouge per print indefinately.

I agree with this. And I suspect, most people who have a photographer for those special occasions would also. They're HIRING someone to do work, & expect that by paying money they'll receive the product with few or no strings attached.

As I understand the screed /. has linked to, what the author is predicting is not the end to photography entirely, but a shift in what is bought & sold. A photographer does the work commissioned: she/he spends a half hour shooting the photos, & at the end burns the digital masters to a CD, which is then given to her/his employers. Who then make a payment for the labor, & make use of the data on the CD.

Does this appear to force the photographer to barely make a living? Charge $70-80 for the half hour. After payment for equipment, inevitable dead time, etc., this would provide more than a living wage -- & IIRC would be about half of what people pay for photos today. Not a bad tradeoff to me.

Geoff

Re:The photographer is right

[fyonn]

This isn't a case of fighting an uber-huge corporation that has billions of dollars to spare. This guy is effectively cheating a good source of revenue out of a photographer who is trying to earn a living.

you seem to be argueing that he doesn't have a valid point because the photographer isn't rich. how wealthy the person is, is completely irrelevant to whether he is right or not.

dave

Re:The photographer is right

[WNight]

There no justification for feeling proprietary over the way you've posed people. Some ideas just can't be seen except as free for everyone to use.

And what is the idea that there can only ever be one business model for photography? Why can't the photographer charge a real hourly wage and give the results to the employer, like all other contract employees?

If someone charges $500 to shoot a wedding but expects to make a profit off of the $500 in prints could just as easily charge $800 and give the people the 'negatives' and as many at-cost prints as they want. He'd make the same profit, but in the second scenario it'd be guaranteed. And he'd serve his customers who'd have a valid up-front cost and then access to cheap prints or the ability to scan the originals and make copies themselves.

Your idea that the poor photographer gets cheated is ridiculous. It's time that photographs were treated as works-for-hire like most everything else.

Re:The photographer is right

[esper_child]

First of all good luck finding a photographer who will let you have all the negatives at a reasonable price (I sure as hell wouldn't let you near them). Taking pictures is an art as is printing. If you want reprints after the photographer is dead the rigths pass onto the photographers heir. When they move it stays with the photographer, and if you want reprints you can ask also for a form that lets you get copies made of the picture (not the hardest thing to get ahold of). If they are out of business same deal. There are laws that stipulate how to go about this procress and it hasn't changed much since it was created.

Re:The photographer is right

[WNight]

I'd sure as hell never hire you.

Your only goal here is to get *all* the wedding pictures these people have access to and to bleed them white paying for access to them. It's a lousy business and frankly, an idiotic business model. It puts you at odds with your customers.

Just charge enough for your time taking the pictures to pay your costs. This way you're paid, and the customer gets the access they deserve.

Re:The photographer is right

[Misch]

They're HIRING someone to do work, & expect that by paying money they'll receive the product with few or no strings attached.

As with all things, GET IT IN WRITING. If you expect the work to be done with few or no strings attached, spell those out in writing. If you want to change the contract later, expect to pay for it.

Case in point. Marine Midland Bank bought the naming rights to what was then the "Crossroads Arena" in Buffalo. It became the Marine Midland Arena. A couple of years later, the company adopted the name of their parent company, HSBC. Unfortunatley, the contract they signed didn't provide for name changing. HSBC had to re-negotiate with Erie County and the Buffalo Sabres. It cost HSBC money in the re-negotiation of the contract, money to pay the county, and a break in interest rates on loans to the Sabres.

My point is this. If you expect something to happen, make sure you have it in writing, and have it signed. Contracts based on "Expectations" have little value in court. Verbal agreements don't often hold water outside of the entertainment industry.

Re:The photographer is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it take twice as much work for the photographer to make 2 prints of the same shot?

Clearly you've never taken a photography class and actually made prints. Trust me, it's not like the one hour photo where they put the film in the machine and eat donuts until the bag-o-prints falls on the floor at the other end.

In one case I know of, the bride developed a substantial facial blemish the week before the wedding. No one can prove it after the work the photographer did on the prints.

Re:The photographer is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Verbal agreements don't often hold water outside of the entertainment industry.

try "oral" agreements. Both written and oral agreements use words; therefore both, technically, are verbal.

Re:The photographer is right

[Anonymous Coward]

In the meantime, why not assume your customers will copy the pictures? Encourage them to, allow them to. Just plan on it when you hand that person the check. Not profitable? Perhaps. So maybe you should change professions. It seems that buggy maker, or portriat painter might be right up your alley.

I guess you'll be just as unserstanding when your employer finds a better business model by sending your job to Taiwan, India, Honduras, etc., depending on your line of work.

Ever wonder why, when you send an e-mail for support to Sprint, the responder has a very long last name?

Re:The photographer is right

[Misch]

Definition: Verbal:
3. Expressed in spoken rather than written words; oral: a verbal contract.

Re:The photographer is right

[Anonymous Coward]

So were the buggy manufacturers, so were the portriat painters, so were the horse-drawn farm implement manufacturers. That didn't entitle them to a profit, and it doesn't entitle you.

That analogy doesn't work. As long as people want photos of their weddings, there will be wedding photographers. What's being argued here is the pricing model, not the viability of the business.

Re:The photographer is right

[dpt]

To paraphrase:

-----

First of all good luck finding a buggy whip manufacturer who will let you have all the designs at a reasonable price (I sure as hell wouldn't let you near them). Designing buggy whips is an art as is making them. If you want new buggy whips after the buggy whip manufacturer is dead the rigths pass onto the buggy whip manufacturer's heir. When they move it stays with the buggy whip manufacturer and if you want new buggy whips you can ask also for a form that lets you get copies made of the buggy whip (not the hardest thing to get ahold of). If they are out of business same deal. There are laws that stipulate how to go about this procress and it hasn't changed much since it was created.

-----

The problem is, of course, that no one *gives* a flying fuck about buggy whips any more. So, I'm not paying some leech to do a "cp source target" for me. The end. You need a new, workable, un-leechlike business model.

And yes, soon enough the quality of digital will be indistinguishable. It's hard enough now, unless you're making money by *telling* people about the difference that they can't actually see ...

Re:The photographer is right

[sjames]

The fact is, wherever technology can remove something from the material to the digital relm, open source philosophy will inevitably take hold eventually. A central principle of capitalism is that competition will cause price to approach the marginal cost of production. Copying a digital work costs nearly nothing.

We're not quite there yet, but we're getting there. At the high end, film cameras are still far superior to digital. All that means is that the cost of film and processing must be considered somewhere. Once processed and scanned at high resolution, the open source model will tend to take over. If the customer wants a nice high quality print from either negative or digital source, marginal costs become significant again.

This is not the end of photography, it just means that business models will have to evolve so that the product that a photographer sells is skills of composition, and the post processing into digital form rather than the cost of making endless copies.

A few have brought up professional retouching. In the digital age, that will translate to artistic image processing, and will be a valuable service that can fairly be charged for. The results of that processing will be freely distributable by the customer.

Re:The photographer is right

[meta-monkey]

Fine, just now expect to pay a lot more up front for your wedding photographer. It's not a cheap business. It's about 40 hours of skilled labor (5 hour consult before the wedding, 8 hours at the wedding, 10 hours editing/retouching/color-correcting, 5 hours with the bride reviewing the proofs, 12 hours designing/sizing/croping/populating the album, plus printing time) that requires years of training and expertise, and equipment that costs in the tens of thousands of dollars. My wife is a professional photographer who often shoots weddings, so I know from experience.

So now you have two options. Pay $1,500 up front, and she owns the rights to the photos, and then your relatives pay a few hundred here and there for professional printed and color-corrected prints from a pro photo lab, all checked and supervised by the professional photographer, or, pay the photographer about $3,000 for labor only, then you get the rights to the photos, and you can run up there to Eckerd's one-hour photo, and I hope you enjoy making all the crappy dust-covered off-color 4x6's your little heart desires.

You have two choices: pay now, or pay later.

Re:Copyright is Copyright (Exemptions)

[Anonymous Coward]

According to US law you own your image. In a wedding ceremony your image is usually captured with your SO. Can a case be made with this so you own your wedding photos? Oh if Copyright didn't exist we wouldent need all the Free/OpenSource licences. Personally I hope the pro-photo trade fails because of their IP shenanagans. Yes I do write software libre, I wish IP didn't exist as it is a fallicy.

--mikeeusa--

Re:Copyright is Copyright (Exemptions)

[Anonymous Coward]

This arguement kinda falls through the floor when you hire the Photographer. There is an assumption of alowance to capture your "image". Besides any photo contract will have a clause covering thier ass on this regard.

This is slightly different

[cenonce]

This is not quite like the popular topic of the RIAA and free access to your own music. First, you are dealing directly with an artist, not a representative of an industry (i.e., RIAA). For RIAA, it is all about the money. For an artist, it is about their work, effort and yes, the soul they put into the final product. You will never see an open source concept for artists. This is why artist freak out when their work is displayed in a disparing manner (see VARA (Visual Artist Rights Act). Definitely a European concept, but it has caught on in America (There was a big stink a while ago of a sculptors works being displayed in a disparging manner in a building and also a big stink put up by the artist who made the original of that "living sculptor" at the end of "The Devil's Advocate"). Open Source is a great concept, but there is a middle road too between it and Microsoft, as well as areas where I don't think you will see it enter (such as open source art). -A

Re:This is slightly different

[abe ferlman]

Actually, it's an awful lot like giving the sound technician who records your album all the rights to your original songs.

"Sorry, I can't release your music on CD Mr. Springstein, someone might copy it."

Ew.

Re:This is slightly different

[Master of Transhuman]

George Lucas is on record wanting it to be law that no one can use your image or anything else without paying you. The example he used was a sculptor who makes a sculpture, sells it to you, you paint it blue, he sues you.

(He wants to own Yoda, see and doesn't want anyone using Yoda in a porn movie...)

This is unmitigated BS...IMO...

Nobody "owns a moment"...

Nobody owns anything that is not physically under their control in some sense. Hell, eminent domain means you don't even own land...unless you bribe the government officials taking it...

You take a picture, you sell it to me, I own that picture. I don't care if you own the negatives, I own that picture and can do bloody well anything I want with it - sell it, scan it, distribute it to hell and back, convert it to a porn image with editing, whatever... You should have NO say in that at all.

(Unless of course we have agreed in contract otherwise - which I would never do...)

Re:This is slightly different

[cenonce]

I would agree with you on the part about doing whatever you want with it, until you do it publicly. You want to paint it blue and keep it in your den... go for it. You want to use it in your home porn movies, that's your business. But when you start making money off of any of this, I think there is a problem and the Copyright Act gives me the tools (injunctions, treble damages, etc) to stop you.

It's got nothing to do with whether you agreed in contract or not. Under the current copyright regime, YOU have to negotiate those rights away from an author (artists, whoever). They are not something that you inherently have that the artists has to negotiate.

The fact that many people seem to think they own more than the media when they buy an artistic work is what gets RIAA, et. al, in such a tizzy. I'm not saying there response is reasonable (lawsuits against single users, DOS attachs). I'm just saying that people already ignore copyright law, and with the ability to make millions upon millions of perfect electronic copies, there is no end in sight. So it's no wonder that, as technology advances and people want to exploit artistic works with it, that RIAA and copyright holders want to add protections. Heck, some of the stuff RIAA does now (suing individuals) has always been in the Copyright Act, just never used against people like you and me. That's scary!

-A

Taco's Contract?

[Devil's BSD]

This is why when I get married I want to make sure I contract only for the photographer's labor.

Just curious, what did your contract say, Taco? Were you scammed by the DMCA in a photographer's disguise at your wedding?

Re:Taco's Contract?

[ddilling]

> Just curious, what did your contract say, Taco? Were you scammed by the DMCA in a photographer's disguise at your wedding?

From above:

Posted by timothy on Saturday September 14, @05:18PM

I think you've got your T's crossed. ;-)

Re:Taco's Contract?

[DAldredge]

Two questions:

1: You think the /. editors read this site?
2: Are you crazy?

They can not stop posting duplicate articles so the chances of them reading any of the comments are very low.

two words

[squarefish]

"Then they will compare these with their own full motion, full audio, 3D, holographic images, and behold a future that we cannot now even imagine."

Better porn!

Getting what you paid for

[Jeffrey Baker]

A photographer hired to shoot an event is producing a work for hire unless specified otherwise in the contract. The author of this article should check the language of his contract with the photographer. If there is no language specifically contradicting the work-for-hire status, he owns all rights to the original photographic negatives.

As always, it pays to read the contract. I had to pay a high sum for the photography at my wedding, but I also got all the negatives, high-quality proofs, and high-resolution scans to distribute and reproduce as it pleases me. All I had to do was negotiate a work-for-hire.

If you don't read the contract, you are almost certain to get screwed.

Re:Getting what you paid for

[Profane Motherfucker]

You've never read one of the fuckings things. Only some dipshit newbie photog working for much less than he's worth would *not* include some smallprint shit that gave the customer complete access to the negs and total reprint capabilities. That's not to say that such a thing didn't occur here as all the story is about is one guy bitching how the 'source' wasn't available, when really it was -- for a price that he was too cheap to pay.

Photos have been and for a while will be sold based upon the reprint intentions of the customer. A wise photog would charge some mook at Time a hell of a lot more for a photo than the local weekly community paper. Not only does Time have a billion times what the crappy local has, but they also will run several million copies of the photo versus perhaps a few thousand.

Oh, the OpenSource cries, information wants to be free. Great. Do it yourself at no cost and you'll get what you paid for.

The point of this all is that the photog *has* to charge more because people, deep down, are a bunch of mooching, sponging fucks. I've had people steal *my* photos. Rich people. They don't give a fuck. They'd never steal a bike because that's tangible and that'd be WRONG. But they think nothing about stealing an artistic creation. The only way to ensure that people don't steal and pilfer every fucking photo they get their hands on is to make it impossible to do so. For the same reason banks have safes, a photog has a contract and keeps the negatives.

Re:Getting what you paid for

[91degrees]

the story is about is one guy bitching how the 'source' wasn't available, when really it was -- for a price that he was too cheap to pay.

It's interesting though. The photographer didn't get the money, and only has the rights to some photos that are worth only the potential costs of reprints. There will not be much demand reprints now since everyone who wanted prints has them. The writer also doesn't get what he wanted. So, because the photographer was asking for too much money, both of them lost out. Neither has what they want.

Re:Getting what you paid for

[silentbozo]

Depends on what you mean by hired. In California, all work done by contractors is NOT work-for-hire unless specifically stated in the contract. So, if you're in California, your above statement would be incorrect - if there is no language specifically indicating work-for-hire status one way or another, it would default to the photographer owning all rights.

Note that there are specific exemptions to work-for-hire covered under copyright law.

Re:Getting what you paid for

[Jeffrey Baker]

Yep, it's good to check the state law too. As I alluded to in my earlier post, if you want something, you'd better spell it out in the contract. If the photographer tells you he will not assign copyright under any circumstances, he is a liar. Just offer him more money.

Re:Getting what you paid for

[Profane Motherfucker]

I'd never thought of that. Excellent point.

conkidink

[K.]

Funnily enough, I went to get visa photos today, and the photographer was very reluctant to give me the negatives as well (which I need coz Canada's changed its rules post 9/11), until I crossed her palm with a tenner. Which I thought was pretty reasonable.

I don't think the original poster's analogy holds, though. The source code for a photo is surely the information required to produce it, which is the scene, camera settings, darkroom/lab settings, etc, as well as the skill of the protographer. Information on how to take photographs is readily available, (though the ./configure stage is a bit long, fnar). It's more like buying a non-free-software product, agreeing to the licence, and then trying to insist that you have rights to infinite-user versions on all possible platforms.

Re:conkidink

[Hallow]

This is like saying the source code from programs isn't the "code", it's the computer, operating system, text editor, and well as the skill of the programmer.

In this case the negative or the original digital image is the source code.

Photography in and of itself isn't that difficult - it's all math. However, applying that math in a way that produces enjoyable results... that's art. Same as writing code. Not all that difficult, but to do it well...

Well, of course.

[Chris Johnson]

Of course- that's the problem. Digital media makes information so liquid that it's really tough to meter it. You've got to figure out some way to operate that's more than just information scarcity.

I can't help but think that photographer should simply leave the cameras at home and go out to weddings with scenery and LIGHTING... amateurs simply do not understand lighting... she could charge the same price for simply directing photographic situations. A full complement of lights, the right setting, and it's *tweet!* bring over all the amateur digicam people and have THEM do the photo taking. It'd come out much better than their usual stuff. She could have some prosumer digicam herself, but not consider for a moment that the resulting images were what she'd be charging for.

I've been fooling with studio building for a long time now- and currently my focus hasn't been on assembling a bunch of recorders and stuff- people can do that in their homes so easily that it's a tough sell even if I can trounce their quality levels. Instead, I've been getting TOYS. Guitars, basses, now an electronic drum trigger kit (eventually a real acoustic drumkit). People can have all sorts of (half the time warez) software for recording, but they will NOT typically have a mesh-head drum trigger kit to bash away at. I'm hoping to expand that out until I can get business as a studio- NOT for having recording equipment, maybe some people will even want to bring their PCs and use their own! Instead, it will be for having a killer SETTING and the environment that you just don't see in most pocket studios.

It's like that. I hope like hell I'm making the right call here but I honestly don't see how else to do it. The actual media is next to valueless, but making the environment for the media to be produced can be all the difference.

I once produced some totally pro-looking product shots for guitar boxes I make, on an old Connectix Color Quickcam (640x480 webcam). Did it by using the sun for lighting, using a big curtain for strong diffusion where needed, taking lots of identical (except for lighting variations) pictures and averaging them together in software... couldn't overcome the resolution issues but dynamic range ended up being phenomenal, easily pro level...

And of course, there was a time when I could've told you that in a book and probably sold lots of them because it's such a killer effective trick, but now in the digital age I've just replicated those words God knows how many times over the internet for basically nothing, and have to hope that (a) it'll benefit people to know about PTAverage and averaging near-identical digicam pics together for dynamic range, and (b) if I keep giving good ideas, people might figure out that I tend to have them, and record in my studio or something :)

It's really quite a braintwister figuring out what constitutes work and value in an age of digital replication. It's like, to go into the future we need to DESTROY the idea of value for individual collections of bits and somehow reformulate business around expertise and convenience. In that light, the whole 'piracy' thing is counterproductive because it's a concerted attempt to teach people that copying is morally wrong, when it's still effectively costless and effortless.

What would the world be like if ALL copying was completely permitted and there was no IP at all, but then people had to seek out the producers of any particular new thing they wanted produced? Would it be abundance? Would it be drowning in media all of which was worthless?

Re:Well, of course.

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

I can't help but think that photographer should simply leave the cameras at home and go out to weddings with scenery and LIGHTING... amateurs simply do not understand lighting...

This might be a marketing disaster -- people want to think they're hiring a photographer and getting something -- but it's not a bad idea. If I were to try it, I think I'd also take the pictures... but give the negatives for free as part of the service. Then play up the lighting, scenery, etc. And make amateur imitation a selling point, not an obstacle.

Re:Well, of course.

[mangu]

Hmmm, you are on to some really good stuff there. No IP at all, pay only for work performed, I have been thinking on those lines myself. Treat the photographer as a *consultant*, who will advise the amateurs present to the best set-up in each shot.

Same with music. Pay performers only for performing, the only one who actually does some itellectual work is the composer. This is my business model for music: the producer pays a fixed fee to the composer, hires people to perform the music, pays for each performance, charges for people who attend the live show. Bootleg copies would be allowed, without any copyrights attached. After all, think about it this way: suppose you want to go see a live show. Would you think, "naah, I guess it isn't worth the effort, after all, I can always get a bootleg recording later". Have you ever met anybody who thinks like that?

Re:Well, of course.

[Anonymous Coward]

I once produced some totally pro-looking product shots for guitar boxes I make [ampcast.com], on an old Connectix Color Quickcam (640x480 webcam)...

Ummm - hate to burst your bubble, but totally blown out highlights do not make an images "totally pro-looking".

There are other issues (like the background) but I won't get into those...

there is a difference between work for hire &

[Anonymous Coward]

wedding photography is typically a work for hire.
the artistic stuff, that's the stuff no one pays you for. In the grand scheme of things, wedding photography probably falls between news and corporate work.

This does not require a fundamental business shift

[91degrees]

All the photographer needs to do is sell the copyright of each photo rather than copies of the photo. Send out a contact sheet, and the buyer chooses as many as he likes. These are then put on to CD and sent to the buyer to do with as he will.

Why does the photographer think he or she should need to retain copyright anyway? Is there going to be a market for these pictures outside of the immediate family? Of course not. By losing control of these photos, the photographer loses nothing, but gains a worthwhile reward.

The photographer's business model is wrong ...

[LordNimon]

... and in my opinion, it has always been wrong. The photographer charges less for her time than it's worth, but tries to make up for it in overpriced photographic prints. That business model is almost as flawed as "We take a loss in every sale, but we make up for it in volume!"

It would be more fair for everyone if the photographer just charged for his time, and then charged a fair amount for reprints. The end result should be about the same cost.

In fact, a wise photographer would offer two payment plans: the traditional one, and one that charges more per hour for taking photographs but offers the negatives and lower-cost reprints. People who don't want to make their prints can pay the photographer to do it.

Re:The photographer's business model is wrong ...

[Black Copter Control]

... and in my opinion, it has always been wrong. The photographer charges less for her time than it's worth, but tries to make up for it in overpriced photographic prints. That business model is almost as flawed as "We take a loss in every sale, but we make up for it in volume!"

It works socially: Everybody wants a good wedding photographer, but not everybody has the money. In the old business model, the people who want (and can afford) 7 copies of every picture and a 36"x54" blowup effectively subsidize the peole who can only afford a couple of 5x7s and one 8x10 formal.

For a photographer who does the photos for the cheap/broke couple, there is some hope that the happy couple will be able to afford a few more copies some years down the road.

Re:The photographer's business model is wrong ...

[phliar]

In fact, a wise photographer would offer two payment plans: the traditional one, and one that charges more per hour for taking photographs but offers the negatives and lower-cost reprints.

Exactly! There is full knowledge on both parties' sides, which is much more likely to lead to a fair contract.

There are wedding photographers that do this -- I know one in Oakland, California.

Re:The photographer's business model is wrong ...

[bbtom]

Yes, but the photographer charges for HIGH-QUALITY hand-made prints, which is what you pay your money for. Not some half-assed inkjet print of your PC.

When you look at the cost of the materials, equipment and expertise of having prints made, most photographers charge very well.

Eg. To print Ilfochrome (from slides), it will cost around 2 or 3 UKP per print (paper and chemicals). A good printer should be able to get the right print in 3 goes.

To print black and white, it's cheaper.

But, you are also paying for expertise, which in these Kodacrap, Super Happy Snap Snappey Snap days is something most people don't have...

Okay - I'm fighting a losing battle, trying to tell /.ers the merits of hand-printed darkroom prints over inkjets. I'll just go back to Photo.net and sulk...

Re:The photographer's business model is wrong ...

[WEFUNK]

I personally agree with your preference for a different business model, but that doesn't make the existing one wrong. Your statement that a photographer could offer a choice is the best alternative. Advocating the freedom to choose terms is always a better simply saying one model is wrong and one way or another would be better, such as "they should only ever charge for their time".

In this case, work for hire has drawbacks that need to be considered. Although people choose photographers based on reputation, paying them less upfront gives them additional comfort since there is even more incentive for the photographer to earn more money by producing quality prints. In many ways, this traditional payment model is precisely what makes them professional photographers rather than skilled tradespeople (whether they count as artists is actually beside the point). Many people would rather pay for good results than pay by the hour and potentially end up with crap. The prevalence of this model also serves to discourage fly-by-night operations.

It bothers me when flexible pricing terms are not available. For an economically justifiable price, I should be able to get any terms I want for any service or product. If suppliers are unreasonable or picky about their terms, then I should be able to use the free market to find someone else. Whether and to what degree this flexibility exists should be the true measurement of market health.

Re:The photographer's business model is wrong ...

[benjamindees]

That's like saying "communism works socially". Seriously. Here's your post:

Everyone wants food and water, but not everyone want's to work for it. The people who want (and are able) to eat steak effectively subsidize the people who only know enough to grow rice. Maybe the people who eat nothing but rice for their entire lives will eventually stop having more children than they can feed and buy a fucking cow instead. Then again, maybe not.

Re:The photographer's business model is wrong ...

[martyn s]

You should see One Hour Photo (good movie). That guy at the local SavMart (Walmart) was great!

Re:The photographer's business model is wrong ...

[Stephen Samuel]

I don't think that there's much here to say other than you seem to have entirely missed the point.

Btw: Just because somebody isn't getting paid as well as I am doesn't necessarily mean that they're not working as hard. Some people stuck in a minimum wage job, for example may be working their asses off. For them, it's not laziness. It may be the the result of bad choices or bad luck earler in life.

People who aren't willing to work for a living I don't care about. I am, however, willing to give a break to someone who is having a hard time and/or just getting paid a lot less tan me for arduous work.

Re:Copyright is Copyright (Exemptions)

[Anonymous Coward]

They are still a work for hire :)
Also there is an assumption that I can do what I want with my wedding photos.

catch 22

[Black Copter Control]

An argument can be made for releasing programs as open source. It's not altruistic. Other people will take my code, improve it and (directly or indirectly) the new and improved code will come back to me and improve my life.

If you pay me to take a picture, this is not the case. If you take my pictures and generate reprints etc. I will generally get zero benefit from this -- other than (perhaps) a referral, if you are religious about including contact information with all copies of my pictures.

As such, paying for rights to a photo are like paying a programmer on contract to do a program and then give you the rights to that program closed source ({,s}he will never see any future benefit from it). What would you charge me to do that with your source code?

We run into a marketing problem here, too. People often want a wedding photographer for cheap... A wedding photographer often has to bid low, and then makes their real profit off of reprints, etc. If you want their work 'open source' then it's appropriate to pay for the copyright on the pictures (i.e. something akin to what would be charged for a reasonable number of reprints with current marketing methods).

You can't have it both ways. Either pay for a cheap photographer and then prices for reprints, or pay for the full package, including unlimited reprints. If I tried to hire a high-quality programmer for $15/hour for a short contract and then expected to own copyright on the result, I'd be laughed out of most contracters' offices -- and I'd be worried about the quality of the work of anybody who accepted my proposition.

good luck

[briancnorton]

WHen I contracted a wedding photographer, I contacted 17 professionals, and NONE would release the negatives or waive IP rights. I ended up going with an amateur, and I havent gotten the pix back yet.

Author makes weak open-source argument

[l33t-gu3lph1t3]

Here's the deal: If you don't have to pay for it, you won't. And if you don't have to pay for an inferior version, then you will get the freebie and skip the superior one.

Photographers know this. It's fundamentally the same as the MP3 craze. What would you rather have, free low-quality MP3 format songs or high fidelity CD audio for $15 per album? Too many people choose the freebie, and thus less money to those who produce the content.

When you hire a photographer to take pictures, you are paying them for 2 services: 1-their time and effort. 2-whatever photographs you eventually decide to purchase. A professional photographer cannot hope to make a living on only the labor fee. Thus, photographers are beginning to limit the availability of proofs. Photography is a profession from the time when it took a hell of a lot of skill and experience to "capture the moment". Now, in an age where we have a cheap and inferior substitute to "analog" photography, the profession is finding itself in a vulnerable position.

10 years ago when you hired a photographer and bought prints, you were effectively buying a service and product that could not be easily or cheaply reproduced. In effect you weren't buying the rights to the picture itself, but a copy of the picture. Nowadays, you are still in spirit buying the printed photo itself, but you now have the power to copy them as much as you please, almost for free. How can artists compete with that? By A: charging more and B: limiting your ability to make high-res copies of THEIR artwork.

I also take offense to the comparison of "closed/open source" with the photographic medium. The primary positive philosophy behind open-source development is that when the original data is open to view and modification, it can be IMPROVED by the author's peers. This is completely at odds with the digital photography issue. The original data (the negatives/proofs) of a photo session can't be openly analyzed and improved by the photographer's peers. It can only be freely copied by the user.

IMO, this is a decently written, but very misguided commentary. You don't pay artists for all rights to a picture. You pay them for the limited quantity of paper images you receive. Hell, I guess you could buy the rights to the initial image, but if this were to become the case in the future, expect professional photos and negatives to cost much, much more.

Re:Author makes weak open-source argument

[WNight]

If they can't survive off of their labor fees, perhaps they should charge more.

Instead they're ripping off the customers.

If they need the same ammount of money to survive, and every technological and social change makes it harder to collect that in old ways, perhaps they should change their business models.

waaa evolution is biting my wallet

[digitalsushi]

You can run a nearly infinite number of these stories, and eventually the one that applies to you in some way, you will agree with. Technology is in that little exponential curve right before it shoots off into worlds unknown, our very own event horizon into the tech future. Quit snickering. It's true. Not a one of you in here can honestly predict what tech will have done to us in 50 or 60 years. Digicams are letting everyone emulate a professional photographer. We're stealing the environment she's set up? Guilty. The day someone pays a photographer to set up shop, hang out at the buffet and let the guests do their own shooting is the day we are vindicated. Maybe someone already has. What moral tragedy will it be when McDonalds realizes it is cheaper to replace all of its workers with automated machinery? Can a person of today really be so stale as to admit that day will never come? I've read this site for a few years now, and it's become apparent that companies care about but one thing- money. Before you know it, we'll have stock broker chat bots with financial AI, and convenience stores that are mutated into 35 foot wide vending machines. Every single job, or career, can and will be replaced with technology, with the rare exception. A long time ago, half of Americans were dutied to provide our nation with food- that's right, they were farmers. Now that number is a very low single digit. Did we complain? Yes. Is half of America unemployed? No. So what happened? That doesn't help push the position that our futures are all doomed. Amazingly humans have the ability to adapt. I don't know if I will be hyper enough to exist in a world with 12 billion people who have every utility provided to them by an automated process, but I'm sure the people of that day and age will have a most excellent plan for it. Maybe there will be two planets that shine blue, with all that tech. Maybe three!

Re:waaa evolution is biting my wallet

[Anonymous Coward]

What moral tragedy will it be when McDonalds realizes it is cheaper to replace all of its workers with automated machinery?

Not sure if this is what you mean, but I couldn't believe it the other day when I made one of my rare visits there. They have a goddamn fries robot. I can't believe those poor people have to work with all the usual beeps and hissesthen add on the noise the robot makes. Gave me the creeps.

Copyright ownership will cost you a lot more

[geekee]

"This is why when I get married I want to make sure I contract only for the photographer's labor." That statement is fine is you can come to an agreement with a photographer, but be prepared to pay more. As an analogy consider getting Celine Dion to write you a song for your wedding. Do you expect her to simply turn over the copyright to you without charging extra? The song may turn into a top ten hit, at which point you'd be a millionaire. The artist should have the option to maintain his copyright, unless he signs it over voluntarily. The fact that a photographer doesn't want to provide digital images is similar to why the MPAA wants encrypted tamper proof DVDs. They know otherwise their work will be copied without their authorization. Even by putting one of these pictures on a website, you are providing others with a means of copying a picture for which you do not own the copyright.

Re:Copyright ownership will cost you a lot more

[innocent_white_lamb]

The artist should have the option to maintain his copyright, unless he signs it over voluntarily.

Why is this "artist" more artistic than, say, an architect that I hire to design a house for me? He doesn't say that I can't have anyone other than him paint the house after it's completed - I can have anyone paint it that I choose. Later on, if I decide to add another room to it I don't have to go back to the original architect and ask for "permission" to modify what is, after all, MY house.

As I see it, if I hire someone to take pictures for me that is no different than hiring someone to build a fence for me. Here's the job to be done, here is your money to do it. On completion and payment, the carpenter doesn't own any rights to my fence, why should the photographer own rights to my pictures?

Re:Copyright ownership will cost you a lot more

[agravaine]

It's not *that* much more expensive.

My wedding photographer (a professional, award-winning photojournalist) was paid for his labor, and charged around $3000. This paid for 8 hours of his time (so he captured a lot of the pre-wedding dressing and decorating as well as the reception,) and up to 30 rolls of film, which he handed over at the end of the night. (It wasn't a *complete* assignment of copyright; the contract says he still retains rights to, say use the images in his portfolio or in advertising his business, and I agreed that I cannot use the images commercially, but I can do all the things I *want* to do, such as print all the copies I want, burn them on CDs, put them on a private (non-commercial) website, etc. IMHO, that's a pretty fair exchange.)

Re:Copyright ownership will cost you a lot more

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem here is that everyone siding with the photographer assumes that it has to be that way, or they wouldn't.... that's right, get any money.

Incidentally, using another IP/Copyright argument to prove the first only excacerbates the problem - it has to be this way... because it's this way.

If it doesn't work, try something new. It's life.

Re:Copyright ownership will cost you a lot more

[benjamindees]

What if I said this: I'm a programmer. I want to get paid all day to program; but at the end of the day, I want to retain all rights to my programs and sell them to other people. That's bullshit. In capitalism, there are basically two models: sell a product or sell a service.

What if I were a pool cleaner, and I came to your house and cleaned your pool, charged you $50, then tried to charge you $50 for every subsequent DAY your pool stayed clean, without doing any more work. No one expects that.

Scientists in research institutions don't try to pull this kind of crap. Unless it's explicitly stated in their contract, their employer retains the rights to the work they do while on the job.

The problem here is the notion that "liberal arts" workers should get paid twice for work that is done once. If there were really demand for the kind of crap that most artists produce, their salaries would reflect it without needing a skewed interpretation of copyright laws. They wouldn't need to get paid to do nothing after already having been paid a fair price for their work. And if the song turns out to be crap, don't think a judge will just order the artist to write a new one. The patron takes on the risk in commissioning a work of art, because he pays for it either way.

Re:Copyright ownership will cost you a lot more

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this "artist" more artistic than, say, an architect that I hire to design a house for me? He doesn't say that I can't have anyone other than him paint the house after it's completed - I can have anyone paint it that I choose. Later on, if I decide to add another room to it I don't have to go back to the original architect and ask for "permission" to modify what is, after all, MY house.

No, but he can prevent you from selling copies of the plans he drew and can probably keep you from building a second copy of the house.

Re:Copyright ownership will cost you a lot more

[geekee]

A paid programmer typically agrees that all his work is owned by the company in return for his weekly salary. The agreement is mutual. With the pool cleaner example, I wouldn't pay $50, but maybe $5 would be acceptable, under those terms. I was a grad student at RPI, and RPI made me sign a contract saying anything I patent, they automatically own the patent, so I'm not sure where you get wour info about scientists at research institutes. The reality is that there is a notion of copyright and intellectual property for certain types of work. The creator has the right until agreement is made whereby he transfers that right to someone else. No one is saying you can't own your wedding photos. It's all in the contract you sign with the photographer. Since this is a free market, however, people are willing to pay less to not own their wedding photos and simply pay per copy.

Photographers have to eat too.

[the eric conspiracy]

Sure, you can have your friends with digital cameras take wedding pictures, but you are deluding yourself if you think you will get the quality a professional photographer will give you. A prosumer digital camera today offers a single zoom lens and 5 megapizels per shot. This is well below what a good 35 mm film camera with interchangable lens is capable of, and not even in the same universe as that Bronica or Rolliflex medium format camera used by the pro. Not only that, but the professional knows what poses, lighting, framing, exposure, film and so on to use. Not to mention the simple fact that in photography the craft is in the making of the negative, but the real art and skill is in the production of the print.

The fact is that the level of skill and equipment required to produce that color corrected perfectly framed razor sharp 8x10 is not going to be available unless you hire a pro. And that pro has a family to feed.

If you want open source, i.e. the negatives or high res scans, you can probably negotiate that with a photographer. But be prepared to pay a fair price for that, equivalent to what the photographer would normally net from selliing the prints and albums to all the relatives.

Re:Photographers have to eat too.

[bbtom]

I read recentely that if you shoot medium format, to equal the quality digitally, you would have to have a camera that is 27 mega-pixes.

How much is a MF? I know someone who bought a Bronica second hand for 700 UKP, including one lens.

And 35mm is about 12MP - and you can get a 35mm SLR for under 300 UKP, with numerous lenses.

Re:Photographers have to eat too.

[the eric conspiracy]

I read recentely that if you shoot medium format, to equal the quality digitally, you would have to have a camera that is 27 mega-pixes.

Popular Photography did a study where they reached the conclusion that a 35 mm camera with ASA 100 film on a tripod with a good lens can produce an image equivalent to 40 megapixels. That puts medium format up around 200 megapixels.

An 8x10 print using high quality equipment has EASILY 1000x1000 DPI resolution (probably more like 2000x2000). To take advantage of that you need something like 80 - 320 megapixels in your image. This is why a 35 mm film camera doesn't produce good 8x10's, while a medium format negative does. Digital photos and quality 8x10 prints? Not there, or even close yet.

Re:Photographers have to eat too.

[bbtom]

Is that study based on black and white or colour printing? What emulsions are being tested? How about a URL? I'm (relatively) interested in doing a cost/quality study of film and digital.

Also, dependent on what size MF you do (645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 or the panoramic 6x12 / 6x17) you'd get different results. This is before you even start thinking about large format (5x4 and 10x8) - contact printing 10x8, or a small enlargement from 5x4.

Still, I'll stick with the Zeiss Super Ikonta and the Thornton Pickard for a few more decades yet...!

Re:Photographers have to eat too.

[WNight]

If only most photographers would be that rational.

Four out of the five I called when looking to get my wedding done wouldn't give me the 'negatives' (I wanted it done in digital) for any sum of money. I assume they would have a price somewhere, but it was well over ten times their fee for taking the pictures.

And one of them, no doubt realizing that someone emailing them wouldn't order a lot of prints anyways, was willing to simply figure out a price for their labour and give me what I wanted to pay for, for a price only double what everyone else charged just to take prints. In the end it's a huge savings and I'm supporting an honest business model.

Re:Photographers have to eat too.

[Anonymous Coward]

> And one of them, no doubt realizing that someone emailing them wouldn't order a lot of prints anyways, was willing to simply figure out a price for their labour and give me what I wanted to pay for, for a price only double what everyone else charged just to take prints. In the end it's a huge savings and I'm supporting an honest business model.

Indeed a wise voice rises above the frey.

You and I get paid $XX/hour and for that our employer's own everything -- even our private lives in most cases.

I see no reason why a Photographer should be treated any differently. $XX per hour - work for hire - period.

The key is, of course, that people can demand whatever they want. If they get it, fine. If they are greedy "the system" is supposed to leave them behind.

If more people would do what you did, the problem would be solved.

Now, what would be a "fair" hourly price for a photographer's labor? Salary for high-end Computer types, building systems making their owners millions - even billions - of dollars earn in the range of $50 to $100/hour. So what's a resonable range for a Photographer?

What would Leonardo say?

[geoswan]

Leonardo da Vinci is an artist whose work was so interesting that he remains famous today. How did artists like da Vinci support themselves?

It was a different time, with a different kind of economy. And guys like Leonardo, or later, Mozart, sought out sponsors, patrons.

This tradition continues today. Richard Stallman and Tim Berners-Lee being two receipients of the MacArthur "genius" fellowships .

Our modern understanding of intellectual property is merely a convention. It is not a natural law.

Having said all that I find I agree with dpilgrim that his photographer was making a poor choice about how to adapt to the introduction of new technology.

There are lots of tasks which were once the province of highly-skilled craftsmen. People who have had their rice bowl broken by technology have my sympathy. But they are best served by adapting.

*Some* photographers are getting it.

[caferace]

For a LONG time the vasy majority of photographers have "pooh-poohed" the very idea of digital camera, and for good reason. In the past, the output was inferior to film. Now, at the high end there are cameras that are capable of producing images as good, or better than their analog predecessors. With the advent of new cameras in the 10+ Megapixel range, the bet is going to be on digital. (And all you CD vs. Vinyl records freaks, listen for a sec :).

Professional photogs for journalism and sports have been the first to catch on, since time is usually of the essence. Eventually, the more esoteric pros will too. I'm surprised Adobe doesn't have a specific version of Photoshop targeted at these folks.

Here in California, there is a photographer that goes by the name of Photobitstream. Essentially, he shoots action sports, commonly motorcycle roadracing and enthusiast trackdays. At the end of the day if you'd like to he'll take your contact info, you hand him a 20 spot and within a week he send you a CD with super hi-res images. No watermarks, nothing.

His caveat (and there always is one) is only that the images may not be used for commercial purposes without their consent (and likely associated $$). Specific language says that you are free to use it on your website, free to print it out or have prints made.

As a way to help support him, he's partnered with a printer that is wise in the ways of printing idgital images (color correction, masking, etc) and has pretty good prices to boot.

There *is* hope. As a semi-pro photog in the past who is now ~80% digital and a geek to boot, it's a refreshing change to see others get "it".

Re:*Some* photographers are getting it.

[the eric conspiracy]

With the advent of new cameras in the 10+ Megapixel range, the bet is going to be on digital.

Digital offers a lot of convenience, but the fact of life is that a 35 SLR film camera with a good lens gives you the equivalent of a 40 megapixel digital camera. Don't forget that 10+ megapixel SLR digital also carries a $6000 price tag. And wedding photographers normally use medium format cameras with 6x7cm negatives - to match the resolution of that large negative with digital you are looking at 200 megapixels.

Re:*Some* photographers are getting it.

[WNight]

I've seen reasonable estimates of up to 25MP for 35mm film. But very high-end ASA 50, with incredible lenses.

Shoot with anything you'd need indoors without studio lighting (and not able to do long exposures) and you're getting down to 5-8mp.

Digitals have noise, but with a good digital the picture noise isn't going to increase as fast as the grain in the film.

The day of digital is here if you're doing anything less than full-page blowups. When the Canon 11MP 1Ds comes out it'll produce better pictures in common wedding environments that pretty well any other 35mm camera.

It is very expensive, but that's why you go to a pro.

But if they make it too painful, people aren't going to. It's not as much that I'm cheap and don't want to pay for reprints as that I want the freedom of deciding for myself if I'd rather have a high quality print made or just toss some pics in email.

Re:The photographer is right... so what is right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither the MPAA nor the photographer "little guy" deserve respect in this instance. Duplication is not wrong. Copyright is, however, very wrong; It destroys information and art which would normally make it into the next generation; It is damaging to the very freedom of a people; and in the spirit of the cathloic church: it is unnatral. There is absolutly nothing wrong with the duplication of information and art regardless of the labor he who originaly created it expended. Duplication of information and art is NOT destruction and has no ill effect on the art or information. In addition since duplication destroys nothing it also has no ill effect on the person of whom created it. The only thing that may not happen is that the creator recieves less wealth (in monatary terms) from the creation of said information or art, how is this a morally wrong thing? Does greed equal the right thing? Is the love of money paramount over all to make it the right thing and anything that would decrease the assumed amount of money morally reprehensible?

--mikeeusa--

" What diference does it make if it's a billion dollar company you're cheating, or a guy barely scraping by. Either way it is wrong. The MPAA deserves the same respect that an individual photographer deserves for copyrighted works. Everything you complain about, the MPAA members deal with on the order of millions of dollars instead of thousands of dollars. They're taking risks as well."

Good Story, Editors

[limekiller4]

God, I hate it when people rant about "what Slashdot used to be," but ...guys? Please start doing more stories like this. I'm not suggesting you stop running the pieces on Stallman or the latest kernel release or the coolest case mod, but Slash could use a little more op-ed stuff like this.

Don't mod me up, just think about it.

I got the lot - Negatives, PhotoCD and Prints

[yuri benjamin]

My gaw-juss wife and I got married on 13 April 2002, and our photographer was brilliant.
I had already thought through all the issues raised in the article, so I shopped around.
Some photographers were really anal retentave, so I voted with my chequebook.
We found a photographer with the philosophy that he made all his profit on the day, and then handed over the goods, lock, stock and barrell.
And they were good shots too.

The point is, ask around. Tell the prospective photographers that you want to hire their services for the day day and then get "the source".
Some will tell you that it's just not done, and that no photographer in their right mind would agree.
Then down the road you'll find one that says "no problem".

If you don't sort it out before the day - tough luck!

Analog Photography

[Sfing_ter]

anyone know of a good buggy-whip maker?

Improvise, adapt and overcome.
-Gunny Highway

Re:Analog Photography

[little_moonboot]

Being a designer that works with photographers, I say that photographers need not worry about losing out to amateurs with digital cams -- it's not just their knowledge of lighting and composition that gives them an advantage -- it's the simple fact that there are certain qualities and effects with a photograph shot with the right film and process that a digital camera simply cannot duplicate.

As for copyright, if a photographer (like a designer) is seriously worried that another fraudulent professional will steal that image and call it their own--quite frankly clients will find out soon enough whether or not they're a fraud. The cream usually rises to the top in our profession.

Negotiate terms beforehand

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience (in Australia - don't know about the rest of the world) when you go to a reasonable wedding photographer, they give you package options that basically says you pay something like $1500 up-front and you get a full proof booklet, and a total of 100 selected copies for this. In the agreement it usually states that they will keep the negatives and you can get reprints any time you want. It also states - once again up-front - that you can buy these negatives for some nominal figure, eg. $200 in our case. This is reasonable, and in most cases should allow the photographer to earn an appropriate income for the time that they spent, and the creative input they supplied to the process.

If you don't negotiate the terms in advance, then you have no bargaining power and deserve what you get. This allows you to shop around, and helps the market decide how much this kind of service will cost.

The photographer should always charge enough so that they can make a living. In hiding costs and having them pop up at a later date, a photographer will end up with pissed off clients and no recommendations.

The photographer is a thief

[mangu]

Your point would be true, except that the photographer seems to be trying to get paid several times for the same work.

If the photographer profits from selling additional copies, then he should do the basic work for free. The low-quality samples provided should be treated as a sales catalog. The couple who got married should be treated as models, they shouldn't have to pay anything for the production, and should get part of the profit from the sale of additional copies.

Suppose it was a fashion magazine which had a photo of, let's say Cindy Crawford, on the cover. Would ms. Crawford have to pay for the whole production and not get anything from the magazine sales? Saying Cindy Crawford is famous and her image is worth a lot is not an answer, since, if one can sell pictures from a couple who is getting married, then they are professional models, deserving as much respect as Cindy Crawford, only their image would not be worth exactly as much as Cindy's, since it would sell less copies.

Re:The photographer is a thief

[NMerriam]

If the photographer profits from selling additional copies, then he should do the basic work for free. The low-quality samples provided should be treated as a sales catalog.

this is basically true of how it is done today. Photographers charge a minimal amount to cover expenses, but you don't make money from shooting the wedding, you make money from selling the prints. The proof sheets ARE a catalog.

The couple who got married should be treated as models, they shouldn't have to pay anything for the production, and should get part of the profit from the sale of additional copies.

LOL -- the couple is the customer. They are not models, if they were the photographer could fire them when they act like idiots and cause him to run 4 hours over, or burn expensive film on shots they'll never sell.

Saying Cindy Crawford is famous and her image is worth a lot is not an answer

Yes, it is. The magazine sells more copies because cindy crawford is on the cover, not because a person is on the cover. Being cindy crawford and having her image is of intrinsic retail value.

Re:The photographer is a thief

[mangu]

The magazine sells more copies because cindy crawford is on the cover, not because a person is on the cover

People buy copies of wedding photos because it's Don's wedding, because it's Lucy's wedding, they don't buy photos of some "persons" wedding. Being Don and Lucy has an intrinsic retail value to the photographer.

Re:The photographer is a thief

[NMerriam]

eople buy copies of wedding photos because it's Don's wedding, because it's Lucy's wedding, they don't buy photos of some "persons" wedding. Being Don and Lucy has an intrinsic retail value to the photographer.

Okay, to make this clearer -- Cindy Crawford's image has value to the general public.

The wedding couple has value only to the wedding couple and the family (rarely do guests ever buy a wedding photo -- 90% of your money comes from the couple or the bride's family).

Being Don and Lucy has no value to the photographer unless Don and Lucy (or their families) are willing to pay the photographer for their images. Many photographers will take photos of Cindy Crawford's wedding for free, because they know they can sell them to someone other than the Crawford family...

Re:The photographer is a thief

[dmaxwell]

"LOL -- the couple is the customer. They are not models, if they were the photographer could fire them when they act like idiots and cause him to run 4 hours over, or burn expensive film on shots they'll never sell."

Since they are customers then they own the images. Simple as that. The photographer wants to have his cake and eat it too. Either they get free prints and the photographer owns the image or the CUSTOMER owns his own fricken images. I certainly will make that clear to any such doing personal work for me.

Re:The photographer is a thief

[mangu]

Well, make up your mind. Either:

(1) Don and Lucy's wedding has no intrinsic value for the photographer, or

(2) Don and Lucy's wedding has intrinsic value for the photographer.

In the first case, the photographer should give the negatives to the couple, along with any IP rights. There's no point in holding something that has no value to you, but may have value to someone else.

In the second case, if the photographer can get some profit from the sale of additional copies, the couple's image does have value, and they should get a share from those sales. It seems to me that the photographers are trying to get the best of both worlds, they want to get fully paid for their work while keeping any additional profit to themselves.

Re:The photographer is a thief

[sparkz]

Cindy Crawford has not come to the photographer asking for a service - Cindy Crawford is providing a service, as is the photographer, to the customer, which is the magazine publisher. So that analogy does not hold water.

If you want, for your wedding, you could commission a photographer on the basis of "You can have some of the profits we make from selling these" - good luck in getting a photographer.

The basic profit for the wedding photographer is in the couple's and parents' books. Additional copies also help, but are financially much less significant.

Say a wedding guest has a camera identical to the photographer's, hangs over the professional's shoulder and takes the same photo... it is still the professional who has done the work - the guest is the theif.
The end result might be the same, but the guest's photo would not exist if the professional had not got the people arranged with the right background, lighting, etc.

Maybe paying a flat fee for "labour" would be one approach, but if that would include rights to the images, it'd be taking far more from the photographer, and should therefore cost you much more money.

Therefore, the status-quo is more likely to survive than be replaced - unless DRM takes off platonically, in which case you can have the images, but cannot share them / take credit for them.

Re:The photographer is a thief

[sparkz]

D&L's photos have value to the photographer, but only because the photographer has put work into creating them.

The photographer, had s/he not been commissioned to do the work, could not care less about Don, Lucy, or their wedding photos.

Having done the work, they have value to the person who created them - the value, to be specific, is the fact that they can sell these photos to Don, Lucy, maybe D&L's parents, and maybe even a couple of guests.

That value must, necessarily, be enough to keep the photographer in work. Duh.

Re:The photographer is a thief

[jdbo]

Explain to me how the photgrapher is a thief in this case; it seems to me that the groom agreed to a contract before satisfying himself as to the terms of service; rather, he went ahead an assumed that how he thought things should be, would be. This is naive (esp. when the groom appears to have been aware that an analog camera was to be used, which should have been a "red flag" if he wanted digital copies), and you can't blame the photographer for his lack of foresight.

Not that the photographer is necessarily in in the right either - a preferable solution would be to provide tiered digital service - by providing a catalog of screen-resolution images (unobtrusively watermarked with studio contact information so that recipients could obtain a physical print/hi-res filefrom the studio) at a relatively inexpensive rate, and the hi-res images at a greatly expanded price (perhaps even higher than what she had quoted for the CD she was actually offering).

This could even be broken down further, such that the bride and groom could pay piecemeal for the hi-res versions of the images that they want, which in some cases may be less expensive than obtaining the complete catalog.

In any case, it is naive to think that the photographer's labor/investment (in converting high-end negatives to digital format) is not worth paying for (even if this process is outsourced, someone is investing time/money in the process); therefore, this should be considered an extra cost, in addition to the cost of labor, developing photos, and putting together a catalog.

Do some of these material/transfer costs "go away" should a pro. photgrapher use digital cameras? Yes, but at the current time there are limitations to what can be done with these cameras, and so we will be in a "transfer period" for some time while technical details and training is taken care of; in the meantime, it is silly to assume that one should get digital cost savings when contracting for analog photo work.

Ultimately, it seems to me that article's author has point, but that this is overshadowed by taking a rather extreme position, mostly because he lost an argument with his father-in-law.

I'd say to get a life, but I'm at work on Saturday night. Alas!

Re:The photographer is a thief

[TC (WC)]

Not if that isn't the agreement you have, though. You're taking an overly simplistic view of things. If the photographer was hired to take photos and hand them all over then fine, that's what should happen. As it stands, this photographer was hired under an agreement where she took photos and they were ordered from her. If that's not the way you want it, hire a different photographer. This is a case where someone didn't do appropriate checking beforehand and then whines because they didn't get something that wasn't offered as a service from this person.

Re:The photographer is a thief

[Saeger]

No, the value is the photographic service you provide at the wedding, plus the spiffy looking albums you put together shortly thereafter. Holding the copyright hostage longer than that just makes you look like a control freak hoping for some ransom money.

What value is there in keeping the negatives to yourself after the wedding's over and you've been paid already? I'd gather that almost all wedding photographers make the vast majority of their money for the job and almost nothing from exclusive (ick) reprints years down the road.

--

Re:The photographer is a thief

[Saeger]

rather, he went ahead an assumed that how he thought things should be, would be. This is naive

Unless it's the fineprint in a clickthrough EULA, riiiight?

Sorry, but it's not naive to assume that a wedding photographer isn't out to screw you.

--

Re:The photographer is a thief

[NMerriam]

Well, make up your mind. Either:

(1) Don and Lucy's wedding has no intrinsic value for the photographer, or

i made up my mind long ago -- D&L have no intrinsic value to the photographer. Luckily for his business, images of their wedding have a commercial value to D&L, and the photographer is in a position to sell them those images.

If the photographer blows off the wedding to go scuba diving, he hasn't lost anything (other than a customer), but D&L have lost a lot. They'll never have professional photos of their wedding.

It seems to me that the photographers are trying to get the best of both worlds, they want to get fully paid for their work while keeping any additional profit to themselves.

What would be the point of selling photos to Don & lucy of themselves, and then giving them a percentage of the proceeds? Do you just like paying extra taxes? I think D&L would rather that the photographer is able to offer them a cost they can live with than worry about royalty checks every time their mother-in-law orders reprints.

Feel free to negotiate this recursive royalty with YOUR wedding photographer, but I'd rather not waste my time or theirs.

Re:The photographer is a thief

[NMerriam]

Since they are customers then they own the images. Simple as that. The photographer wants to have his cake and eat it too. Either they get free prints and the photographer owns the image or the CUSTOMER owns his own fricken images. I certainly will make that clear to any such doing personal work for me.

Simple as that? Fine, but don't be surprised at how much you are charged for labor when you tell the photographer you want your prints for free.

You can negotiate the details all you want, but if you want a professional to show up on some saturday to take pictures of your personal events with expensive equipment he has paid for, you're going to get charged a lot for it.

Re:The photographer is a thief

[mangu]

It isn't clear from the article what kind of contract they had. I think a photographer should have full rights on pictures he takes of his own initiative. However, if he was hired to do a job, it is reasonable to assume the copyright and negatives should belong to the customer. If there is a contract somewhere that says otherwise, the customer should be advised beforehand. What constitutes usual business practice among photographers isn't always obvious to the customer.

Re:The photographer is a thief

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a case where someone didn't do appropriate checking beforehand and then whines because they didn't get something that wasn't offered as a service from this person.

This is a wedding for god's sake. You are just like a roofer that tries to scam old people. You SUCK.

Re:The photographer is a thief

[Anonymous Coward]

Let us talk in real dollars here. What is your revenue over the life of a customer from reprints on average? That is how much extra you would have to charge. Don't forget to adjust for the future value of a dollar. Why do I have a feeling we are talking about less than $600?

Re:The photographer is a thief

[enjo13]

But the problem is that you DID pay the Photographer, up front. I paid a lot of money to have the photographer come to my wedding and take photos.

It bothers me that the photographer would somehow claim ownership of those photos. This is like someone commisioning me to write an accounting system for them, and then having me charge them everytime they install that accounting system somewhere else.

Or what if I decided that I should own all of the work I do for my employer? Sure I'll give them a copy of it, but in the end I should own the copyright on my work and be able to license it to whomever I want?
Same thing.

Re:The photographer is a thief

[WNight]

If the photographer charged the prices that I imagine from reading the article, they were asking many hundreds of dollars per actual hour of work.

How could you justify charging a thousand or more dollars to take pictures, for people to then pay money for copies. This is gouging in the extreme.

Luckily there are a few ethical photographers who don't try to claim ownership of work-for-hire. They rest are scammers try to capitalize on the barriers-of-entry to their profession.

Re:The photographer is a thief

[TC (WC)]

Wow, weddings are different than other situations now? You shouldn't actually check what your agreeing to before you pay someone to do a job?

Re:The photographer is a thief

[jdbo]

Please point out to me where the article says that the photographer was hired on a "work-for-hire" basis; I may have missed this. Unless this is the case, then we can't say for certain either way. The same goes for the actual level of "price gouging" in regards to the digital photo catalog.

I _do_ know, however, that wedding photography is a traditionally a rather expensive luxury/service, and that as such, people tend to put some effort into shopping around in order to get the most bang for the buck. In this case, it seems to me that the shopper is rather to blame for not asking out the digital pricing ahead of time, or at least indicating an interest/preference in digital versions.

So although I can't say 100% who is "in the right", I _will_ say "caveat emptor"!

Re:The photographer is a thief

[sporktoast]

The photog is no more a thief than might a software company who sells multiple copies of their products be a thief.

You want Norton/Photoshop/whatever for every computer in your company/school lab/home, you better pay for the multple copies. If you want to save money or work out a better deal than $50 a pop, you pick up a phone and *negotiate* with Symantec/Adobe/whoever, or a vendor.

I interviewed 3 photogs for our wedding. This was 5+ years ago, so digital really a consideration for us, but ownership of the negs was. In addition to looking for the right mix of professionalism and a personable/casual style, I was very particular about fee structure and deliverables.

To be honest, the photog's manner was the major decision-maker. We wanted someone who would spend more time blending in and taking candids and less time trying to coordinate the usual run of posed shots. But just about as important was that her fees were reasonable. She broke it down into materials, labor, and deliverables. She charged a fair retail price for the film she used, scaled her labor based on the equipment used (EG she used a 35mm shot to back up every posed shot taken on medium-format, just in case of accidents in processing or mechanical failures in the medium-format camera), and included a complete set of prints plus the negatives as the deliverables. She offered a reasonable rate on reproductions (skewed to favor full rolls), good for one year. We opted not to take her up on that. That was okay with her, because it an a-la-carte extension to the original contract.

We knew what we wanted, found a photog who offered something in the range, and negotiated a deal that was satisfactory to all parties.

-Sporktoast

Re:The photographer is a thief

[NMerriam]

I'd gather that almost all wedding photographers make the vast majority of their money for the job and almost nothing from exclusive (ick) reprints years down the road.

You would be wrong -- you don't make anything from shooting the wedding, you make it all from prints over the next few years. If a customer wants to pay for everything up front, they can, but usually what happens is a young couple starting out can't afford to drop as much money as they would like on the photography. In order to have photos of the event, the photographer basically gets you to cover expenses and then you can pay him later through the purchase of prints.

It's actually a good deal for most folks, but if you want to buy all rights up front, nobody will stop you. There are no photo Nazis sneakily taking pictures of unaware brides and grooms and holding the negatives hostage -- you're talking to the photographer months before a wedding, and there shouldn't be any question of what you're getting in return for the checks you're writing.

Re:The photographer is a thief

[Anonymous Coward]

Or what if I decided that I should own all of the work I do for my employer? Sure I'll give them a copy of it, but in the end I should own the copyright on my work and be able to license it to whomever I want?
Same thing.

I'm assuming some day you'll actually get a job and find out how things really work.

Re:The photographer is a thief

[NMerriam]

Let us talk in real dollars here. What is your revenue over the life of a customer from reprints on average? That is how much extra you would have to charge. Don't forget to adjust for the future value of a dollar. Why do I have a feeling we are talking about less than $600?

Several thousand. definitely not $600.

keep in mind that folks on slashdot talking about how easy and profitable it is to be a photographer are about as accurate as photographers talking about how easy and profitable it must be to be a programmer -- "i don't see why it would be so hard to tell a computer how to add up some financial figures!!"

Re:The photographer is a thief

[WNight]

The article doesn't say "work-for-hire", but that's the standard assumption when you hire someone. When a company pays you to write a program they own the program and the right to use it despite any of your patented ideas you may have used. Simply your making it for them is implicit permission for them to use it.

If a plumber fixes your pipes there's the assumption that it's a one-time job. He'll fix the pipes and get out. If he installed a special pipe that only he had a wrench for (work with me here) or installed a water meter on the pipes and expected to use this to extort further payment, you'd sue him and have another plumber in, at the first guy's expense, to fix the mess.

So why are photographers different? They think they're artists, but the general public does not. They think they have a god-given right to a wacky business model, but does the general public?

I agree that the shopper should get everything spelled out, but this is only necessary because we're in such a kooky world that someone could come take pictures of you, at your insistence and paid by you, and then claim to own the results.

Re:The photographer is a thief

[Djinh]

If you ask the photographer nicely I'm sure he'll give you a quote for the exclusive distribution rights of one of his photographs.

If you don't want to pay that, the yes, you'll be stuck with paying for each print.

Your choice.

Re:The photographer is a thief

[jdbo]

It's silly to respond at this point, but I'm surfing my old comments looking for interesting replies. This one seemed to call out for some response.

While I could argue the "work for hire" (i.e. ownership of the negatives) issue until I'm blue in the face (in short: as much as customers may argue otherwise, work-for-hire transactions are not the default - I own the rights to work unless you pay more.), I'll instead focus on one particular aspect of this transaction that makes me see the groom/photo hirer as being negligent.

Photography _as_a_medium_ are inherently about reproduction; you hang the prints, not the (original) negative. When someone hires a pro photographer, the expectation is _always_ that the pro photgrapher will handle the developing and printing, because they have thje closest knowledge of the film used, conditions of the shoot, etc. Even if they are outsourcing the actual reproduction, they are definitely providing careful instruction to the developer house. It's a severe oversimplification to assume that a pro photog is only useful for the (very involved) job of getting the shots. Developing and reproduction are equally important.

Therefore, the fact that the hirer of the photog didn't get the detailed info about cost of prints/digital files/etc. - i.e., the actual end product of the business transactions - makes me see that they simply were naive about the process.

And there's nothing morally wrong about naievete (although it can be costly). However, I object to the righteous tone taken by the author, who seems mostly interested in justifying his naive assumptions.

You may argue that it's the wedding photographer's
job to provide maximum information about her rates, etc... but one can't catch everything, and I rather doubt that the photographer was cavenly plotting to "screw the couple over".

In other words, though there may be some merit to his larger argument re: digital photography lowering the costs of reproductions, this does not mean that he wasn't stupid in his own case.

Pay for what you get.

[nuggz]

You can get the negatives or a high quality digital image quite easily, just buy them, and the reproducing rights.

The photographer expects that they could make more money selling their work in the manner of reprints, and charges appropriately.

Just an idea, wait a year, the photographer will lower their expectations for reprints and sell the negatives for quite a bit less. My photographer wouldn't consider selling them until at least 1-2 years after the wedding. Of course by that point I realized spending money on wedding photos is dumb.

My Wedding Photographer

[SWPadnos]

When I got married (5 years ago), we hired a professional photographer we knew to shoot the wedding. His standard contract was for a proof sheet, several wedding albums, and extra prints (different quantities of albums and extras dependent on what level you paid for). Also, after 2 years, we got the negatives.

This allowed us to get albums for ourselves and our parents, and some extra prints for the family. He was able to sell more prints and albums to people who wanted them in the short term. We ended up with the negatives, so we can now scan / reprint them ad infinitum.

Sounds like the best of both worlds to me.

poorly researched opinion piece

[Anonymous Coward]

Would that you actually knew what you were talking about, and had actually done some research. Photography killed portrait painting? Please.

I don't do weddings precisely so that I don't have to deal with people like you. But, tell you what. I'll consider doing your wedding if you'll pay me by the day (up to eight hours). You own the copyrights and can do with the images what you want. In order for me to make a living, my charge includes my time, my equipment, my square footage devoted to photography, my insurance, my transportation, my materials, my utilities, my taxes, my accountant, etc. If you aren't local, I'll bill you for the airlines/rental cars separately. Deal?

Ever wonder why lawyers charge so much? You're buying hours in a day, that's why. Grow up little dude.

The unspoken

[Black Copter Control]

And that led to the final point. What about getting images on CD from the photographer?

Know that if you do this, you will probably never get another penny from your work this weekend -- no matter how many reprints I actually want and no matter what I want to do with them.

( The people who want to go this path are usually the people who would normally be ordering a huge number of prints... i.e. the big spenders).

My wedding photographer was Great.

[Anonymous Coward]

When I recently got married, my wife picked out the photographer based on his work. (Check http://www.simonyao.com/Featured54.htm for some of my wedding pics)

We paid a lot, he took some fantastic pictures, and in addition to the stuff we bought, we got a CD of high-resolution images. The kicker is that all of the CD images have "Simon Yao Studios" tastefully watermarked/embossed across them. I checked and the gifs also have his name, address, email, and web address imbedded. I could have paid more for the negatives, but didn't feel the need. I have an option to go back and buy them for the next 5 years before he trashes em.

All in all, he seemed pretty up on tech, and IP.

What if the Photographer refuses...

[azpcox]

to take pictures if there are other folks snapping shots? Could it be in her contract that indeed she "owns" that paticular shot and no one but her is going to capture it on film?

What if someone snapped of a few pictures while the photographer is doing her thing and then she just stops, politely turns to the bride and her mother, and says, "It's in my contract these are my pictures."

The next few moments would be priceless if I was there....

Depends where you live.

[HuskyDog]

I live in the UK. A few months ago I married my Estonian bride in Tallinn. This had several advantages, and one of them was that most of the photographers we approached were happy to give us the negatives at no extra charge. I scanned them and bunged them onto a web page. I am also now able to get reprints done here in the UK.

The photographer isn't going to go out of business because of guests with digital cameras. He took group shots at the ceremony, but my wife and I then went round to his nearby studion for some more shots. My point is that a guest with a nifty digital camera isn't all you need to realy good shots. The studio had proper lights, backdrops and even live doves and this shows in the results.

There is also no way that I would have accepted on CDROM no matter how good the quality. I want my grandchildren to have access to these images. What would you do if your parents gave you a roll of punched tape and said "Here are our wedding photos?" Even if my grandparent's wedding photos were on glass plate negatives, it wouldn't be difficult to rig up a scheme to view them.

The *customer* is right

[TFloore]

Or have you never heard that saying?

The problem here is that the photographer is trying to charge for the wrong part of the work. The photographer is trying to charge high prices for the easy part of the work - making copies - and keep prices low for the hard part of the work - setting up a good pose with good lighting and a good background - because the technology used to allow this pricing model.

It has become too easy for the customer to do his own copying, and the pricing plan needs to change to reflect the current realities. The high-cost part of this should be showing up at the wedding and setting up the shots. The resulting photographs should be supplied at close to actual cost, because that isn't the hard part of this. And none of this crap about how making the album is art, that's a cookie-cutter operation, pull out one set of photos and put in the next set.

I do agree, this isn't an issue of "open sourcing". This is an issue of not recognizing where your "art" is, and charging properly for it. Trying to charge for a package with a built-in (false!) assumption that people will come back to you for re-prints is not recognizing the realities of the business.

And yes, I *do* strongly object to being told I have to pay again and again and again for a picture of me. No, I paid for you to set up the shot. The resulting shot belongs to me.

I paid for your expertise at arranging the shots, not your abiltiy to make copies of pictures.

Re:The *customer* is right

[bbtom]

"The photographer is trying to charge high prices for the easy part of the work - making copies - and keep prices low for the hard part of the work - setting up a good pose with good lighting and a good background - because the technology used to allow this pricing model."

Ever used a darkroom?

Re:The *customer* is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever spit a TIFF out to a decent inkjet printer on glossy paper? You can't tell the prints apart even with a magnifying glass.

Adapt or die.

Re:The *customer* is right

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem here is that the photographer is trying to charge for the wrong part of the work. The photographer is trying to charge high prices for the easy part of the work - making copies - and keep prices low for the hard part of the work - setting up a good pose with good lighting and a good background - because the technology used to allow this pricing model.

You have it dead on.

Now, any professional and customer can agree to any terms they like. I am not going to argue about that. But I will describe the way I would handle the wedding photography, or any special event photography...

First, I am paying the photographer to use his or her artistic talents to set up the pictures. I used to be an amateur photographer, and I understand this art and skill quite well. I am also paying for the technical expertise in exposing the pictures properly. I am also paying for the cost of the film and producing the negatives and prints. I expect all these to be in the final bill.

But now I OWN the work product. I OWN the negatives, and I EXPECT them to be delivered promptly with the rest of the work product. I OWN the prints, and it is my right to contract with the photographer for extras, have someone else do them, or do them myself. I shall not even consider the notion that the photographer owns even the slightest bit of the pictures I paid him or her to take.

I know that some photographers will not accept these terms, and they have every right to do business any way they wish. And I have no intention of ever hiring them for any occasion, since I consider their attitude unacceptable. They should consider this when they ask for my business (assuming they want it).

I believe that there are many more customers who think the same way I do, and I also believe that there will be a significant niche for professional photographers who are willing to understand that they are hired to perform a service, not to sell a product.

Re:The *customer* is right

[smnolde]

I don't have the problem of the photographer charging me for prints. As a part of his service he didn't make an album of proofs, he just handed me the proofs.

If i want a print of them i can scan them at hi-res and have them printed by an online-digiphoto printer for much less.

Of course, you get what you pay for.

Re:The *customer* is right

[forevermore]

Having just gotten married, and paid well for my photographer, I can understand the sentiment here. I'm an amateur photographer, and wanted the ability to do my own prints, but after researching, my wife and I found that NO GOOD PHOTOGRAPHER will ever give /sell you the negatives. We had to beg our photographer to sell us our negatives after a 5-year (or possibly more) wait. I'm cool with that, since I really just wanted to have them in case our kids someday want to reprint things (which I did for my parents back on their 25th anniversary).

Anyway, when you hire a wedding photographer, you buy a package. The most basic packages include the photographer showing up to the event, and a reasonably-sized copy of every good photo taken at the event. Other packages include more and more copies of prints of various sizes. This is how they make their money. My photographer offers many different kinds of prints, from archival-ink digital prints (photoshop-edited for redeye, etc) to hand-painted color on B&W prints on canvas.

Most photographers these days don't even do their own developing, and they're probably not making very much money off of those copies, either. But think. A lucky photographer does one wedding per week. At a basic price of $700-800 per wedding (for a good photographer), that's NOT very much money. Let them have their IP, enter the photos of you in any contest they want to enter, or at least don't bitch when you have to pay extra to have them sell it to you. You coders out there (I'm one of you) can't REALLY expect me to believe that you delete all backups of a project that you sell off.

Re:The *customer* is right

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea what you're talking about. There is most certainly a difference between a professionally developed print and a cheap inkjet print.

Re:The *customer* is right

[The_Rook]

not trying to take sides, but this is similar to the argument big media companies make. that they pay for creating the music or the film and therefore should have control and the resulting profits. the music industry in particular wants to treat music as "work for hire".

or to put it another way; creating music is the hard part for which the performers should be getting a fixed fee. once the music is recorded, why should the record company constantly pay an additional fee for each copy?

of course, the record companies' argument breaks down because the record companies expect the performers to pay for promotion, production, and distribution costs. these costs would not be born by the performers at all in a true work for hire arrangement. however, performing artists have traditionally fought being treated as workers for hire, probably because they ultimatly want a share of the big profits the record companies see from a successful recording. it may be ironic that many performers might actually make more money under a work for hire arrangement simply because the record companies couldn't make them pay for all the costs associated with promoting a distributing a recording out of their royalties.

Re:The *customer* is right

[WNight]

Look at the results of a $500 inkjet, one of Canon's six-color ones, or a high-end Epson. With the picture behind glass (so the type of paper used is harder to see) you can't tell the difference. (Unless it's a big print and the source pic was down with MF film or something.)

Re:The *customer* is right

[jsac]

In principle your position is reasonable, but if I were a photographer, I would charge you an arm, a leg, and an ear for the "service". The reason is simple: under the old model, my profit margin is distributed among you, your guests, and your relatives, which means that my cost to you can be much lower. If I'm going to hand the negatives, a high-quality Photo CD, and the copyrights over to you to do as you please, I'm going to price that much higher and make all my money up front (and good luck to you recouping from your family!)-- which is what the photographer in the article wanted to do. The "price" of the IP is all the profits I'd lose when I couldn't convert it to extra sales, contest winnings, or gallery shows.

Re:The *customer* is right

[WNight]

When I got married I simply wouldn't accept not getting the negatives. I told a few photographers to take a hike when they got uppity about 'artistic integrity' or some other bunk reason for not giving me the originals. (In this case, digital.)

After about five calls I found one who would shoot in digital (Canon 1D) and give me the originals. He was twice the price of anyone else, but cheaper (in the end) than it would have cost going with someone who expected to have a monopoly on producing my wedding prints.

One photographer in that group of five understood that business models could change and found a niche for himself. Will the rest of the industry go the way of the RIAA and MPAA, luddits keeping everyone in the dark ages?

It would be one thing if photographers kept partial copyright, the right to reproduce for a portfolio or something, but for them to claim full rights to a picture of you, that you paid for them to take? They're dreaming.

I paid extra for the original files because I wanted to support a better business model, and because I wanted higher quality than I could get by scanning them. But I'd have copied them without a moments thought if it were the only way I could get electronic copies. Copyright makes no sense in these circumstances and I refuse to play along.

Re:The *customer* is right

[dhogaza]

Fine if you're satisfied with the quality. Note, though, that the traditional medium photographic equipment used by traditional wedding shooters absolutely kicks ass when it comes to large prints.

You're saying you'd be satisified with scans of prints if you couldn't get the original files. Again, if you're satisfied with that quality, no problem.

But the fact is that the medium format shooter provides a higher quality product (from a technological point of view, her shooting skills may be better, worse, or identical to your 1D shooter) and for those who want large enlargements of the wall-hanging variety the difference is easily detectable.

Re:The *customer* is right

[kirkjobsluder]

The problem here is that the photographer is trying to charge for the wrong part of the work. The photographer is trying to charge high prices for the easy part of the work - making copies - and keep prices low for the hard part of the work - setting up a good pose with good lighting and a good background - because the technology used to allow this pricing model.

I think this is a major misconception in this discussion. Perhaps we're all spoiled by one-hour photo places but the production of a good quality print from a negative requires quite a bit more time than just feeding the negative through a machine. Quality print making is a craft and at the higher levels an art in and of itself. Setting up the shots is the easy part, creating prints that don't look like they came out a photo booth requires about twice as much time as is usually spent in the studio. This is usually why the second step in professional photography involves showing the customer a low quality proof sheet and you pay for the prints. One of the reasons why I never really pursued photography was because I spent hours watching my grandfather obsess over every little quirk in the lighting, texture, tone, and color of every print he produced. Too much picky little detail for my blood. (Besides which, my abilities as a visual designer extend just far enough to appreciate good from bad.)

I paid for your expertise at arranging the shots, not your abiltiy to make copies of pictures.

In which case, then certainly I respect your right to hire a photographer to only come in and set up the shots, and hand over the negatives at the end of the day. If I was that photographer I would make certain that you signed away the right to gripe about the quality of any prints that you make from the negative. Complaining that the photographer charges the most money for the part of the process the requires the most work, and perhaps contributes the most to the quality of the final product seems a bit absurd to me.

On the other hand, I suspect the most good professional photographers if given such a request would say that you don't need a professional photographer, you just need your brother Joe and a caseload of film.

Re:The *customer* is right

[Moofie]

I'm willing to pay tradesman's wages ($35-50/hr) for the amount of time a photographer spends on my wedding. I am NOT interested in letting him lose/destroy the negatives of an important event in my life.

If you've already signed the contract with the photographer, you're SOL. However, I will not give money to a photographer who won't give me the original media.

He's absolutely welcome to reproduce those images in his portfolio, or frankly for just about any purpose he might want. But I will not allow anybody else to be responsible for preserving the originals.

(My parents' wedding photo negatives were destroyed in a fire at the photographer's. Guess he didn't believe in fire safes.)

Re:The *customer* is right

[Anonymous Coward]

The resulting photographs should be supplied at close to actual cost, because that isn't the hard part of this.

What part of your last brake job was "supplied at close to actual cost".

Re:The *customer* is right

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have the problem of the photographer charging me for prints. As a part of his service he didn't make an album of proofs, he just handed me the proofs.

If i want a print of them i can scan them at hi-res and have them printed by an online-digiphoto printer for much less.

You must have had an unusual photographer. Most give small proofs, usually with the word proof across some part of the image.

Re:The *customer* is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Having just gotten married, and paid well for my photographer, I can understand the sentiment here. I'm an amateur photographer, and wanted the ability to do my own prints, but after researching, my wife and I found that NO GOOD PHOTOGRAPHER will ever give /sell you the negatives. We had to beg our photographer to sell us our negatives after a 5-year (or possibly more) wait. I'm cool with that, since I really just wanted to have them in case our kids someday want to reprint things (which I did for my parents back on their 25th anniversary).

Actually that's not really needed. My wife came across some of her folks' wedding photos, 8x10 or larger. They'd been stored for years in a garage and had gotten damp and watermarked. A competent photographer was able to clean them up and reprint from them. The result, though somewhat (but not overly) expensive, looks great. I can't imagine anyone but a real pro being able to distinguish them from the originals.

Re:The *customer* is right

[NeMon'ess]

I'm assuming you're also paying for development and scanning if you're not going digital, or you'll have a laptop at the wedding for the pro to upload the photos to? What about paying for the cost of his day? If by tradesman, you lump plumbers or electricians in there, well they can do their job all day and make a number of appointments. Wedding are usually around the same time of day, and a photographer can realistically only attend one each day. Even if the wedding only takes four hours, you should pay for eight or ten.

Re:The *customer* is right

[Moofie]

I could care less about paper. Digital throughout would be fine with me. I also have no issues with the photographer selling albums to my relatives, if they wish to buy professionally assembled ones.

In other words, I am willing to see the photographer compensated for their labor...that's great. But I'm NOT willing to forfeit my rights to their creations, which I hired them to create.

As far as scheduling goes, that's a detail that will be worked out during negotiations. I don't have any problem paying a generous wage to a skilled tradesperson...I just won't tolerate any high-minded ideas about "artistic control". I, as the groom, and as the enforcer for the Ultimate Authority (my hypothetical bride) require the final say on how this deal goes down.

Re:The *customer* is right

[rlk]

Most wedding professionals don't make their own prints in their own darkrooms (it's usually fine art photographers who do that, and a lot of them are moving toward digital). They send it out to a lab, often a lab that specializes in wedding photography and knows exactly what to do. Hand-made prints do indeed cost a lot, but there's no inherent reason why a customer needs to go through an intermediary to do that.

Re:The *customer* is right

[rlk]

35 mm today is probably at least as capable as medium format was 20 years ago, and people were perfectly satisfied with medium format back then. How many people really care about a 16x20 enlargement of a wedding shot, anyway? I've made numerous 16x24's and some 20x30's from 35mm (the latter, believe it or not, was from ISO 800 film, and my best 16x24 was from ISO 400 film with a Tamrom 28-200, hand held -- not the world's sharpest lens), and while they certainly aren't tack sharp, they're perfectly good when viewed from more than a foot or two away. These shots were taken about 5 years ago, and film has improved since then.

Besides which, the prevailing wisdom is that portraits of women are best done with a soft filter, anyway (I absolutely hate to sound sexist like that, but the cultural norm is that any roughness on a woman's skin is bad, while on a man, it's if anything desirable). A lot of wedding photographers go further and use fog filters for a really dreamy look. Granted, there's a very real difference between out of focus and a soft filter -- a soft filter will give a perfectly sharp print, but with a halo surrounding the highlights.

I'm not entirely convinced that 6 Mp is really enough yet, although Canon's coming out with the EOS 1Ds very soon, which will have 11 Mp. However, it's probably good enough for most purposes. Keep in mind that a digital camera, or fast 35 mm camera (such as the EOS 1V, the film version of the same platform that the 1D is based on) is a lot more lithe than a medium format rig. This is nothing to sneer at; the shot that was taken is always better than the one that was missed.

Re:The *customer* is right

[Anonymous Coward]

After about five calls I found one who would shoot in digital (Canon 1D) and give me the originals. He was twice the price of anyone else, but cheaper (in the end) than it would have cost going with someone who expected to have a monopoly on producing my wedding prints.

This is the right thing to do, I think. Any reasonable photographer should be willing to give you the originals for a price. And it seems to me a bit more gracious to give your friends and family the prints yourself rather than having them buy them from a third party, effectively making your guests subsidize your wedding photography. A wedding shouldn't be a commercial transaction....

Re:The *customer* is right

[meta-monkey]

There is a huge, huge difference. Visit a pro photo lab (I mean the one the professionals go to...not Eckerd's) and ask to see their Fuji Frontier machine. They cost about $100,000, singnificantly more than your inkjet printer. There are three main differences between the frontier machine and your inkjet job:

1) True RGB color correction. The printer and the digital source (computer) are precisely calibrated to give you the exact color out of the printer that the image on the screen shows
2) Acid-free photo paper. The "printer photo paper" you buy at Office Max is not the same thing. Combined with the crappy ink you use, it'll fade in a year. See part three...
3) Permanent photo ink. The ink they use in your inkjet printer is also cheap garbage. Again, print your photo on crappy paper with your crappy ink, and it'll be faded to nothing in a year

Re:The *customer* is right

[meta-monkey]

Try 40 hours of labor.

Initial consult with bride/tour of wedding site: 5 hours
Day of the event: 8 hours. Photos usually start while the bride and groom are getting ready, and extend to the reception
Editing/retouching/color-correcting: 10 hours
Reviewing the proofs with the bride: 5 hours
Designing/sizing/croping/populating album: 12 hours

Oh, and it's skilled labor that requires years of training and experience, and equipment that costs in the tens of thousands of dollars.

Re:The *customer* is right

[WNight]

I'm satisfied with the quality of digital pictures because I don't want anything over 8x10 really and considering most don't shoot MF unless you're really paying a lot, that's about all I'd get from 35mm film. The 8x10s I've seen from (a nice) digital are better than film in many cases.

As for the scans/copies of the files... I didn't say I'd be happy with them. I *will* email pics to my friends and post them on my webpage. I'd rather get the raw output of the camera (I did) but if I didn't, I'd scan proofs if I needed. It's my day and my money, as far as my morals are concerned I own those pictures.

Re:The *customer* is right

[WNight]

And on a 5x7 or 8x10, behind glass from at least 25cm away, this difference is obvious how?

I freely admit that expensive machines can produce better output, but in the sizes that are covered by consumer printers, the differences aren't so pronounced as to make the cheap output unattractive when you're not specifically looking for flaws.

I've also seen accelerated aging results where pictures were exposed to 10-20 times stronger light than they'd get in a house, including UV. The standard ink-jet prints fade fairly quickly as you say, but the 'long-lasting' ones do quite well, 5-10 years of simulated lifespan at a minimum.

Not perfect, but it's a good budget choice.

If it comes down to be having my favorite 15 wedding pictures printed professionally and no access to the rest, or me having 10 printed professionally and running off copies of the rest as I see fit, after viewing them on the monitor whenever I want, I'll take the latter choice.

Re:The *customer* is right

[meta-monkey]

Fine, but if you want an album that's going to last for forty years, you better get your photos professionally printed.

Re:The *customer* is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Ultimately, it's irrelevant what the equipment costs, how long it takes somebody to do it, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. If they aren't making money doing what they're doing, they need to charge more. Some random photographer claiming carte blanche on MY memories (and MY likeness, which they benefit from multiple times over, because they can "put it in their portfolio" or "enter it in contests") deserves nothing of my money. When I pay a photographer to take photos of me, I OWN THOSE PHOTOS. Whether the copyright office or the photographer agrees is irrelevant to me. I will make as many copies as I want in as high a quality as I want, as is my RIGHT to do so when I PURCHASE a set of photographs.

Re:The *customer* is right

[meta-monkey]

Fine. My point is, expect to pay more for those photos, then. The old business model is:

1) Bride and groom pay photographer $1,000 for his/her time to consult, take photos, and prep/edit them for printing
2) Bride and groom then pay photographer $500 for prints/album
3) family members pay photographer $500 for reprints/enlargements

New business model:

1) bride and groom pay photographer $2,000 and do whatever they want to with the high-res digital images.

Re:The photographer is right... so what is right?

[mangu]

I think you have a point there. The reason why there are such things as copyrights and patents is to give people an incentive to share the results of their intellectual work with others. When people or corporations start to keep that work secret, the reason for the existence of copyrights die.

Moving from photographs to video, think of what will happen in the distant future, when our DVD players work no more. Historians will have no way of recovering the images stored there, because the secret of decoding them will be lost, thanks to the DMCA. That's not the intent of copyrights, as spelled in the US Constitution. If you have the means to keep your work secret, you have no needs for either copyrights or patents. These exist solely to give you an incentive to share your work with the whole world.

I've had Intellectual Property problems

[The Analog Kid]

People have uploaded Quake 3 based .maps and have altered the zip. They only uploaded the pk3 with out the readmen, when the readme states that you must include it, when distributing. Someone could be taken to court for that. There was also someone I know would won a court battle against someone for stealing images, the defendent's case was that there was no copywrite, but indeed there is always intellectural property rights.

What a load of rubbish

[HuskyDog]

Having a digital camera doesn't suddenly embue you with the ability to take great photos. No matter what your camera, lots of professional photography needs special equipment (macro lenses, tripods, studio lights, backdrops etc) and trainings. Digital cameras make it a bit easier to get the exposure right, but composition, depth of field, capturing the feel of movement (e.g. running water) all need ability, practice and probably training. There may be fewer professional photographers in the future, but they're not going to be as rare as professional artists.

And as for using digital rather than film for realy important photos, I'll stick with film for now. The photos of my wedding in March are on film and there is thus a good chance that my grandchildren will be able to figure out a way to look at them. Putting them onto the web was no problem as I have a film scsnner. If my parents wedding photos were on punched tape I think that I would struggle to see anything at all.

Re:What a load of rubbish

[mgscheue]

Absulutely right. Someone who takes crappy pictures with a film camera is going to take equally crappy pictures with a digital camera, and anyone with a web browser has certainly seen plenty of crappy digital pictures. It's not all about equipment. It's like thinking you'll be Michael Schumacher if you go out and buy a Ferrari.

This is what you get when aesthetic principles are

[hackwrench]

specialized... I almost said abandoned, but they still exist among certain specialties... She uses aesthetic principles to set up her shot. It wouldn't be such hard work if everyone were taught aesthetic principles but they aren't and so we have people who think that they aren't hired to do work so that other people don't have to do it... instead, they think they are the only people who can do it.

Something's wrong...

[Oren Sarig]

The photographer would indeed have owned the copyright the photograph itself if the couple had hired her to produce copies of photographs from the wedding. But I would assume that a couple would pay a photographer for the photographs themselves, not the copies, and therefor the copyright would belong to the -couple- and not the photographer, and the photographer would have to oblige to the couple's requests. It is not reasonable for a photographer to have the copyright over pictures they were hired to take, any more than it is reasonable for a programmer to have the copyright over the code he was hired to write...

Quit whining

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should have found out all this before the wedding. Find a photographer who'll (charge more and) let you keep the negatives. Then you can make more prints yourself or have them scanned and make high-resolution copies.

However, if you're only showing them to your friends on a computer monitor you only need 1600x1200 scans (at most, probably 1280x1024 or 1024x768) and you can get this level of quality from a decent flatbed scan from the print. There's very little sense in complaining you don't have the highest quality scan when it doesn't make any difference to what you're going to do with it.

More photog weirdness

[sakusha]

As a Fine Art photographer, this situation doesn't affect me much, since my prints are made with antique processes and nobody would ever consider a digital reproduction as anywhere close to the quality of my original prints. But occasionally I do run into a complete idiot photog. I recently had to have a portrait done for a Japanese resume, which is not much more than a passport photo. Wwhen I told the photog the picture would be republished in a book of resumes, he said that was prohibited, he would not allow reproduction rights without an extra fee. I told him I would use a different photographer. Oh if only I could take my OWN picture.

Re:More photog weirdness

[bbtom]

"Oh if only I could take my OWN picture."

Why not? Check out Bill Brandt's "Self Portrait" in black and white (1966). That's how you do a self portrait!!

Re:More photog weirdness

[sakusha]

Yeah, sure I can take my own picture, but not for a formal portrait with specific formatting requirements. And you just can NOT take your own picture right, even with a remote shutter release. You just can't capture the right facial expression, not even with a mirror. I could bore you with a long psych paper I read about how this works, but suffice to say, you just can't take your own picture if you give half a damn about how you look in the pic.

Re:More photog weirdness

[bbtom]

No, I wasn't being serious - it was just a good excuse to post a link to a brilliant Bill Brandt picture!

Re:More photog weirdness

[sakusha]

No excuses needed, I love Bill Brandt.

Some good photographers have already adapted

[agravaine]

This was something my wife and I were very concerned with when selecting our photographer, and it is the reason we eventually settled on hiring from The Wedding Bureau: their photographers are mostly (maybe all) professional photojournalists who do weddings/special events for extra money. All they do is take the pictures. If you want, they will give you the negatives at the end of the evening. If you prefer, for a lower price, they will hand over the negatives to the bureau, which build your albums & sell you individual prints, but you still get the negatives after 18 months.

I cannot reccomend these guys highly enough; they were completely professional from beginning to end, and the quality of the photographers they employ is phenomenal.

Here's two important wedding photo tips: (from recent personal experience :^)

• Even if you hire a photographer for his labor and buy the rights to the negatives, by all means let the professional get the proofs developed for you, even if you think their price for this service is unreasonable. Contrary to popular belief, photo developing is an art, not a science, and a good photographer will know where to send his negatives to get the very best prints, because his business depends on it. When my wife and I got our proofs (and negatives) from our photographer, we were very happy with the results; the pictures were sharp, colors were great, exposures were just right, everything. Then we took some of our favorite pictures to the "upscale" neighborhood photo place to make big prints for the family. The prints *sucked*; they were too green, the contrast was uneven, and they were nowhere near as sharp as the proofs we got. To make along story short, we tried 9 different developers before we found a boutique developing lab (mostly used by low-volume professional photographers) who was able to print our prints almost as well as whoever did our original proofs. (The original lab was in south florida, 600 miles away, or we would have used them.) So: before you sink a lot of money on prints of those valuable photos, ask local photographers where they take their work, and do experiments - print the same negative at multiple stores - you will be utterly amazed how much difference there is between one place and another.
• At first, places like the wedding bureau (who will charge you for the labor and give you the negatives) seem way more expensive than "traditional" photographers, but this is an illusion: before you decide you can't afford it, insist on a *full* price list from the traditional photographer, figure out a lower bound on how many prints you think you will want, and use this to figure out their true price. At the boutique lab we settled on, we can get new 8x10 prints of our favorite pictures for about $5 each (yes, this is *cheaper* than Wal-mart, etc. - go figure) -- the traditional wedding photographer will often want $50-$100 for each 8x10 - that adds up *fast*.

The real problem

[jackbang]

This isn't a story about the demise of photographers, it's a story about one person's failure to plan ahead and negotiate a suitable contract.

If I'm hired by a company as a freelancer to write code on a project, we have a contract that outlines the benefits and rights for both parties - generally that I get paid and that they own the copyright to any work I do. If I'm not comfortable with their terms, I can refuse the job.

If you want a photographer who will give you digital copies of the pictures on a CD and give up any rights to those images, make it clear when interviewing potential photographers that this is one of your requirements. They have the right to say no or charge you accordingly, and you have the right to insist on finding someone who agrees to your terms.

Interesting little tidbit about PressPlay

[jswitte]

An interesting little tidbit I read somewhere was that while there is a (legal) quota of CD burning allowed for a PressPlay subscription, you can purchase additional tracks for a buck a piece. The article (I forget where) mentioned that no one has been mentioning this, mainly because if people knew it, the bottom would fall out of the *record shop* owners bussiness (not just the RIAA). It also mentioned the BMG expects to have their entire catalog available online by next year.

Whether this is true or not, I have no idea. Whether $1 per track plus a $15 subscription fee is fair is a matter of opinion (I think not: 75 cents per track plus a $5 subscription is more to my liking). No it's not Napster, because PressPlay still doesn't have *everything* out there (no service ever will until they get their heads out of the sand and see that they're not competing *against* each other, but against Kazaa et al. - not to mention some possible changes to antitrust laws happen) Not that I'm siding with PressPlay. But the fact that no one is really talking about the fact that you are not in fact restricted to a finite number of "unrestricted" downloads (for a price of course) is interteresting..

Evolve or perish

[kiwiguy286]

The article is flawed in the arguement that the 'art' is setting up the shot, and having other people 'steal' it with their digital cameras. The art is in the use of the camera, not so much the scence. A professional and amateur can be standing at the same place at the same time and the shots will look very different. Think of the landscape photographer, they setup the shot through the camera, not by moving the landscape! Also there will always be a market for professional wedding photographers - greater than or equal to the number of weddings held every weekend. Since I am looking for a wedding photographer right now, I can tell you they are booked a year in advance and charging $2,000 to $5,000+ for a package. I don't think they are starving. Photography is one area you don't want to go cheap, since the images will be a lasting memory. I'm paying for the photographers time, the use of their equipment, and their skill at using a camera. Charge me what is reasonable to make a living, don't try to make it up with reprints. I believe the photographer should give you the negatives, if not immediately, then no more than 6 months after the wedding. What happens if you need reprints several years later, and the person goes out of business? The Professional Photographer will always be need, they just need to get with the times!

A Fork in the Road

[captaineo]

One thing this article clearly shows is the polar opposite viewpoints that people tend to take - the "enlightened" let's-find-a-way-to-benefit-from-new-technology view (exemplified by the narrator) and the "backward" let's-keep-things-the-way-they've-always-been view (the photographer). I bet she'd love to hear about Microsoft's upcoming ubiquitous DRM system. ("you mean you can send out a file that can't be copied more than once? And they have to buy it again if their computer crashes? Awesome!")

Unfortunately the "backward" side seems to be winning. Look at DVDs - DVD video could have been specified in a neutral video format that would play on any player, anywhere in the world. But the MPAA film studios didn't feel like re-negotiating all of their exclusive regional distribution contracts, so they slapped on the Region Coding system. So we have regressed - there are now MORE barriers to international video distribution than the simple NTSC/PAL dichotomy of the analog world.

And since more barriers always benefit the producer, and the producers have Congress in their pockets, it's going to get worse...

question...

[tralfamador]

ok, i haven't given this that much thought, and frankly i don't care much if i was wrong in doing it, but i want a collection of opinions...

i went to a wedding. i got my picture taken with my date. i ordered a print from the photographer's website ($35+shipping). liked it, didn't like the size. went to a store to enlarge at do-it-yourself kodak thingy. employee approaches me when i attempt to scan and points to sign saying if i didn't take the pic, i can't copy it because they would be liable. i argue. she persists. i tell her she just lost 10 bucks. go to kinkos and look at their sign which states the person who copies is liable. i nod my head and make my enlargements. i send enlargement to my date and keep one for myself.

thoughts?

"The key is ... that new professions will arise"

[Anonymous Coward]

The key is to remember that new professions will arise. [...] The technological changes that led to the demise of one profession opened up many other professions demanding equal or greater creativity. So it will be this time as well.

I was generally in agreement up to this point. You're saying that talented amateurs with cheap digital cameras will be the ones squeezing out the pros, so if you're right, there will be no new profession to replace the old. The analogy with portrait-painters fails on this point.

Not that digital tech doesn't open up some new opportunities in other realms, but it sounds like those in the image-capturing biz are out of luck.

Open Art photography

[chris_7d0h]

I agree with the author when he says that photographers will either have to adapt or become near extinct. However, I also understand the reasons for why the hired photographer would not let him have the negative. The latter is as others have pointed out that her business model is based on keeping the negatives private and if she gave the negative away she would probably suffer rather much financially.

What is a bit interesting though is that I assume competition in the "photography business" is rather tough and as such, I'd see a rather sweet business opportunity where "open art" photographers could create a niche and step by step take over most of the professional photography. If people want the "source" (negative), then they'd turn to an open art photographer. I'd be the first in line when need arise, as I'd like to have access to the highest quality images which I could use and distribute however, and to whomever I choose whenever I wanted to. Having printouts isn't enough for me and as such the first section in the yellow pages I'd look at would be the future section "Open art photography".

Not quite the same.

[dmaxwell]

The musicians had a body of work that was theirs BEFORE the label contract came on the scene. I read something Frank Zappa said once to the effect that there is no canonical versions of any his songs, only particular recordings and performances. He didn't just fight Warner Bros. for his master tapes but for the music he composed while in their stable. I would grant that the label owning the copyrights for particular recordings they had paid for being fair. It's just like getting paid to play a private party. The band, on the other hand, would still have the copyrights to the sheet music itself. They can perform and record their songs elsewhere even if the relationship with a label goes bad. Alas, no record company behaves so fairly. They want to own the whole enchilada and not only be able to fire a band but to lock them out of their life's work in the process AND be able to bleed them financially white for that last drop of profit once they aren't "big" anymore. I have a feeling Rosen likes the idea of used up boy bands working fast food just as much we do...doesn't make it fair though.

Nothing so dastardly is being proposed for wedding photographers.

In the case of a wedding photographer, his technique is not the whole art of it. The subjects of the art are paying to record a deeply personal moment....one I would not suffer to let someone else own in any way. I would allow the photographer license to use the photos for promotional purposes or whatever other fair uses go into running his business. I'll cheerfully let them have the use of the photos. I simply won't allow one to own a part of my life. The musicians should not allow record companies to own parts of theirs.

Pro Photographers aren't going away...

[sterno]

The fact of the matter is that technology isn't going to eliminate the value of professional photographers in certain situations, most particularly weddings. While you may get married more than once during your lifetime, the fact of the matter is that each unique wedding event, only happens once. The reason you hire a professional photographer is that the photographer provides an insurance that you'll have one good set of photos to look back at with the grandkids. Whether they are taking digital or analog photos, it's their ability to provide consistent quality that you pay for.

If it turns out that due to digital piracy, photographers find themselves unable to charge for prints, then they'll end up providing originals, and charging more up front instead of charging for printing. In the end they'll end up getting the same amount of money, they'll just get it all at once instead of getting it spaced out over time. People will pay it because the service provided is worthwhile.

Re:Pro Photographers aren't going away...

[WNight]

That's fair. What people want is for them to come, take pictures, provide negatives or original files, and leave. If you want prints you can get them done, either through that photographer or someone else, at a market price.

All technology (digital cameras and picture viewers) does is show how dead their business model is. Many photographers charge per pictures taken, even if they take eight on motor-drive of the same pose. That might have made sense when there were film costs, but now that each picture is essentially free, how is it justified? Photographers used to make the prints because a consumer simply couldn't duplicate a picture without professional help. Now you can send a picture to grandma with a scanner, or by sending the original file. If grandma wants prints she can make them instead of you having them done here and mailed (carefully) to her.

Technology has changed the profession. It hasn't eliminated the skill aspects but it is starting to cut into the technologial gap. (Now if only someone would hurry and invent Asimov's AnOpticon, the light-bending, no lens, technology...) People who really have skill to sell with appreciate it, their skill will be obvious if their tools are the same as yours, but it'll put a lot of hacks out of work, people who are just selling access to their expensive tools.

oh yeah --

[beavmetal]

If congress and corporation have thier way, people who do not get married will be liable to wedding photographers for not providing business.

Reality check

[nivedita]

Some points:

• The first and most important point: when you sign up with a wedding photographer, you enter a contract, and 99% of the time, it will say that the photographer owns the negs and the photos. /. readers may think they know more about professional photography as a business than the guys/gals who make a living doing it, but don't they at least believe in the free market? If you want a different contract, negotiate it up front!
• This guy says he wants digital photos to view on the computer and to send to friends/relatives, for them to view on computer, and doesn't want prints; and then complains he isn't going to get the highest quality digital images? Why do you need a drum scan of a 6x6 neg when all you want to do is look at a (max)1600x1200 image on the screen?
• He thinks the photos from his digicam are better than those he can take with an SLR? You need to spend at least a grand on a digicam before you will approach the quality of a $300-$400 SLR. The advantages of digital have nothing to do with quality of the image - it's more immediate, it's the route you want to go if you want pictures on your computer, but it is not the way to get photographs that look better.
• He seems to think that 5mp digicams are closing the gap between amateur photography and professional wedding photographers - has he actually looked at the prints? There's a reason why professional cameras and lenses cost as much as they do: there is much more of a quality difference than between a walmart pc and your uber gaming box. Another post gives some figures about camera and lens costs that are grossly underestimated, btw: medium format lenses will set you back 1-1.5k$ each, and those are the cheaper ones.
• He compares software to photographs, but omits a crucial detail: even the mediocre software professional is making $50k plus per year, probably more. Even if a wedding photographer shoots a wedding a week, he'd have to make a profit of $1000 per wedding to match that, and he has a much higher capital and material cost. Would you seriously pay more than $1500 for a CD of your wedding from a mediocre photographer?
• For those of you planning to make prints from negatives that you buy from your photographer: you should consider that to get prints comparable to those in your album, you will pay a minimum of $10-$20 per print: the prints that a wedding photographer gives you don't come from Walmart.
• Professional photographs cost serious money: it's generally accepted that if a magazine loses someone's original slide, for eg, that it will cough up about 1.5k$ as the going rate.

or you can find a friendlier photographer

[leabre]

I'm getting married soon and we looked at various photographers and the quality of their photographs and in particular whether or not we get the negatives and proofs. Most of them don't. However, the best photographer (meaning best with candid shots, lighting, scenery, posing and so on) also gives the negatives away with a written notice that they can be duplicated and will accept phone calls to any photo shop that has questions. She will also digitize them and provide them on a CD if we choose.

I don't see the problem. I've only been looking at a few photographers but when you are specifically looking for one who will give away the negatives (at no extra cost -- and the total cost being competitive with any other photographer) you'd be surprised how easy they are to find. It's only a matter of whether you like the quality of the work.

Some photographers choose to make money from their reprints and that's their business model. Others aren't in it for the money and seem to make more of it and would rather suit the customer's needs and not view the customers photo and the photographers "intellectual property". Well, those are the photographers I choose to do business with.

All you have to do is ask "do I get to keep the negatives". Yes or no. If no, "thank you for your time but we'll keep looking for another photographer that does". If yes, then view the quality of their work.

It's simple.

Thanks,
Me

Future of photography

[smallpaul]

The author posits that fifty years from now there will be a drastic reduction in the number of photographers per town because digital cameras will democratize picture taking so much. I think that he is deeply confused about what photographers do. Photographers do things like lighting, composition and framing that have nothing to do with the particular technology available. Sure, in the future photographers will charge for their services rather than for physical prints. But that will only emphasize the specialized nature of those services. Perhaps wedding photographers will be squeezed by those who think that Uncle Bill can do it but there are many sub-specialties of photography. Even in the world of wedding photographers there is an even chance that people will continue to prefer professional composition and lighting to "taking your chances" with whatever the guests take.

Portrait artists didn't go out of business. The business evolved into photographic portraiture. Now the analog business will evolve into the digital one. The skill of capturing the moment will not be dispersed any better through the evolution of technology.

Re:Future of photography

[TheSync]

My experience

1) Wedding photographers are generally not quality photograhic artists if you are paying less than $2000 for a wedding shoot. Your buddies with megapixel cameras may be just as good, at least they can see the true lighting effects in real time.

2) True photographic artists will make you look great, and they don't sell negatives...

My wedding photographer sucked bad. My wife and I did a reshoot of just us a month later with a real photographic artist, and the pictures are amazing.

Re:Future of photography

[smallpaul]

2) True photographic artists will make you look great, and they don't sell negatives...

The point is that in the future they will probably sell you the "digtal negatives" because customers will want the digital form more than the wedding album so that they can share their pictures with people who live far away.

What happened to "Works for hire"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought copyright would belong to the customer/employer, not the artist.
Seems like a much more equitable arangement here than in the case of those music-industry contacts.

I don't think it's their "property" to begin with

[grishnav]

I don't think the photographs have a right to claim it's their property to begin with. They are paid for their work, no different than paying a programmer to produce a custom piece of software. Sure, intellectually they produced it, but they produced it for a profit, and it belongs to the people who paid them that profit.

Former Photog, here...

[BenEnglishAtHome]

...and, boy, does this one piss me off.

The situation here is no different than it was 20 years ago, despite what the source site says. 20 years ago, photographers had to deal with snapshooters and their little cameras flashing away, ultimately creating prints that would compete against the pro's work. Today, digital cameras are used the same way.

As a young photog, I learned fast. At my first wedding, a dozen people would jump in front of me everytime I got a pose set up. They'd flash away, grin at me sheepishly, and then act like they were doing me a favor by letting me shoot the wedding that I had been hired to cover. When I delivered the proofs, the groom actually had the audacity to say that they wouldn't pick out any pictures until all the film shot by their friends came back from the drugstore; they wanted a chance to pick out the best shots.

Naturally, they bought mine because I knew what I was doing and my shots were better. But that's not the point.

Here's the point: From then on, all my contracts for wedding photography specified that absolutely no one besides me was allowed to perform any photography while I was on site. If they just wanted me to shoot formal shots at the church and then turn their friends loose at the reception, that was fine. But if I was shooting, I was shooting exclusively. The ability to sell not only an 8X10 album to the bride and groom but also a couple of proof albums to the sets of parents was the difference between profitability and poverty. I'll wager it still is.

If I were doing this gig today, I'd establish a minimum order at contract-signing time. I'd make sure that the bride and groom knew it was their responsibility to see to it that *no* amateur photography happens on the wedding day. I'd provide them, gratis, with inserts to go in the invitations (I used to use very nice engraved ones, frequently of higher quality than the invitations themselves) cautioning guests that no cameras were allowed. I'd make sure that the bride, groom, their parents, and anyone else paying money to me understood that they would only get one warning during the wedding - if there were two attempts by amateurs to shoot the wedding at the same time as me, I would walk off the job and their (minimum) $500 deposit would be forfeited. After the wedding, I'd use a projector to show my digital proofs in all their high resolution glory. I'd provide all the albums ordered in record time and every recipient would be awestuck with how stunning the photographs are. And then, finally, I'd do what I used to do for my clients - on their first anniversary, I'd call and offer them the negatives (or, in this day and age, the CDs), along with all rights, at a very reasonable rate.

Photographers decades ago *never* sold their negatives unless they got a hell of a huge price for them. Photographers today should *never* sell their negatives or high-quality scanned digital files unless they get a hell of a huge price for them. And any potential client who wants to nickel and dime you out of any potential re-order business should be shown the door immediately.

PS - Comparisons to the music business are just fine. How would you like to be a musician in the post-intellectual property world who can make a decent living from one particular dance hall where the patrons enjoy your music? Try as you might, you can't find another crowd anywhere else that's interested in the product you produce. But that's ok. It might be fine, making all your money from those live performances. But what happens when the dance-hall owner sets up mikes in front of you, records your work, then tells you that he'll never hire you again to play that dance hall because he can just play back the tape he just made? Respecting people's art and paying for it DOES NOT include trying to figure out ways to cut them out of every dime so you don't have to pay and they can't make a living. Paying for people's art DOES NOT include paying the minimum price for it one time and then freely distributing it to literally 100% of all potential customers. In the real world, that can't be done in the music business because there are too many potential customers. But it certainly can be done in the wedding photo business where the entire market for any one set of work is just a dozen or so people, the bride and groom and their families. In wedding photography, a bride and groom who scan high-quality proofs and deliver them to their friends and family have, in doing so, literally pre-empted every single potential customer a photographer might have. Reasonable intellectual property law DOES NOT include the right of one customer to completely destroy the entire market for a product via unfettered duplication. In the music business, that's the definition of a commercial pirate who dupes a zillion copies and sells them on the street. Didn't we all agree that limited sharing, a la Napster, was good promotion for a song but that commercial, high volume pirates were evil? Well, if that's the case, the groom who scans his proofs and then distributes them to 100% of the market is a high-volume pirate whose rate of success in market penetration and, by extension, theft of legitimate sales exceeds the wildest dreams of any burning shop in China.

No compromises. END IP qjkx

[Anonymous Coward]

All IP needs to be gone. Copyrights and patents. ALL OF IT. No compromises.

Re:I don't think it's their "property" to begin wi

[John Biggabooty]

If you are talking about what would be right in a perfect world, more power to you, but legally, in this world, photographs are the "intellectual property" of the photographer. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, that is the copyright law.

Isn't the point being made moot?

[bgfay]

If need be, can't the bride and groom scan the photos, post them on the web and send friends and family there to view them? Sure the prints aren't great, but the pictures can be scanned well enough for viewing on the computer.

So, in the short term, people get to see the pictures without paying ridiculous reprint fees (yes, that's my opinion of the payment system) and the photographer gets zero business for it.

In the medium run, wouldn't it make more sense for photographers to offer to pricing plans: the traditional one where their services are very cheap and prints are expensive, and a second where the service is very expensive (as it should be for any professional or artist) and the prints are provided on CD for the customer to duplicate?

In the long run, I agree with the article, consumers will demand and get open source photos much in the same way we are currently demanding cheaper music and software. If the market does not respond, the consumers will work around them just as they do now with Bearshare for downloading music and software. Right now, people go along with the photographers' system because they haven't imagined the alternative. All it takes is a Napster to come along and change the way people view a system. Then things start changing.

Re:Isn't the point being made moot?

[Misch]

If need be, can't the bride and groom scan the photos, post them on the web and send friends and family there to view them? Sure the prints aren't great, but the pictures can be scanned well enough for viewing on the computer.

Sure you can. I know that with any scanner, I can scan in just about any image that I want to. The real question is, do I have the right to? If I own the copyrights to the photos, then hells yes I can!

Of corse, it's the acquiring of copyright that is going to take a bit more work and money. Like with a CD, you don't get that by default. Should you? That's a whole different question.

Moot anyhow

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking H1B visa workers will take her job anyhow.

Re:I don't think it's their "property" to begin wi

[grishnav]

It's not copyright law if it's in your contract that their work becomes yours. :) If it were, each one of Microsoft's Windows programmers would have IP rights to their portion of the OS. Microsoft should be paying royalties to each of the programmers for each copy of Windows sold. But they aren't. Instead, they are sending them a paycheck. Microsoft specified that the code produce was work for hire. A photographer is no different than that to me. You are paying them to perform a service with the end result of creating a product which I not they own the rights to. I am hiring them to create their art for me, with the end result of me acquiring the rights to reproduce. Unless, of course, I didn't bother to read the contract, and got screwed over. :)

Recursive royalty?

[mangu]

I paid you once to take my picture, now my mother-in-law has to pay you again for the same job? How's that for a recursive payment?

I only think that, if you got paid to take my pictures, the pictures are mine, negatives and all, with no strings attached. Should my mother-in-law want reprints, I will lend her my negatives and she will take them to you to make prints, just like she would do with the pictures she herself took during her vacations. The pictures are MINE, I paid you to for your job, and you said they have no intrinsic value for you, anyhow.

Re:Recursive royalty?

[dhogaza]

Well, no you didn't. You didn't read your contract.

Now, if you can find a wedding photographer willing to work under those terms, more power to you. Start by combing your local homeless shelter for talent if you expect to get far with this approach.

It's nearly impossible to make a living as a photographer. I know, I get $200/hr writing software and might average $200/photo selling to the national magazine and book market. My total investment in computer hardware is a few $K, in photography $30K. When I shoot something, I pay film and processing expenses; when I type a line of code I pay nothing because my hardware stores it for free (digital is slowly getting there for photography but a majority of non-news publishers still require chromes).

Re:Recursive royalty?

[NMerriam]

I will lend her my negatives and she will take them to you to make prints, just like she would do with the pictures she herself took during her vacations.

if you're getting wedding photos done at the same place you get your vacation prints made, i understand why you don't understand dealing with a professional photographer.

The pictures are MINE, I paid you to for your job, and you said they have no intrinsic value for you, anyhow.

You can say that all you like, but the contract with the photographer says differently, and nobody is sneaking this clause in. If you want to negotiate a different deal, go right ahead, but don't expect to find many good photographers willing to sell you negatives for a thousand dollars.

And again, intrinsic value to the photographer has nothing to do with the sale value. I frankly couldn't care less about having a Babe Ruth rookie card, and it's only a fraction of a cent worth of paper and ink, but if I found one i shouldn't have to give it to someone who wants it for free.

Go digital?

[bbtom]

There has been a lot of talk on this thread about digital cameras and digital photography. But really, who needs to go digital, when there are still gems like this floating about? Or maybe if your not so keen on large format, maybe a nice Super Ikonta B folding camera would suit sir? Equivalent to 200 megapixels. Better prints, and more "Wows" than any digital camera on the market...

DEAD SIMPLE

[twitter]

The "no copy" weenies are new. Look at the back of old pictures. Many simply ask for attribution when making coppies, if a studio is marked at all. The very idea is ugly.

It's worse than you think, however. Many of the weenies who don't let you copy the images you buy don't keep your negatives forever. That's right, they throw away your negatives in three to five years. Only you and your desendents will value those pictures, but the garbage man gets the real source. If you find out your photographer did this to you, will you feel cheated? It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. No studio lasts forever. The case is exactly like abandon ware, except it's personal.

Who cares how much money the photographer has, this is a matter of greed, stupidity and incompetence. The article is correct in asserting that the art is in the composition and work done to capture the event, NOT the mechanical copy of the results. Photographers who simply charge what their time is worth up front and then give the results to the person paying it will do better than those that purse their lips at relatives who take their own inferior pictures. That's an honest deal. Dicking people around and trying to keep them from making said inferior coppies is a waste of time that agrivates the client. If the photographer's work is not noticibly better than the relatives, the photographer sucks. Photographers have a right to suck, but no one has to hire them. Those driven out of business might reconsider their business model, do something to showcase their skills, or simply stay out of business. When you hang your sign up and charge people money for your services, you had better know your stuff and please your client. People who please people make money and always will. Those who don't waste their time and other's money.

Re:DEAD SIMPLE

[dhogaza]

Uh ... you're DEAD WRONG, not dead simple (unless you meant "minded").

The pricing model followed in the wedding industry today has been around for decades. It lowers initial costs.

If negatives are given as part of the contract, along with the release that will let you legally print them (don't forget that, kiddies!), then the person who ends up ordering 1000 prints from a lab (not the shooter) will pay the same as the person who orders 100 prints. The photographer will have to charge an average price that will result in the person ordering 100 prints paying more than under the existing system, while the person ordering 1000 prints will get a bargain.

In essence, the current way of doing things scales the cost to the number of prints ordered, which makes a lot of sense to me. It means the couple that only wants a modest number of prints pays less.

Unless, of course, the goal is to turn a business which for most provides a very modest living into a profession which offers so little reward that few will enter it.

Marketing the real scarce commodity

[Trickster Coyote]

Last winter I was involved in a play with a local theatre group. As part of the production, I was taken to a photo studio to have a portrait done for the programme as well as an 8x10 for the display board at the entrance to the auditorium. The photographer used a high end digital camera which gave you the opportunity to select from the proofs immediately after the sitting, or even sit for a few more shots.

I enquired of the producer about keeping my photo from the display board after the run of the show was over. She said that she couldn't do that since the photo studio required the photo to be returned to them. However, the studio advertised to all the cast members that we could buy 8x10 copies of our photos for $50. each (!) I checked at the local supermarket photo dept. and discover that they sell 8x10 prints for less that one tenth of that price.

I began to realize what a scam some photographers run. In addition to charging a sitting fee for their artististic services (in this case about $300.), by retaining possession of the "negative" -- in this case actually just a computer file on a hard drive -- he could force people to pay ten times the open market price for prints.

However, I think this kind of business practice may be starting to disappear. When discussing this situation with a friend, she reported that she had recently attended a wedding trade show and was surprised that quite a few of the photographers promoting themselves there were offering to let the client keep the negatives.

Like some other posters have pointed out, I think photographers need to market the thing they have that truly is a scarce commodity -- that is their skill in lighting and arranging the subjects. Maybe for an additional $50. they will even offer to snap the photos for you. Beyond that, everything else is just add-on sales: making quality prints at a reseaonable price, arranging them in a fancy photo album or packaging the batch of high res photo files on a CD for a service charge.

Re:Marketing the real scarce commodity

[esper_child]

I think when I did work in a supermarket photolab it each 8x10 cost us less than a dollar to make, but we sold them for a lot more. Granted it usually took 2 or 3 to make it have no dust. Personally if I had been in charge of that studio you mentioned I would have let the kids have their 8x10s that is just obnoxious to charge $50 for an 8x10 (I usually go for about 15 depending on the amount of work it took to produce it (sometimes to get a really good print you need to employ some tricks in the dark room that can be VERY time consuming to get just the right photo. And I am a big beleiver in doing things till they look perfect.)

Re:Marketing the real scarce commodity

[dhogaza]

The difference between the $5 8x10 of your photo and the $50 8x10 of the studio's photo is that most likely your photos, for the most part suck while the studio's don't, and the studio will almost certainly be farming out the print to a professional lab that will color balance and otherwise tweak the raw image file before dumping it to paper. In other words their wholesale price will most likely be higher than the retail price at your local supermarket photo department.

And if you're willing to use a $5 8x10 supermarket print as a promo in your portfolio then you must be a low-rent actor, indeed ...

Re:Marketing the real scarce commodity

[Misch]

Oh, speaking of that, did you acquire permission from the set designer and the lighting designer? (And yes, since most shows are sold along with set plans and lighting designs, that means the original set designer, not just the person brought in to build it.) Since it's their artistic work put into the set and lighting, photos of it are representations of their artistic work, so they have contorl over the reproductions of the representations. Copyright's a biatch, ain't it?

Re:Marketing the real scarce commodity

[Trickster Coyote]

The difference between the $5 8x10 of your photo and the $50 8x10 of the studio's photo

Uh, no. We're only talking about one photo here, the one taken by the pro photographer. The diference is between holding onto the negative and forcing the client to pay whatever you demand vs. the client getting the negative and being able to shop around based on price/quality. The pro photographer gets paid for his skill in composing the picture. Certainly a professional lab will do a better job tweaking than a supermarket lab, but it won't require a cost factor of 10X.

if you're willing to use a $5 8x10 supermarket print as a promo in your portfolio

In the 1990's I was involved in professional film acting. The photographer I used for my standard B&W headshots, and who was used by quite a few of the working actors in Vancouver charged $150. That fee included the photo session and 10 8x10 prints. Additional prints could be ordered anytime for $65. per batch of 10.

then you must be a low-rent actor, indeed ...

Except for the fortunate few who make the Hollywood A-list, all actors are low rent.

I read the article

[Anonymous Coward]

and it seems like the "professional photographer" was a jackass (and a bitch) that didn't provide any value added and was bitter that the world didn't owe her a prosperous career doing her hobby for a couple hours a week.

Provide a valueable service at a reasonable price. If your equipment is too expensive to afford a 3 car garage, either sell the Jetta, move to an apartment, do more work, or get a real job. Just because your "bohemian" friends get to sit around all day and soak up their trust fund doesn't mean you're entitled to the same lifestyle. Life isn't fair. If it was, you'd both be working at McDonalds.

Professional Photography is a Luxury Item!

[freeio]

I have to remind my fellow photographers to charge enough for their work. Why? Professional photography is a luxury item, one which no one actually needs, but some people actually want enough to pay for. Think of it: absolutely no one goes hungry (except the professional photographer) if a photograph is not made. It is a luxury.

Think of it: anyone can go to Wal-Mart and buy a rather good single-use camera, and if they are careful, get excellent results. For less than US$20, they can have the camera and double prints, and get the prints back today. Why, then, does anyone go to a professional photographer to have done what they could do themselves? The reason is usually that they realize that they cannot be in the pictures they shoot themselves, and they need someone to do the job for them, preferably someone who has done it enoough before to be sure to get the expected pictures of The Big Event. So we as professional photographers provide a service, and a luxury at that.

Now most of us have changed over from film to digital imaging, and the originals are just jpg files. Why don't we just sell the original files? Well, I have argued with some of the locals that we could do that, but the average person is not prepared to deal with the 500+ multi-megabyte jpg files generated at a simple wedding. The raw files are just that - raw. We typically spend much of a week's time doing the pre-print processing before a customer sees them. There is color correction, cropping, eliminating the glasses glare, swapping heads - all of the usual retouching is done, and from a 500 raw picture wedding we may present 150 images.

Now we gave up on paper proofing some time ago. We show the images by projection (Epson LCD projectors are great for this), and the customer gets to decide what she (usually it is a woman) wants - we provide just about any print format anyone could want, and can frame them, bind them into books, and such. Whatever prints were ordered are delivered at the end of the process.

An average wedding takes two of us probably 30 hours each to do right. The results are gorgeous, by the way. Could we do weddings for less? Sure, but not at this quality level. Could we just shoot weddings and hand the customer a couple of CDs of jpg files and our blessings to use however they wish? Sure, but the results in general would not be as good, as most folks (even uber-geeks) are not all that good with gimp or photoshop to do the post-processing themselves.

In the end, you get what you pay for. Professional photography is a luxury item.
Deal with it.

Marty

What would you rather have?

[Anonymous Coward]

The photographer and you can have it one of two ways:

1) Pay the photographer and they retain the rights to its reproduction

2) Pay alot more for the photographer, but you have the rights of reproduction.

It's just the "licensing terms." With the photographers, this can be negotiated and often is (I should know, I am a professional photographer, own my own studio, and do both weddings and business work, alot of both).

I don't think the RIAA let's their "artists" have that negotiating flexibility.

So stop complaining, because you have the ability to negotiate. That's something music "artists" don't have.

I can't even believe you pussies are complaining about this.

Oh, the evil photographers!!!

~CS~

Very Thought Provoking

[istartedi]

Not long ago, I had a digital dupe (print-->scan-->print) of my parent's wedding picture taken. I had to do it that way because we didn't have the negative. It never even occured to me that I was obligated to seek out the photographer. The picture is 51 years old and was taken in Rhode Island. Not much to go on. Can anybody really expect me to do that? Frankly, it never occured to me that my parents (and by inheritance, me) didn't own the wedding picture.

Now, the logical solution IMHO, is to pay the photographer for the negatives and the IP rights not the prints. If the photographer is smart, he offers prints at or below cost for those who purchase his negatives, but for the photographer to retain IP rights for such things just doesn't make good sense. First, many people like myself would be unduly burdened to find the photographer at a later date. Second, the photographer has to store all those negatives which could become a huge liability. For most wedding pix, they won't be printed after a couple years. I seriously doubt that my parent's negatives are sitting in a climate controlled vault in Rhode Island. Odds are they were destroyed years ago, whereas if we had them they'd still be intact.

So, if I ever manage to get married, I will have to make sure that the photographer sells the negatives and the IP rights. How hard would it be to make such an arrangement? How many professional photographers would say "yes" if I said "I'm willing to pay what you make from the average wedding based on the traditional fee structure, plus 20%"?

But you ARE playing along...

[Anonymous Coward]

You found, and negotiated with a photographer who would transfer the copyright of the images to you.

This is why I quit wedding photography

[Rocketboy]

Pretty much, anyway. Look at it another way: what is a photographer selling? Not pictures: Aunt Emma with an $8.00 disposable camera can provide a picture. Give her enough attempts and some are probably going to be pretty nice. Add Uncle Mort with his $300 Canon Rebel and cousin Sally with her APS point 'n shoot and... well, it doesn't take long to gather enough decent pictures to make up an album with a dozen or two nice shots in it. You may have to look through 500 bad snapshots to find those dozen or two keepers, but it's free, right? Even if some of them show up at next year's family reunion. I had clients ask me what I could do with their $300 wedding photography budget: I told them to spend half of it on disposable cameras to distribute to guests, collect the cameras after the wedding, and spend the other half on drugstore processing. They'll probably get something for their money since I wouldn't do a wedding for $300. I couldn't.

As a wedding photographer, if I wasn't selling pictures, what was I selling? Dependability, repeatability, and creativity, along with years of experience learned the hard (and expensive) way, burning film and breaking cameras. Let's take these one at a time.

1. Dependability. I didn't have a special camera I used just for weddings, I had two of them, both top of the line and maintained annually by the manufacturer so that I could be sure that when I told a couple that "I'll be there on your wedding day," they could be damned sure I would be there, with working equipment, ready for action. You don't think this is important? Try it some time. Then there are all of the "special" shots brides (and their mothers,) really, really want. Coming down the aisle with Dad (or Mom or Grandpa: whomever.) The exchange of rings. The first kiss. A long list, actually (typically anywhere from 30-40 special moments on a shot list.) I got them. All of them. Oh, and most ministers/Priests, rabbis, etc. don't permit flash photography during the ceremony, which means I'm shooting in whatever light is available (surprisingly often flourescent. That's why your shots are green. Mine, obviously, weren't.) I got them all, even if I knew -positively knew, beforehand - that no one would be buying them for their albums. No flub-ups, no re-takes: the right shot, first time, every time. Mistakes? Sure: I wouldn't be human if I didn't make one occasionally. But as a professional I'm paid to minimize the mistakes and give my bride and groom the best possible chance of getting the photographs they wanted (and paid for.) If they didn't, I didn't get paid. Dependability? *Every* essential component of my wedding kit was duplicated, in some cases triplicated (is that a word?) Two main cameras, both professional and expensive (Mamiya 645.) The most used lens is the 80mm, so I had two of those, as well as a wide-angle 45mm and 55mm and 150mm and 200mm telephotos. Tripods. Three pro on-camera flashes (Sunpak.) Two dozen batteries ('cause all batteries die when you need them the most.) Filters in assorted sizes for each lens ($25-$50 per filter, my filter pack at one time ran to over 20 of them.) Radio-slave lights and backups for those and batteries and backups for those... backgrounds, stands... it took most of a minivan to get my kit on station. I rarely used even half of it but there were times when the backups got used... and one memorable disaster when by the end of the reception I was down to my last camera backup (a 35mm,) and film. Something about a torrential downpour, gale-force winds, and marble sized hail... But you couldn't tell it by the pictures.

Repeatability: My portfolio reflected what I did. Prospective customers could count on their wedding being done in the same 'style' my portfolio portrayed. It was constantly changing because I was constantly changing, but at any given moment in time a bride and groom could point to their wedding album and my portfolio and say, "I got what I thought I was getting." I used pro films, kept track of my lot numbers (color emulsions vary a little bit by lot, but when you need detail of a white gown next to a black tuxedo you need to know, not guess, how the film will respond.) and used professional processing. When you came back six months later and ordered a few more prints because Aunt Sally was miffed she didn't get an album as good as your mom (and after all, she's been sending you the same $5 for your birthday every year since you were born, you ungrateful little tramp!) the prints you gave her were identical -- not approximately, but absolutely the same -- as the ones she saw in your mom's album.

Creativity. Sure, Uncle Ed can take a picture of you and your new spouse coming down the aisle as well as anybody can. What about the black and white you asked for, because you read somewhere that color prints don't last as long as B&W? How about that shot of you and your spouse lighting the peace candle with your faces glowing in the warm candlelight and that expression of beautific joy on your spouse's face? You got that photo (which you used to headline your album, by the way,) because I knew -- knew, not guessed -- it was coming, saw the image in my mind far enough in advance to have positioned a camera with the appropriate lens on a tripod in the one place in the entire church where everyone else's head would be out of the shot, and set the exposure for ambient lighting because a flash would have ruined the whole thing. How about that double-exposure of you and your new spouse gazing into each others' eyes underneath that beautiful stained glass window, resplendent in all its Technicolor glory? Did you realize that was a double exposure, the window made with a long exposure the morning of the wedding because it faced East and by the time of the wedding the sun would be in the west, muting the colors? Did you know that the window was actually shot on different film precisely because of the exaggerated color that film gives, which is normally the absolutely last thing you want in a wedding photo? No, you did not. You can't tell by looking at the picture.

Someone somewhere is saying about now, "what the hell, I can do that in Photoshop. Take ten minutes. No big deal." You sure can, too. Did you think of that in time to get the photos you needed, or are you just making it up out of the shots you happened to have taken at the wedding? "Oh, look: these go nice together." I thought so. Are you going to make 20 copies because everyone who saw it wanted one, and guarantee each and every one of them for 70 years or your money back? No, what you're going to do is print as many copies as you have ink and paper for and give them away, rationalizing that those printed at the beginning and end of ink cartridges look a little off with the thought that, what the hell do people want for free, anyway? Did you do that 10 times per wedding? Or did you do it once and, pleased with yourself, sit down with a nice cold one?

One thing for sure, and the other half of the reason I quit wedding photography, is that digital is definitely replacing film for that type of event. It isn't ready for the job, but it's doing it all the same. (No, I'm not being spiteful, either. I wasn't ready for my first programming job but I got it anyway. And learned very quickly. Panic quickly. Thoughts of, "School wasn't anything like this," quickly.) Short of extremely expensive digital equipment and even with the best in digital printing, a digital photo in many (not all, but in many) circumstances still can't beat film. Truthfully, today the difference is mostly in the output, but even so 8 to 10 megapixel cameras are far from common and are the minimum required to approach the quality of even 35mm film. They are, often enough, good enough for the purposes to which they will be put, however: magazine and newspaper reproduction, cheap posters that'll be in garage sales in 12 months, that sort of thing. By the way, I'm going to get snooty and elitist here. I've looked at hundreds of digital prints and uncounted prints from film and I have to say that, today, anyone who says that digital output even comes close to a competantly made print from film is blind, stupid, or lying. And I don't give a tinker's damn what you think about it, either. It's a free country, go ahead and be wrong, you have a constitutional right to be an idiot if you want to. You may not be able to tell the difference, my dog may not be able to tell the difference but I can tell the difference and I refuse to tell the emperor what pretty clothes he has on when I damn well and good can see with my own two eyes that he's buck naked as a jaybird on the day he was born. God, that felt good! :)

The other half of the reason I quit wedding photography? Photography is a commodity: everyone has a camera, or could have, if they half-ways wanted to. Everyone has seen countless pictures in magazines and on fliers and... so everyone questions why should they pay me $2000 to photograph their wedding when they can go to Wal-Mart and buy a perfectly keen camera for $129.95? My answer is -- you probably shouldn't. I'm a photographer because pictures are important to me. They obviously aren't nearly as important to you, so you should have the option of paying less. And you do. And when I got tired of having to justify my price, I stopped doing it. I still get a dozen inquiries a year from couples who've seen my work and want to know what it would cost... but I've sold the equipment (well, most of it ;)) and don't do that any more. You may not have noticed but there are a *lot* of wedding photographers out there, many of whom are willing to work for less than I was (or am.) They all do perfectly good work -- find one who's portfolio and price you like and book him/her while they have a date open.

Oddly enough (and to get this back on-topic for the Slashdot crowd,) this is pretty much the same reason why I'm a pointy-headed manager now, instead of typing furiously away at a keyboard as I did for most of the past 20 years. It isn't about the money, it's never been about the money (the Lord has blessed me in that I've always had enough and that I'm not greedy. Don't really want to be rich.) Some things I won't compromise on and quality, of whatever I'm doing, code or photography, is top of the list. Now I earn my living one way and coding and photography, where I can be as picky, as self-rightously immolative as I desire, is for me, a very demanding audience of one. My personal programming projects set on a shelf while I rotted for 20 years, cutting quality to meet artificial and unrealistic deadlines, feature lists compiled by drunken marketing droids who couldn't tell a customer from a toilet seat, and interface designs produced in fevered heat by dyslexic color blind toxic waste snorting reeky farts. My personal photography rotted for 15 while I shot one more couple in heat and, in all honestly, both have improved since I returned to amateurdom. Lesson learned, thanks.

Oh, and a parting piece of free advice for those thinking of taking the vows in the future: the very first couple I photographed as a wedding photographer chose an inexpensive package with the frank excuse that, "Statistically, we only have a 55% chance of still being together five years from now. Why pay more with odds like that?" Now, 12 years later, they're still married. Then there's the other woman, who called a couple of months ago to see if I would photograph her fourth wedding. Yes, I did the first three and no, I won't be doing this one. :)

Re:This is why I quit wedding photography

[acceleriter]

That has to be the most thoughtful rant I've ever read here, and I learned more than I ever knew about photographry and photographers. So I ask: why isn't it at 5?

Re:This is why I quit wedding photography

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey man, you should edit this and send it into a wedding magazine. It's a good article.

Re:This is why I quit wedding photography

[gafferted]

An excellent posting. If I were getting married now, I would be looking for exactly the type of experience and forethought that you discuss and would expect to pay appropriately for the privelage. (Of course, back when I got married, the idea of spending $2000 was not even open to consideration...)

But I'd like to bring you back to the article in question: Having paid you appropriately for your time, skill, experience, consumables and equipment, would I then get the finished images in a high-res digital format to do with as I wished, or would you want to stiff me for access and use of the software that I have already paid you to create?

Re:This is why I quit wedding photography

[WNight]

I think this is a topic you're familiar with or something...

You make a lot of good points about quality, and to the skill that it takes to get the shots.

But how does this relate to photographers having to retain control over the negatives. I wouldn't object to my photographer wanting to keep them in case I lost them, an insurance policy, but I want them too, or at least fair access to them at market rates. I don't expect to get pro prints at drug-store prices, but I want to be free to dump a photographer I don't want to do business with for any reason.

You haven't shown me why I, the customer, would be harmed by having the negatives and reproduction rights.

That's what this thread is about to me. Photographers who exist by extorting prints out of customers, for whom the chance that a guest picture will replace a sale is a terrible thing.

If I need you to take the pictures, can't I choose who prints them? Even if you tell me that you'll do a better job than nearly anyone else, what if I want the choice?

And as for digital, it depends on the results. If you're from the type of family where everyone have 20" prints hanging on their walls you'll appreciate high-quality, perhaps MF, pictures. If like me, you have a few picture frames and 8x10s seem large, you'll value the convenience of digital over the quality of high-end film.

I had my wedding shot in digital with a 1D, the 8x10s look very close to what my photographer had in his portfolio for 8x10s from film. What I gained from the digital aspect was that I had a CD the next day (I wouldn't take anything less than full ownership) and we took them with us to see the relatives on the other side of the continent. Instant gratification.

But really it's about the freedom to do with your pictures as you want to do. Be that with the negatives, scans from negatives, or the raw digital files.

Re:This is why I quit wedding photography

[Rocketboy]

Actually, I preferred selling the negatives. Less crap I had to keep track of, insure, keep from going up in a towering inferno, or find two years down the road when Grandma loses her original. I typically sold them cheap, unless I thought I was losing significant revenue from lost reprint sales, in which case I charged more. :) Most wedding photogs need the income from reprint sales; it's figured into their profit/loss calculations. But even with the wedding photographers who don't sell the negatives money isn't the real reason.

Remember my rant about most people not being able to tell the difference between a good print and a crummy one? That's the issue. Wedding photographers get most of their business from people who see pictures from weddings they've done before and want that kind of photography at their wedding. How much business do you think they get when they see some fucked up $0.39 print from Wal-mart, or worse, a badly scanned copy printed on copier paper on someone's $59 Apollo inkjet printer? The answer, in case you haven't been paying attention, is zero.

I actually had a reeking turd show me a printed copy of one of my photos he's scanned and manipulated in Photoshop, then reprinted on his home Epson printer. The dumb fuck was actually proud of what he'd done. I wanted to strangle the bastard with his own entrails. I didn't sue him, either. I figure that assholes usually get what's coming to them somewhere along the line, and I like to preserve my gloating options.

This is a serious problem for every wedding photographer I know: crummy (mostly stolen) reproduction prints killing future wedding bookings. But not selling the negatives makes the problem even worse: most people will simply scan whatever prints they do have and print them at home. Frankly, under those circumstances even the crappiest drug-store print from a real negative looks good. What'cha gonna do?

What you're gonna do is photograph something else. If you can't make a decent living as a wedding photographer it won't take long before the only wedding photographers that can be found will be kids and relatives. The general quality of wedding photography will go down, but that's what the customer apparently wants so it must be all right. The customer, as has been pointed out here, is always right. And no, that wasn't sarcasm.

Re:The photographer isn't a thief

[3Ddgg]

Cindy isn't paying for the shoot. The magazine is paying for the shoot, and they are paying the photographer a LOT of money for his/her technical skill.

If they want to own the negative of a one of a kind photograph of Cindy getting her toe sucked in a pool they will pay an obscene amount of money.

If you want to buy the negatives, buy the negatives. If you want to buy the prints, buy the prints. The photographer is supplying a number of services. These services are not just the click of a button on an expensive camera. These services cost them time and money to provide, and they need to recoup these costs. Photographers need to eat too and unless they are getting photographs of Cindy's toe, they aren't making much money.

Most photographers take photographs for the joy of it too. Imagine if people offered you a coding job where they only paid you for the time you spent asking for the project brief, and not for the coding, or the debugging, or for the maintenance of your equipment and that they decided you should debug their program for free because their ignorance tells them code should be perfect first time. What if they asked for a new feature and want that to be coded for free too. What would YOU do. They would probably walk away thinking you were a crook taking advantage of them in a difficult situation.

You will probably say that this is different, and yes they are different industries. The similarity is that they stem from a misunderstanding of the reality of working in the industry involved. If someone asks you to make a chair, and you do, that doesn't give them the rights to your working drawings for the chair, and the rights to the future reproduction of the chair. It's the same thing. It's from the age of mechanical reproduction, but so is the profession of photography on film. If you want a new business model, make it.

There Should be Multiple Business Models

[GroundBounce]

The cost of the reprints may seem high to someone who takes their film to the corner drug store for processing, but the cost of having a professional color lab make high quality enlargements of medium format negatives is a lot more expensive than what you pay at the drug store.

In reality, most photographers these days do make money from the reprints, but probably not as much as you might think.

I do agree, however, that given current conditions, perhaps multiple business models could be used. Many people who don't want to hassle making their own high quality scans and/or prints will still want things done the "old fashioned" way (my parents would certainly want it that way, they don't even have a computer at home), and, OTOH, more tech-savvy users will want a CD-ROM with hi-res images and then make reprints themselves (I'd prefer this myself).

A photographer could offer both models to potential customers, with the second approach being more heavily "front loaded" in terms of the fees since he/she knows that there won't be much income from reprints. One way or another, the photographer needs to get paid for their time and their artistic input to the end result, and earn an amount of money commensurate with the value associated with profesisonally taken photographs. Although I might want the option of the hi-res CD approach if it better fits my style of doing things, I shouldn't expect that it should necessarily be cheaper to get the images that way.

Re:There Should be Multiple Business Models

[Anonymous Coward]

A photographer could offer both models to potential customers, with the second approach being more heavily "front loaded" in terms of the fees since he/she knows that there won't be much income from reprints. One way or another, the photographer needs to get paid for their time and their artistic input to the end result, and earn an amount of money commensurate with the value associated with profesisonally taken photographs. Although I might want the option of the hi-res CD approach if it better fits my style of doing things, I shouldn't expect that it should necessarily be cheaper to get the images that way.

At last! Thanks for a sensible comment which doesn't make people who put in a lot of time and artistic talent look like either unskilled labor or money-grubbers.

Re:There Should be Multiple Business Models

[TGK]

My wedding photos turned out this way. We agreed to pay a premium for the photographers services in exchange for ownership of the negitives and unlimited rights to create prints from those negitives.

She gave us a -=very=- good deal on this all things considered, enough so that we've made sure that all reprints for the first year will go through her nonwithstanding.

That said, one of the main reasons photographers don't like to turn over negitives to the undeserving populace is that many kinds of film are not easily reproduced by Wal-Mart or whathaveyou. So kinds of negitives, called "pro-negitives" or "pro-film" in the photography buisness, produced horrid greenish tinged nastiness when printed on standard commercial grade equipment like the photo processing equipment at your big chain stores.

Many people miss one key public good of copyright

[btempleton]

Copyright allows a creator to create a work and sell it to 100 different people for $20 each to make $2,000. Without copyright, work for hire means she has to charge the $2,000 for her labour to earn the same money.

And in a competitive market, which photography is, in the end the wedding photog wants the money, not the rights. The rights are a path to that money.

So the benefit for the public in copyright is that it spreads the cost among all the people who want photos. If some can get them for free, then others have to pay more.

So you want the photographer to give you the negatives or the hi-res scans. Then expect to pay what the photographer hoped to make from sales to all the family and wedding guests that now won't be made. And the sales years later when images are destroyed, etc.

This applies everywhere. For example, with movies in cinematic release, I can see a $100M movie for $9. Why? Because they can make sure everybody who sees it pays. Later, when it's on video, I ahve to pay $25 to buy a DVD that is much lower quality than the one in the cinema, and I'm going to watch it only once, but they can't know that, so it costs more. Or I can rent it for less but with lots of hassle. The protection they have (in this case not copyright but rather the ticket taker guarding the door) lets the cost be spread among all who want to see the film, so we all get to see it cheap.

People seem to ignore this central public good in the copyright debate. When it comes to a business, the copyright owner would like to make as much money as possible. One way they would like to do that is to charge for every possible use of their work. Every use they can't charge for means they must charge more for the uses they can charge for in order to get the same money. Thus everything they can't charge for is subsidised by what they can.

In society, we make the decision to have that subsidy, because we don't want the draconian level of control it would require for them to charge for every possible use. And with good reason -- such a level of control would be ridiculous. But each time we decide that, we should remember it comes with a cost, something else will increase in price to make a subsidy for the thing that isn't charged for, at least in a reasonably competitive market.

Yup, ask for the copyright

[Phil Karn]

When my wife and I planned our wedding, we had to fire the first photographer we hired because she simply wouldn't agree to give us the copyright to the photos we were going to pay her good money to take.

We found another professional photographer. Not only was he entirely willing to give us the negatives and all rights, but was a much easier guy to work with.

Moral: shop around. It's your money.

Offtopic?

[Joutsa]

Nah, saying something bad about RIAA is always insightful, no matter what the main subject was.

Re:Oooty Oooty!

[Anonymous Coward]

Heya's mah booty:

(_*_)

Watch it shake baby:

{{_*_}}

Oh damn, I be so sexy when Ah jiggle!

Re:The customer is always right!

[Technician]

If you shop for a photographer, you will only get photographer's offers on their terms. (Just like shopping for music or software). Go the other way and define your labor job. Ask for bids for the job. Refrences and samples of the work is required. If this sounds like your regular programming job, you are right. (I've seen too many Pro's try to get away with only the flash on the camera. It's OK if you like that kind of work. Their samples will show the improper use of flash.) If you want the copyright, specify it. I had that option for my photographer 10 years ago. I contracted for 3 hours minimum. Got 200+ shots including the reception and departure. The package did require a certian amount of prints by them. They did a fantastic job. If you have a June wedding, good luck. If you catch a slow season, like October, you may get more qualified bids.

My Contract...

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were a photographer I would have a contract where I got paid decently for my time, In exchange it would be the client who had copyrights to the pictures (work for higher) and granted me a right to use the pictures myself for promotional purposes. IF this particular photographer did not have a contract they are actually probably in the work for higher camp without any right to reproduce despite their attitude towards digital stuff.

If a client would like me to make more prints I'd be glad to do that for a reasonable price. If the client didn't agree to that reasonable price he could take a copy of the negitives (or the origionals) and get prints made somewhere else I wouldn't waste time nickel and diming with him.

Works for hire

[Anonymous Coward]

A work can be a work for hire in two, and only two, situations:

1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or

2) a work specially ordered or commissioned, that falls under one of nine categories specified in the statute, that the parties have agreed, in writing, that it will be a work for hire.

Wedding photographers are independent contractors, so the first situation does not apply. The second does not apply because such photographs do not fall under any of the nine statutory categories.

Thus, even if the contract with the photographer specifies that the photos be works for hire, they are not.

Read the entire statute, 17 U.S.C. 101 for details.

There are two ways to see this

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point would be true, except that the photographer seems to be trying to get paid several times for the same work. We could see this from your "the photographer is trying to rip me off" viewpoint. Or we could look at it from a "the photographer is trying to lower my cost" viewpoint: Rather than charge you a high flat fee encompassing *all* the photos regardless of whether or not you like them, the photographer is only charging you for his work on the photos you like. If he does a crappy job, he gets paid less, giving him a strong incentive to do his job well, thus making it more likely you'll be happier with his product.

The original analogy doesn't work

[Anonymous Coward]

The value of open source to software is malleability. You can tweak code, build on it, fix bugs with it.

The value of wedding photos is in their static nature. They're to capture a moment in time and will never be changed in the future. Giving the negatives away for free doesn't provide anywhere near as much benefit to wedding photos as they do to software. Indeed, the primary reason most people want the negatives is as an archival backup, not so they can make free copies.

A more accurate analogy would be to compare wedding photo negatives to blueprints and production techniques for custom hardware. I don't exactly see a chorus demanding that be open sourced.

IP rights and poor nations

[Conspire]

The Economist has a great article about IP rights and the poor world. Very interesting article.

Permanent Record?

[tubabeat]

Theres a very interesting IP debate going on, but I'm curious about another point the author made.

Early photographs were not in color, and were not as permanent a medium as oil and canvas. In fact today's printed photographs are still less durable than an oil and canvas painting

Where does digital fit in? Hard drives last, say, 5 years. Mag tape degrades over time. Even CDs will only take so much abuse (I've had more CDR coasters than I care to mention). Sure you can make backups but over time how many digital images are likely to survive?
We all want a 'permanent record' of a wedding, but what do we mean by permanent? Do we want them to last for our children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, or just until the divorce?

The Hypocritical Oath

[Anonymous Coward]

So, when a student does work for a university and you rant against the university owning the property rights, it's okay. But you'll protest against a professional artist attempting to own their work?

Like many of the arguments on ./, this is nothing more than a rant. Ask the photographer up front what the deal is with the rights, both digital and analog. Don't bitch later when you want the CD so you can put the pics on the web.

Sued for publishing from commercial shoots?

[Rohan Talip]

The problem isn't as much as the idea that the photographer has a copyright on the images, but rather that they are performing a work for hire.
...
Ultimately it is an issue with contracts. The problem is that the photographer historically provides artistic service in composing the shot, and in printing the image. The wedding photographer's competition isn't digital copyright infringement, it is the throw-away cameras that are put up on all the tables.

Yesterday, I passed a commercial shoot in London for London Transport and was about to take a shot with my camera only to be told that I would have to ask for permission first.

When I asked for permission I was told that if I intended to publish the photo(s) I would likely get sued, but if I wanted them for myself then I was welcome to take photographs.

Now, I did not intend to publish the photo(s) commercially. The only thing that my camera would capture that was different in the scene from the norm was a horizontal sign in the bus lane which said "Watch the birdie". This is not a copyrighted phrase as far as I am aware.

There were various people, cars and buses passing by, which I do not consider to be copyrightable; you would see the same on any other day. Sure, you usually need to ask for people's permission first before publishing pictures of them, which these people were doing for pedestrians who had their photos taken as they wandered through the shot.

The photographers also had some elaborate, and no doubt expensive, radio controlled lighting on the other side of the street, however I was not making use of this with my little camera.

Can anyone fill me in on what copyright laws or whatever apply in this case, English or otherwise?

If I had been in the same location without the photographers or the "Watch the birdies" sign being there, I would not have asked anyone for permission, nor thought about copyright or being sued!

So what's different in this situation? Just the fact that the camera crew were there? Does that automatically mean that it is not possible to take professional photographs at the same time?

Re:Sued for publishing from commercial shoots?

[Anonymous Coward]

The key here is whether the photos you shot were intended for resale. The photographer, although in a public area, probably had to pay for commercial permits from the city and maybe even the local businesses to set up a commercial photo shoot in that location. Essentially the photographer has "leased" the area temporarily, the same as an individual or company might for a private party. The sign "watch the birdie" was likely created for the shoot and may have been an integral part of the shot, promoting a product perhaps.

Think of it also as if you were looking over the shoulder of someone coding a web page, which is their occupation. This person has a distinctive style of web design and the coding reflects that style. You want to use a portion of the code/design for your own site. You ask to copy that code. What do you think that person would say? Probably "No", or "if you only use it for your personal site (no commercial use) AND give me the credit for the code.

It would also be similar to walking into a portrait studio and asking to shoot some pictures "since you've already got the lights and pose set up, do you mind?"

Although the shot was in a public place, you were essentially walking into a place of work which may or may not contain proprietary materials (such as lighting arrangements, sets, products, and the rights to photograph those products for commercial use - such as Nike shoes). Try walking into a shopping mall, get out your camera and start shooting. You'll be surprised how fast you're approached by someone asking if you have permission.

So sell the moment.

[dark-nl]

If she has "skill to work with a subject, get the lighting right, set up the pose, and produce an ideal moment for a photograph", then that is a valuable skill. I'm sure most wedding organizers like to give the guests some opportunities for taking nice pictures. Instead of feeling resentful about people taking the "same shot", she could feel happy about providing a service and being paid for it. If you look at it that way, she's not even in the image-capturing business, she's in the moment-creation business.

Intellectual Property ... another word for greed

[Snaller]

... or The Art of getting paid over and over for a job done once.

pragmatic copyleft

[f64]

as a photographer, and as someone who in one way or another will try to make a living of his sense of esthetic, i've been thinking about schemes to incorporate my anarchist views with my desire to be able to, well, eat and have somewhere to sleep.

in the anarchist society (in the far off future), results of ones work (intellectual as well as manual) is available to those who want it.
today, living in a parasitic capitalist society, short of four-finger-discount it's hard to make a living if you give your work away.

so anyway, the scheme i've come up with is to copyleft work for all purposes except commercial. that is, anyone can use my images as long as i am credited and they are not making a profit in any way from using them.

but to make a living of of this, one has to charge enough to cover costs, and make an overhead.
as one poster suggested, having multiple schemes available is one solution; unlimited rights to the images, but a heap of money for the setup, or charge hefty amounts per image copy. or something else.

it's all about being pragmatic as a photographer. someone has to make it worth your wile to pack your stuff, go to a wedding, setup, shoot, eat some cake, develop, copy, deliver.
if u feel that images taken by the guests are good enough, don't hire a photographer. if u want professional photos, pay up and make sure both parties agree on the conditions.

i for one never give my negatives away, but i guess i'm coming from a different place than a wedding photographer.
if you have mainly worked with magazines (as i), you get used to being fucked over with a broom by every editor trying to get you to sign away all your rights for eternity (not kidding), for use anywhere in the universe (still not kidding - it's an actual quote), and in a situation like that i either keep my rights, or don't sign.
in a situation like that, copyright actually is the less of two evils - either restrict access to your intellectual property (sic) or become a wage slave and make it harder for others to fight for their rights (insofar as having a job preference is a right, anyway).

ranting and raving if fun fun fun!

Wedding Photography is a SCAM

[Anonymous Coward]

The wedding photography business is one of the oldest scams out there.

Most people don't have experience of these guys. They think they pay the fee and they own the negative, and it comes as a shock to find they don't.

At the end of the day, he offered 30 minutes of service at an extremely high initial cost ($200+ is common), then a per print fee is also extremely high $100 again is common.
You staged the event he is photographing, you paid for the costumes, the location, food for the people.

This is just a switch scam, the photographer offers something vague (photographs), which the customer takes to be "prints plus negatives" just like normal developers, but instead turns out in the small print to be "prints". He then extorts an ongoing fee from those 30 minutes work.

Intellectual Property is not the apt phrase

[waltc]

This fellow simply made the mistake of being too cavalier with his wedding photography arrangements. He definitely did not think through what he wanted beforehand. If you'll notice, everything "digital" he asked for came after the fact--after the shots were already taken. That was his chief mistake. All photograhers are not going to behave like the one he hired--who was a bit of a traditionalist snob, if you ask me. Most photographers are interested in charging for their time--not the prints (except for a reasonable fee, of course.) This photographer might not have agreed to his terms up front--but certainly another--who needed the work--would have.

And his notion about "IP" is laughable. If anyone owns the "IP" from his wedding--he does. It's his wedding--his friends--and they have all the right in the world to take all the photos they wish at his wedding (as long as he permits.) The photographer, however, has no rights. The photographer's place is akin to a programmer who is hired by a company to write software--when the software is done the company, not the programmer, owns the rights to the software. The programmer is compensated by salary, etc.

My daughter is a photographer by hobby--she actually got a formal degree in graphics (the traditional kind.) She uses both digital and film. She loves digital for its convenience but still uses film to set a mood that, so far, digital can't match. She is a natural for framing the subject artistically even with a digital camera--I could not do as well--I don't have that particular talent. So this photographer objecting to his friends taking their photos after she "set up" the shots seems to tell me she is a mediocre photographer because it's not just the "set up" that counts--the framing of the photo once that's done is critical. What, did this woman expect his friends to buy their pictures of his wedding from her, too?

Re:I don't think it's their "property" to begin wi

[John Biggabooty]

Most people who hire a wedding photographer do not read the contract, or do not understand it. Contracts are in legalese so you will not understand what you are signing.

Another attempt to turn creators into day laborers

[Brett Glass]

The essay referred to in this item is eerily similar to Richard Stallman's "GNU Manifesto." Stallman, in the essay, asserts that coders ought to work only for the sheer love of what they do. Never mind the minor problem of earning a living or putting food on the table -- and that programming should be reduced to a low-wage job akin to that of a day laborer. High or even decent wages for programmers, Stallman says, should be effectively "banned" by denying them rights to the intellectual property they create.

The author of the essay simply wants to do the same thing to professional photographers. Fortunately, photographers are much more business-savvy than programmers. They recognize that their businesses have overhead that must be covered, and expenses that must be met. They understand that becoming solely workers for hire, unless they commanded the same rates per hour as lawyers and charged for travel time, consultations, etc., would be the end of their ability to practice their profession. While programmers are already well on the way to undermining their chances of being paid a reasonable amount for their work, photographers will likely resist -- as they should.

It's one bad incident -- it's not industry-wide.

[da0g]

This is an incident with one Photographer, who is apparently fairly clueless at that. It is not an industry-wide problem.

When I got married, I contracted a professional photographer. We talked. We decided what we wanted.

He wanted ownership of the negatives. Fine. They are of much higher quality than the usual over-the-counter junk. I don't have the resources to use them. And I got a lower overall price in exchange for buying reprints from him.

I wanted digital copies. I wanted to put prints out on the web, etc. He agreed to supply standard 3x5 proofs, photographs not computer printouts, and I was licensed to reproduce and distribute them, digitally, however I so wished. No conflicts. No problems...

In the words of the modern day, it's called "advertising".

Granted, I have to do all the scanning. (And I'm still scanning...) But, I can throw them up on a web site, say "hey mom, are these the ones you want", and go buy her an album.

Yeah, someone can just print the pictures out. But they're going to be pretty lousy prints. The hardcopy quality is going to suck dingo kidneys, and will only get worse as you enlarge the image.

When it came time to buy a 2'x3' (feet, not inches) print for my grandfather's wall, well I went to the photographer. The negatives were of sufficient quality that he could produce a gorgeous print at that resolution.

Oh, and digital reproduction rights wasn't the only point of that contract I changed. I also added a line insisting that he bring a backup-camera, even if it was only a 35mm...

Ask for the price of negatives beforehand

[elandal]

The photographer does a lot more than take shots. He's the artist who arranges the situation, knows what he's doing, and gets it right, every time (well, nearly every time at least).
Like a great programmer understands what is needed, gives a realistics tenative schedule, and gets the work done without additional hassles.

In programming, mostly what's needed is not the great programmer - an average one will do. He'll get something done, in some schedule. It's enough. And costs one tenth of what the great programmer would've cost.
So if You don't think You need the perfect shots, don't get a great photographer. Get a cheap one, or make do with the photos Your family and friends get.

If You want the sourcecode from the great programmer, be ready to pay for the time he spent, and the tools he used, not just for the binary.
If You want the negative, be ready to pay the photographer for his time and tools, not just the end result. And remember, the time includes not just time spent at the wedding, but also in the lab.

I don't really know how much it'd take to hire a great photographer and get the negatives. Actually, get the properly scanned images in a CD-ROM (remember, after film processing the negatives have to be scanned correctly, with good equipment, and the scans checked and possibly still color corrected). Could be some EUR 3-5k, with a result of tens of perfect shots.
Someone mentioned that the film may cost even USD 15 per shot. In that case, assuming a gross 100 shots, the film would cost about USD 1500.. 3k sounds pretty small in that light.

Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

"you either had to buy an expensive camera that was hard to operate, or settle for pictures that were frequently grainy or out of focus"

Please, someone give this guy a clue. Dude, learn about photography before blaming the camera for your crap pictures. My $60 Canonet QL17 (from 25 years ago) produces images equal in quality to your latest Nikon D1X digital ($5000?) simply because I have learnt to use a camera.

Re:Another attempt to turn creators into day labor

[waltc]

If I take your meaning correctly, I think this is an absurd sentiment. The question in this case is "Who owns the IP from the wedding, the bride and groom, or the photographer?" (Who was, incidentally, hired, btw.)

Obviously, and certainly, the photographer does not own the IP. Whether you call the photographer a "creator" or "hired labor" seems to me utterly beside the point and a game of semantics. If I work for company A under contract, and I "create" software while fulfilling my contracted duties for which I am paid a salary, company A owns the IP, not me.

It strikes me that "who owns the IP" has nothing whatever to do with "creating."

One last point: we aren't dealing with a painter here who sets up his easel in the park and does an incredible painting. We're dealing with a person who hires out services to make a living, and who was hired by a specific party to cover a specific event, the event itself neither paid for or orchestrated by the photographer. If anyone ought to own the negatives, it's the bride and groom.

Easy Solution

[ISPTech]

1. Hire photographer with best equipment.
2. Get full copies of all the photos you want to duplicate.
3. Have photographer killed to prevent lawsuits.
4. Copy the images till your heart's content.

...
5. ???
6. Profit!

The thought came from some lame photographer telling a mob member he can't duplicate photos. Vinny, go take care of this copyright problem for me.

Re:The photographer is right... so what is right?

[geekee]

If you allow people to ditributed copyrighted work freely, you remove the incentive to create the copyrighted work. Why would I bother investing millions of dollars creating the next great software product if I know I can only sell a couple of copies before everyone starts making copies for free? Therefore, allowing duplication of copyrighted works DOES have ill effects. It will reduce the amount of effort put into important projects and slow progress. Although Greed has a negative connotation, it has been the single greatest motivator for the improvent of the standard of living throughout the last couple of centuries. If people hadn't taken the risks to start businesses based on good ideas, things such as the refrigerator and the automobile would not exist. BTW, these so called evil corporations provide jobs for millions of people as well as provide important products and services. They don't ask for your thanks, only a fair price for their products.