Slashdot Mirror
Pro Photographers that Will Sell the Copyright?
Shook asks: "Today, my fiancee and I talked to a wedding photographer known for being technologically savvy. (He uses fully digital equipment, the couple can make changes to the album online before printing, relatives can order prints of specific pictures online). I knew going into this that professional photographers generally retain the copyright to the images and all requests for reprints must go through the photographer. During our consultation, I asked him if it would be an option to obtain the copyright from him and get CDs of the original high-resolution images. He said that he has never sold a copyright, was not sure what he would want to charge, but he said it would 'be expensive.' In the end, the photographer is too expensive for our budget ($2000-$4500), so I didn't discuss it further. With the ongoing extension of copyright time limits, when does it even expire? What if my grandchildren want copies of my pictures? Do they need to track down his corporate (or actual) descendant and get permission? In addition, there is the classic issue, what if I can't find him in 20 years?"
"He did go into the artistic reasons why he retains copyrights. He said we may make reprints of the photos at a low-quality shop and tarnish his professional reputation. He did say he does provide 'middle resolution images' on CD or password-protected FTP free of charge.
All this seems backward to me. He wants us to pay several thousands of dollars for pictures of ourselves, and we don't get the copyright as part of our package? As we have heard endlessly on this site, record companies own the copyrights to the artists' works. As the paying party commissioning this artist's work, it would seem sensible to me that we also get rights to reproduction, publication, modification (even sale) of the work. Isn't our position similar to that of a record company?
I know that the photographer retaining copyright is standard business practice, so this is not a dealbreaker for me. Still, I'm interested in this issue. Has anyone found photographers that sell their copyrights? Has anyone been able to negotiate copyrights as part of a professional photography package?
On a related note, the photographer mentioned that before he was a photographer for weddings, he worked mostly for sports magazines and for a fast food chain. In the business world, does anyone know who keeps the copyright? Would go to Weightlifting Monthly and Burger Shack, or does Photo Joe keep the rights?"
All this seems backward to me. He wants us to pay several thousands of dollars for pictures of ourselves, and we don't get the copyright as part of our package? As we have heard endlessly on this site, record companies own the copyrights to the artists' works. As the paying party commissioning this artist's work, it would seem sensible to me that we also get rights to reproduction, publication, modification (even sale) of the work. Isn't our position similar to that of a record company?
I know that the photographer retaining copyright is standard business practice, so this is not a dealbreaker for me. Still, I'm interested in this issue. Has anyone found photographers that sell their copyrights? Has anyone been able to negotiate copyrights as part of a professional photography package?
On a related note, the photographer mentioned that before he was a photographer for weddings, he worked mostly for sports magazines and for a fast food chain. In the business world, does anyone know who keeps the copyright? Would go to Weightlifting Monthly and Burger Shack, or does Photo Joe keep the rights?"
On a related note (but not quite as 'bitchy'), at my brother's wedding the photographer set up a black backdrop in front of an portrat B/W camera, everyone was able to make a "special' pose, and there wasn't any of the 'over the table scraps' shots.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
I bought a Powershot Pro1 so I could take my own damn pictures. Fuck 'em.
P.S. That means you Sears Photo Center. You will not receive one more dollar of my money.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
LOADING...
READY.
RUN
is some GPL cameras.
"Go ahead and take pictures with this camera, but if you distribute the output, you have to provide the source (negatives) as well."
On another note, what's a fiancee????
Before we got married in 1997, I searched the web & Usenet for photogs and sent them emails asking for an estimate, explaining up front that
(a) I would own the negatives (so I could get whatever prints I wanted, whenever), but
(b) they could keep copies as examples to promote their work.
I found some that way, and also by posting to the *.photo.* groups on Usenet.
Did the same for our wedding videos, too.
A lot of them will turn you down. Just keep looking. Letting them keep the negatives is a sucker's racket. Don't say you weren't warned.
The photographer is being silly. Tradition has been to sell the negatives in a situation like yours. Now he doesn't have negatives so there is no issue there but just have them quote it as such and provide a hi res media backup. In fact they should not be able to use the photos for themselves w/o your permission any-ways. Its all in the contract in any case, if tey won;t give you the originals or copy privs shop somewhere else.
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
How we handled it: We hired a newspaper photographer who was primarily a photojournalist, but who also had a little bit of wedding experience. We told him to "cover" the wedding like an event -- shoot half of it in black-and-white, half in color, absolute minimum of formal shots, etc.
Oh, and we told him to crop everything he printed for the best, most dramatic shots - no need for standard sizes/ratios like 8x10", etc.
Bottom line: We paid $400 (OK, so this was 14 years ago -- still damned cheap at the time), we've long-since digitized all the negs and slides, and our wedding album is the envy of everyone who sees it.
I can't recommend this approach highly enough!
"It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
but if you can't find him in 20 years.. then it's highly unlikely he's going to care about one of the hundreds of weddings he's photographed at being copied..
perhaps you should just do what you like with your photos?
groklaw, wired and slashdot. The holy trinity of work based time wasting.
Finding a professional photographer that will give you the original digital shots of weddings or glamour shoots appears to be extremely difficult. The reasons stated are usually pretty nebulous, particularly the low-quality prints crap. Frankly, I wouldn't accept it for a wedding. I'd rather put a single-use 24-shot 35mm on each table with instructions for the guests to use up all the shots by the end of the even. Plus I'd probably ask anyone with their own camera to bring it, particularly if it's a digital video one, and again shoot anything they thought was interesting. Then I'd get it all onto computer and put together a nice Super Video CD or DVD of the occasion.
Write a poem and copyright it. Have it embroidered on the front of your tuxedo so it shows up in the wedding photos. Then, offer the photograhper the opportunity to cross-license the poem with the pictures. He would have to go for it, because his pictures include your copyright. If he didn't, you could sue him for selling your poem without a license.
Unknown host pong.
I like this a lot. :-)
Hire the photographer on retainer. You will pay him to use his equipment for your wedding day, and you will also pay him to set up the equipment in the proper configuration for each shot.
Then, have your snot-nosed nephew actually click the shutter.
Viola! Your snot-nosed nephew now owns the copyright, which he'll probably sign over to you for a few glasses of cheap champagne.
Well, if he did care, he'd have to contact you to try to resolve the issue before going to court .. And surely, no-one would make copies they wouldn't be prepared to pay for .. or whatever ..
Anyway, the problem is not paying the guy - it's getting access to the hi-res originals. No guy, no originals, no hi-quality reprints.
The copyright ownership depends on what the signed contract says. The photographer I have worked has done both. When he is hired to shot sporting events for different publications, he retains the copyright. When he is working for corporate America for PR purposes, the company usally will ask to retain copyrights.
Some wedding photographers will offer you non-exclusive copyright on the pictures, which means while you can do whatetver you like to the photos, so can the photographer. You both have the right to make copies, sell them to magazines, get reprints, whatever you want to do.
And other photographers will happily sell you the copyright, no questions asked.
Photographers are as diverse in their copyright views as software developers, some want to retain absolute control over what they consider to be their artwork, others are just taking pictures because they enjoy it and money is just a bonus.
A new wrench has been thrown into the works though under the 'work-for-hire' clause of copyright law. This has bitten musicians and photographers alike. What it says is, that if the deal meets certain qualifications, then under copyright law, the person paying for the service is the owner of the created work. I'm not sure if wedding photos could qualify for this clause (I'm not USian) but it's worth looking into. I don't believe it's the sort of thing that can be waived away by a contract, either.
Random and weird software I've written.
My suggestion to you: keep shopping. There are photographers who will sell you the photos, you just need to look harder. It's a tough economy, even for photographers.
Tell them that if they won't give you the photos, then they won't get your business. Be nice to them and promise to not sell the photos or use them publically, whatever.
It may be their intellectual property, but it's YOUR WEDDING and YOUR MEMORIES. This isn't just some business transaction, it's YOUR sacred moment.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
You're paying for the photographer's services. If you don't like the terms he is offering, then find someone else. For the most part, photographers try to hook you in this way so that they can milk you for reprints down the road.
Don't go for it. Eventually you'll find a good photographer who will agree to your terms. Don't get frustrated with the assholes who try to belittle your requirements, just hang up on them.
evanchik.net
- Why would I make a crappy print to put in my album?
- If a relative made the print, exactly what is the probability they remember the photographer who took the shot?
- How many people actually decide on a photographer based on the the quality of the print and not the person's opinion of the photographer?
I'm all for making money, but at least give me a plausible reason why I shouldn't own shots of myself.However, it depends on your area whether this is easy or extremely hard ... I happen to live in a city where there are very many talented photographers that are competing for business. (Madison, WI)
The studios almost never give you the negatives, of course, because they have to maintain their floorspace, studio lights, office staff, etc, etc. However, we found that the freelancers were willing to give us the negatives. Actually, the wedding photographer we ended up with didn't even want the negatives since he didn't have any room to store them!
Getting the negatives mattered a great deal to us since we are concerned about long term storage. Plus, it was very nice that we could mail all of our guests copies of the pictures that the photographer took of them. There's no way that we would've done that with $5/reprint.
I will be the first one to admit that some of the studio photographers took great photos, much better than our photographer! However, when we took into account the factor of 4 in the price, plus that we got to keep the negatives, it turned out to be an easy decision.
My wife & I just recently went through this except we went with film rather than digital. Luckily my wife's mother is the secretary of a large church and also coordinates weddings so all the local photographers were willing to give us great discounts.
Overall the photography costs came to about $2,300. Their general policy is that after about 3-5 years, they'll sell the originals for another $500 or so. That way they get the majority of the revenue from people who want copies, but eventually we get the negatives. Fortunately for us, about 3 months after our wedding the company relocated to another office. To save costs and hassle in moving, they offered all of their customers the negatives for only $300.
The photographs taken of you are of no use to the photographer without a release, I've done this with customers in exchange for a lower rate for the job.
The only thing the photographer can ever do with the pictures from your wedding legally without a release is to put them in his book. He cannot really even sell them to your relatives, although it is accepted practice.
Look for a photographer that will do the job as 'work for hire', he provides the equipment, skill and time to take the photographs, you provide the film or payment for film and you process the film and have pictures made.
With a traditional wedding photographer your paying for a lot more than simply someone who 'takes pictures', your paying for a variety of professional services (overhead, knowledge, poses, processing, album, packaging, and a lot more time than you realise).
Put an advert in the paper asking for a work for hire photographer and require samples.
Most wedding photographers a lot harder than slashdoters seem to think. They have big investments in gear and time. I have $10k in gear and I'd still want more before I took on the burden of shooting a wedding. If you think you can do the same thing with a Powershot or throw away cameras you are fooling yourselves. Great photos take solid gear AND experience AND talent.
WRT copyright - the creator owns the copyright unless there is an explicit agreement before the time of creation. Yup, that is how it works. It is very very uncommon for established, professional photgraphers to give away (or let go of cheaply) their IP.
Why should the photographer give up to you a potential revenue stream for cheap? His time, skill, equipment, (and business overhead and asprin for dealing with crazy mothers-in-law) produced that body of work. It is a very difficult line of work that involves a lot more than pushing a button on a camera. Check out some of the wedding photographer boards and you will find all sorts of horror stories about clients.
Your best bet is to find someone who's not a pro, but has real skill. Someone who has another day job, but who loves to shoot as a hobby, has a pleasant personality, has years of real wedding experience, and who moonlights. These people will deliver quality results, but will gladly hand over the copyrights. Often, their only requirement is that they can use a few shots from the shoot for their own portfolio.
This type is harder to find than a regular pro since they don't advertise in the yellow pages, but it's worth looking into. Your best bet is to go to a high-quality local lab, the sort of place that us freaky amateur shutterbugs go to, and asking the employees there directly. You'd be surprised; some of the best wedding photography I've ever seen was done by a mining engineer and a building supply store's shipping clerk.
As with any photographer, ask to see a portfolio of previous wedding work, ask them for references, and shop around for several candidates first. This is a buyer's market, after all.
All this takes some legwork, but in the end you'll have professional-level results, and the legal right to make a copy of any shot for anyone you damn well please.
(assuming you are in the US):
Make sure he/she understands that you're hiring him as "Work for hire". Then use the images as you wish. If he want's to sue you, the burden of proof will be on him to prove that HE owns the copyright of the images that you _hired him to create_. It's doubtful that he'd sue you, but if he did, he'd have a lot of prove. He would likely lose in court, and you'd get the rights to your pictures.
IANAL-BMGI (But My Girlfriend Is) and as such, my advice is exactly that - just advice. Seek a _true_ legal professional that practices Copyright/Trademark Law and see what your rights are. It would probably cost you about $250 to get a real/legitimate answer.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
Couldn't you just say it that it's "work for hire" and all by-products of that work are sole property of the guy paying the slippery shit?
No sig for you!!
My understanding is that when you hire someone to do creative work, you own the copyright for that creative work. The fact that a) people exist who claim otherwise, and b) contracts exist where this ownership is explicitly acknowledged or, alternately, waived, should not change the fact that by default you own the copyright.
Sounds like it's time someone started making a registry of dweeby photographers, so we can know who to avoid.
I knew a pro photographer who was getting married. He posted on the Hasselblad mailing list that he was getting married, would supply the film to another photographer, pay something like $400, and would take the film after the wedding.
I suggest, first of all, that you *do not* spend 4 large to support this scam. You must have a couple of good friends that are reasonably good with a camera. Get them to help and pay them well.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
So you have this photographer who has invested thousands of dollars in equipment, from bodies to lenses, who is investing a good portion of a day to come to your wedding and is guaranteeing that you'll get some shots that are good. You are paying him for his skill, just like you get paid for your skills at the office. Difference between you and him is that you probably work for a large corporation and he is an independent contractor that you are contracting. Independent contractors usually keep ownership of their work and create a contract that gives you limited rights to that work. I suppose you could get your own camera and get some shitty shots if you wanted to.
I'm getting our photo CD and the rights to the photos for $250 for my wedding.
More than enough BS
As the paying party commissioning this artist's work, it would seem sensible to me that we also get rights to reproduction, publication, modification (even sale) of the work. Isn't our position similar to that of a record company?
In the absence of a signed contract, the copyright *almost always* belongs to the party whose efforts created the work. NOT the person who is paying. (Except for a few exceptions like employees, google "work for hire") This is the way copyright law works.
I have found that many pro photographers are, to put it mildly, asshats. Especially wedding photographers (probably because they are all interchangeable, I hate to say). They have to have the latest most expensive equipment, just to appear "pro", even though a digital rebel would take the same pictures. They are ultra paranoid about copyrights (even though Uncle Bob stood behind him and took the same fucking picture).
Yeah I feel their pain (I am an amature photographer myself so I can sorta see both sides. I would go insane shooting weddings though.) .. nowdays making a copy of a photo is so easy. But that's just too bad.
I would take the advice of others and just keep looking. Or hire a photographer who doesn't always do weddings (risky, but could be fun, as one of the posts above describes).
You'll find one.
My sister just got married; she negotiated an agreement with the photographer to purchase the copyright for $100-$150 over and above the cost of having the photographs taken.
Admittedly, hers was a charmingly small and intimate wedding at a spa resort (look, I have to say this, my sister might read this post, and she was a radiant bride and my brother-in-law was a proud and loving groom), and my sister tells me the photographer explained that he's have charged more for the copyright, perhaps up to $600, had the wedding party been larger.
This, of course, is because the larger the wedding party, the more people who want to buy copies of the pictures, and by retaining copyright the photographer has a monopoly on those pictures. While he can't, simply for market reasons, charge outrageous prices, he can certainly make sure that he's the one paid for copyright, developing, printing, and mailing the pictures, and add all those fees to the final price.
That being said, my sister's wedding was held at an out of the way ("exclusive and secluded") resort, so the photographer's normal business includes stuff like local college and university publicity pictures, and -- according to his daughter, who was also taking pictures -- executive retreats. So basically he's selling the copyright to my sister for the price he'd charge business clients for copyright to their promotional pictures. (And speaking of local colleges, the excellent wedding violinist was a local college professor of music - and really good.) Prices might -- or might not -- differ in metropolitan areas, and no doubt vary from one photographer to another.
What this comes down to is negotiation: you're the one shelling out the major cash, and the photographer is the guy looking for a gig. Explain that you're shopping for his time and the copyright, and that you're willing to pay a bit more for it, as you understand the copyright has monetary value to him if he keeps it. But also explain that if he keeps it, it's speculative value, based on who may or may not purchase copies over the months and years ahead, whereas a fee is cash money is his pocket now. Google on "Time Value of Money", and see what I mean.
Finally, whenever I've been hired as a programmer, it's been taken for granted that I'm doing "work for hire", and my (copyrighted) source code belongs to the business hiring me for no additional consideration. Not only that, I'm expected to assign any patents I design on the job to the corporation hiring me.
While the case of a photographer is not entirely parallel -- he provides his own tools, and takes the risk of badly developed photos -- I'll maintain that the most important tool used to write code isn't a computer or a compiler, it's in the 1400 grams of brain I bring with me to the task. And if it's a question of creativity, I'll submit that a code writer -- any good code writer -- is as much an artist as any wedding photographer.
Your wedding photographer should be there to commemorate the day, not to cynically calculate how to separate you from your shekels by squeezing your sentimentality down through the years. Recognize that he's a professional, and let him know you're not a chump, and work out a price that is fair to him and gives you the rights to your own memorabilia.
PS: I've written a number of Slashdot comments, and I've gotten a decent amount of praise for them: a bunch of +5 mods, and even some encouraging replies ("occasionally, just occasionally... there should be a +6... to memorably mark such insightful posts.", "one of the greatest and most interesting posts I have ever read on Slashdot"), but I have to say I was absolutely blown away by the love letter my sister had written to her future husband, which she read to us at the wedding dinner. All my cleverness and ranting and fulminating, about Ashcroft and civil liberties and how to write code the right way, is so much ephemera next to my sister's amaranthine words of love.
Sis, I wish you and my brother-in-law -- and "Percy" -- the best for years and years to come.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
The photographer, my wife and I hired, listed pricing for the negatives on the the flyer he provided us. We could purchase the negatives for roughly US$2000-2500. We only had the option to buy them when we initially contracted with him. Needless to say we did not purchase the negatives. I was not thrilled with the practice, but the wife wanted a pro. It does seem wrong that the system works this way. With the amount we pay for an album, you would think the negatives would be included.
One of my clients will give you a CD and the copyrights.
There are probably just as many scam photographers out to get as much money as possible from taking a few pictures as there are real professionals.
For the thousands of dollars they'd charge, you can very easily buy your own top of the line digital camera and a tripod. Then make sure you know what you're doing and take the pictures yourself. And the rest of the money would go towards printing.
Newsgroups: soc.women, [YOUR STATE NAME].general, [ANY NEWSGROUPS SPECIFIC TO YOUR CITY], rec.photo, rec.photo.equipment.misc, rec.photo.film, rec.photo.marketplace, rec.photo.misc, rec.photo.technique.art, rec.photo.technique.misc, rec.photo.darkroom, rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.equipment.35mm, rec.photo.equipment.film, rec.photo.equipment.large-format, rec.photo.equipment.medium-format, rec.photo.technique.nature, rec.photo.technique.people, soc.couples, soc.couples.wedding, soc.singles, misc.jobs.contract, misc.business, alt.romance.chat, alt.video.dvd, alt.wedding, alt.newlywed, alt.romance, biz.marketplace.service, biz.marketplace.services, biz.marketplace.services.non-computer, biz.misc, alt.biz, alt.biz.misc, alt.business.home, alt.video
Subject: need photo & video pro(s) for our wedding
We need recommendations / bids for people to do the photo and video work at our wedding on [date] in [city]. The photo and video work could be different vendors.
[Add any details you think pertinent regarding venue, planned activities, etc. Will it be indoors or out? Time of day?]
I estimate xx-yy hours of work for stills, xx-xx hours for video. Food provided, of course.
Contract must be for raw exposure / footage (i.e., no special packaging / editing / presentation etc.), to be delivered upon removal from equipment, customer keeps the stock. Willing to have written "fair use" agreement which protects copyrights and other rights of vendor. Will consider same vendor for post-event processing, prints, etc.
Please email as complete details as possible:
-- samples/website, contracts, references, etc.
-- styles? equipment, materials, and # persons to be used?
[Discuss if you first must meet in person. We didn't, since we saw work sample on the web, and the ceremony was very far from home. Scary, but it worked out great.]
[I ended each Usenet post with the following, so the search engines would pick it up.]
keywords: [city names in the area] photo photos photography photographic
photographs pictures album camera cameras lens lenses film high-speed
daylight tungsten asa iso aperture exposure fstop f-stop wide-angle
telescopic zoom flash natural-light portrait portraits portraiture
sitting sittings pose poses posed bride brides groom grooms tripod
microphone microphones digital digitally lavalier hidden lumens video
videography videographer videographic videotape videotapes camcorder
camcorders broadcast vhs beta betacam betamax svhs hi-8
...is that while most professional photographers are outraged at the idea of parting with their negatives, on a commercial job, they'll think nothing at all of parting with their chromes (slides / transparencies), which are just as much an original.
This sig intentionally left justified.
I was just married about 2 weeks ago and my wife and I are extremely pleased with our photographer and the way that he handled the copyright issue (we interviewed several and this one was far and away the best). He shot everything with both film and digital cameras, first off. It turns out that though the digital has plenty of resolution to make large prints it doesn't capture as many levels of contrast as the film does, but it's easier to work with. So he shoots both.
On the digital, we have the copyright immediately. I already have a CD with all the images (hi-res), plus he puts up a site where anyone can look at the digital proofs and order high-quality prints. The photos on the site have a watermark-looking thing on them, but the ones on the CD are clean.
With the film, we get the negatives and the copyright one year after the wedding. The reason for this is that photographers are out to make a living too and they make a lot from relatives and such who want to order good quality prints (photo dye on 100-year archive paper as opposed to ink jet, for instance). After a year, we get the negatives and the copyright. This seemed quite reasonable to me. Also, the photographer retains the right to use the photos for publicity purposes, which also seemed reasonable.
And, yes, we do have a signed copyright release stating all this (the photographer actually told us that many photo labs will not make reprints without this, even if you do have the negatives, so be sure to get one when you find a photographer that's willing to give you copyright).
I'd suggest shopping until you find a similar deal. If enough people do this, it will put competitive pressure on other photographers to adopt similar measures.
If anyone's wondering, the photographer we used is Steve Wille. The samples and digital proofs are on the same site (yes, the photos are real, not using a backdrop or edited -- Colorado's a beautiful place). Unfortunately, I can't post the URL to the CD photos as my server couldn't handle the potential load.
I would highly recommend Steve to anyone getting married in Colorado.
I'm a computer geek, RHCE etc. and also a pro photographer w/ the PPA.
Let me ask this question for when your doing sys admin work.
Do you hire someone with 5 years experience, an RHCE, and whatever else to manage your pool of 100 machines cranking a billion dollars a month?
Or, do you hire the guy that just graduated high school, used linux at home on his workstation and may have compiled a kernel once.
The question remains the same for hiring a pro photographer vs. hiring an amatuer. I've seen many to that point. It seems 50/50 for experience vs. high school graduate.
Now about copyrights and the subject at hand. I always retain copyright for every photo I take unless I am very well reimbursed for each image taken. The only time selling the copyright is really an option for me is doing commercial work that is extremely targeted to something. ie: shooting a layout for honda, no one is going to use it but honda and they have paid very well.
For weddings, I will give customers, for a fee, a copy of the images for them to get printed themselves; however I will typically suggest that they use my services for the primary wedding album. The reason for this is that I will guarentee my work and something that will be very nice and professional. The typical person will have grand dreams but not quite get it set up right or not be happy with the end results.
My fee's for record are very similar to what was listed in the original article.
What a pro wedding shooter should have:
Errors and Omissions insurance - if the wedding photo's completely suck, you can have it reshot by the photographer and all of it paid for. This cost about 150 a year.
Two to three cameras minimum. If a camera breaks during a shoot, you either have one or not. My cameras and lenses together probably cost about 9k apeice. I shoot digitally so there is no film cost per say. The rig has to be replaced generally every two or three years, especially the body.
Computer systems. I use a laptop on-site to burn to DVD and download from the film. Typically this is done by an assistant during a break. Then I have a color calibrated system that I use for photo editing. I give a low rez CD to the couple and let them select the ones they want for an album and have an online gallery.
From the gallery, people can order prints which are sold. Same old same ol, but it's a way to increase revenue. Why do that? To be able to stay in business.
Let me ask another question. For those that have done the set themselves, have they gone in and cleaned up the photos? Airbrushing zits, blemishes, etc.? This takes a lot of time to do. Pro's can do it pretty quick but it still takes time per image. What is that worth?
I should mention that to edit roughly 1000 photo's with basic things such as color adjustments, airbrushing zits, etc. can take a good 30 to 40 hours.
I dunno, should a photographer be allowed to try and make the most money they can off of 80 to 100 hours of work?
If there is anyone in the Northern Arizona area that wants to see what really goes into all of this stuff, post here and I'll contact you. It's not as easy as it sounds.
I'll watch this thread for a couple of days and offer to answer any questions.
This is totally unbelievable: the photographer is not doing this for the sake of art, he has been contracted to take pictures of a private event. I have myself indulged quite a bit in nature photography and have sold my prints for commercial use (calendars and greeting cards). I obviously keep the copyrights in that case, and sell the photos only for a particular use. But if someone hired me to shoot a private event, then I am not sure what I would get by keeping the negatives and not offering them to the customer. I can see the commercial aspect of it: once you give away the negatives/originals, there is no more need for the photographer for future reprints. Reasons like low-quality prints "tarnishing" someone's reputation is total bs. then again, this is just a hobby for me. but i don't think i would want to make my customers pay through the nose just because I can... guess i learnt something from Mr. Clinton ;)
I think builders should try the same thing that photographers do.
That is, you pay them to build you a wall for $500. BUT.. they retain all rights to the wall. So if you want to knock it down, you need to get their permission (and pay them). If you want to move the wall, you need to pay. If you want to grow plants up the wall, better get permisson first!
Copyrights are all well and good in some areas.. but in personal photography? They should hold onto it for a couple of months while people get photographs (only the true wedding tight wad will hold out longer - or the truly poor.. who photographers should not be ripping off anyway) and then drop it.
Most commercial photographers want to keep the copyright so every time you use the image in a promotion or marketing piece -- you pay. My company hires a very talented photographer to do product shots (most are better than typical catalog shots). Our understanding is we are paying him as a photographer for hire. We keep the rights to the images he delivers. We typically pay $800 per image for this privelege. Every once in a while, this photographer reminds us he'd rather have a more traditional relationship. That's when we remind him we would look for a new photographer.
Professional event photographers have to follow a huge profit margin repeat customer business model, or they will go out of business.
End of story.
There is no other way for a person to make enough money doing photography full time without this business model.
Further, they are (or consider themselves) to be professional artists. When they make a shot the shot is a combination of their skill and equipment. They own the copyright just as an author's skill and equipment allowed him to immortalise "It was a dark and stormy night," regardless of the prints made, or the people in the prints.
Of course you'll find all the acrimony you want here for this business model - it's the same model followed music and movie artists, and bears striking resemblance to software and other frivolous patents.
There are plenty of photographers 'out there' who will be happy to shoot your wedding. Be aware that the shots and reprints are not going to have the same qualities that a full time professional will give you - but you may not want those qualities.
Also remember that a full time photographer has to make you look good in your pictures, otherwise you won't buy reprints. Their business model depends on how well they take the shots. A regular photographer who is only being payed to be a shutterbug has no incentive to do a great job - just good enough to add one or two photos to his portfolio and good enough that you don't stiff him his payment.
I'm not suggesting that this business model is right for you, but it has its advantages and disadvantages.
There are others out there that will give you what you want, within reason given how little you seem to be willing to pay.
-Adam
Now, many wedding photographers make their real cash from the prints, and so will refuse to sell the negatives anyway (or only after a substantial period of time), but you have to ask in their language in order to get anywhere.
Additionally, if they are a pro that does journalism/advertising work as well as weddings, they're going to immediately wonder if you're trying to screw them. 99% of commercial clients who ask for all-rights contracts don't really need all the rights they ask for (a frank discussion of what the client actually wants to do will usually result in a more sane limited-rights contract being signed for less money), but requests like that can also be a red flag that the client doesn't really understand/care about copyright and is likely to play fast and loose with your images (omitting credit lines, retouching without offering first refusal, reselling the work as their own, never paying you, etc.)
Just so you know where I'm coming from, I'm a freelance illustrator who avoids all-rights/work-for-hire assignments whenever possible, and I bought the negatives from my wedding photographer last year.
The photo shop won't print a copy either. Try bringing a professional looking photo to a store. They will refuse to do it.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
My wife and I got married in St. Louis, and our photographer (Chris Croy) waived the copyright, giving us cds containing very high resolution copies of every picture taken. We also got the standard proofs and prints bearing his signature, but the signature was only added to the photos he developed and delivered to us in print. Very professional, and very high quality.
I was out of town when my wife and mother-in-law chose the photographer, but from what I understand of their conversations he what I consider to be a very intelligent attitude about it. He adjusts his business model (fancy that) to make his money on the original sale, recognizing that things are different than they were tweny or even ten years ago. Since his name isn't on the digital prints, he doesn't "suffer" from distribution of low-quality prints (although that argument does seem a bit lacking to me). I know that getting copyright-waived digital copies was part of the package we bought, and that it's not part of all the packages. Unfortunately my mother-in-law also paid for the photographer, so I don't know anything about what the costs were.
Copyright lasts a long time, by the way. A few years ago my mom and her brother and sister put together a scrapbook for their parents' fiftieth wedding anniversary, and weren't allowed to make copies of their (my grandparents') wedding pictures because they were still copyrighted, and they couldn't track down the photographer, who may easily have been dead. All in the interest of maintaining that creative incentive in society...
I was always kinda amazed about the "wedding photo" scam, you pay a guy thousands of dollars to show up at your wedding and take photos he intends to sell to your relative.
Seems like a good photographer who is also a good businessman would calculate the profit (not gross - he has costs in it) to be expected from selling to your relatives and sell you the copyright for seventy five cents on the dollar of the expected profits.
It's only fair that he be compensated for his loss of revenue.
He can then spend the time he'd spend managing printing to go shoot another job.
The prints do make money, yes, but the big drop in the bucket is the initial fee for shooting the wedding.
A smart photographer would do more weddings and make more money.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Avoid "wedding photographers". Anything with the term "wedding" on the business card or who attends wedding shows is ripping you off to the tune of 300-700%.
I'd look for referrals from friends or interview graduate students at a local university. Make it clear that they are working for hire, and that is not negotiable. If they would like to use your photos for a portfolio, grant them a license in exchange for a discount.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Actually, at the prices that folks here are talking about, if he's willing to work out of state, he might still be a good deal even if he has to be flown out.
I dunno about all the claims from photographers that they need to retain copyright. I don't do photography, and I would assume that a photographer probably doesn't get constant work. Plus, he has to buy his own equipment.
Still, it seems like there must be a better solution (like having a number of photographers go into business together and be more tightly scheduled, thus getting more work) than having to have such harsh IP requirements over wedding pictures.
May we never see th
Does he get all the guests to sign a model release form? Are the shots taken in a public place (i.e. a place the photographer doesn't need permission to be). If the answer to both these questions is no, then he owns the negatives but not the copyrights. So the question is can you buy the negatives, not can you buy the copyright.
First, damned few, if any true pros are going to hand over the RAW files or the negatives. My sister found one photographer AFTER her wedding who would do it for baby photos.
What we did is found a photographer who has been in business for twenty years already. Same place, same phone number, same business name. That's one indicator that I'll be able to find them. Second, I checked how the negatives are stored, etc. Offsite, big processing house.
There's one little thing you haven't mentioned: when you get your album, you are going to get the best prints of photos that were taken. First step is take care of those photos. Second step is that if for some reason you want another photo in twenty years, you'll be able to make a copy. Seriously, those goons at Kinko's don't want to deal with you while you are doing your thing.
Been married almost five years. We've looked at the photos like 2-3 times. Big fucking deal. Talk to your parents, and it'll be the same thing. Oh, yeah, I guess the chicks look at 'em more, but if she is looking at them more than once a year, you really don't want to be married to you.
The other questions: depends on the terms of the author's sale of the photos to the publication. In some cases he'll keep them, in others, it goes to the client.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Step 1: Get a scanner
:p)
Step 2: scan it
Step 3: print it.
But I agree that its not the optimal solution.. which would of course be to have the negatives.. or the original high res digitals..
My point was that if you can't find him in 20 years and don't have the negatives.. then worrying about copyright is the least of your issues.. just copy the damn things and if the photographer appears out of the woodwork then the problem is solved (but possibly a new one created
groklaw, wired and slashdot. The holy trinity of work based time wasting.
Ask him what he does for backups of his digital photos. I just got married a couple months ago and when we spoke to the photographer, I specifically asked him about offsite backups. He works out of his home. Seemed a reasonable question - these are pretty important photos we're talking about.
At first, he looked at me like I had 3 heads. Then he explained to me that he's never lost a file, never had any reason to fear losing a file, and he's been in the business for 15 years and keeps all his film negatives, etc. on-site as well, and doesn't worry about that. So why bother with backups when you have to swap tapes, keep track of it all...Basically, blew off my concerns.
Then I got a nasty look from my fiancee and dropped it. This guy is a friend of the family so the only way I could say no to him doing the work is if I had a non-geek-related objection.
Back to the question at hand. This guy's being a little unreasonable, and I think it's because his main line of work is not weddings and similar events. I don't think he's being mean about the situation - he just doesn't know better. I think I can get a CD of all our photos from our photographer a few months after he's turned our proofs and album over to us (might have a cost associated with it); at that point, 90% of requests for duplicates/reprints will have come and gone, so we won't be taking business away from him that way. And let's be realistic - how the hell can I sell photos of my own wedding? The idea is ludicrous.
Do NOT pick a photographer because he's a geek. Pick a photographer because he knows what he's doing. Make sure he does good work. Talk to previous clients. Ask him how he manages taking pictures during the ceremony. Will he be blocking your guests' view? Will he interfere with the videographer (if any)? Will he be flexible in taking the post-ceremony photos, and not say "you must do this pose. Now you must do this pose." - basically, someone who will work WITH you, not someone who's going to make you feel like a hired model.
It's called the "Pro1" after all! It must be as good as those Hasselhoff's (laugh) I see them pros carrying around!
Money saving tip. Buy a stack of disposable cameras and give them out to guests attending the wedding. Collect them at the end of the day.
You may have scared the photographer away by requesting their copyright. As an artist, their copyright means a lot to them. It means they can manage the distribution and production of images, re-use them for portfolios, artistic work, collages, commercial work or anything else that suits their fancy. It's what they earn on top of a fee, for having a ultimately unique talent and approach to their craft.
There's no need for you to strip that from them, which is what you are asking for when you ask for their 'copyright'. What you want is a license with reasonably loose restrictions.
It's true that many wedding photographers developed their craft in a day where production costs (for film) were relatively high and the fee they could charge for a wedding was comparatively low. Thus, they retained reprint rights so that they could recoup a better margin over time.
However, this is changing rapidly, largely because of the far lower production cost involved with digital photography, and the emergence of the photojournalistic style. More and more photographers, including my fiance, whom I'm shamelessly promoting, are more than happy to provide you with full resolution digital images for private printing. More often than not, clients who aren't tech savvy, or don't have cost-effective access to professional quality print labs, come back to the original photographer anyway. And even if they don't come back, releasing the images amounts to one less hassle for the photographer five years from now when your mom wants a few new prints.
However, they will usually try to retain copyright, though, since it's often far more valuable to them them than it would be to you.
In summary: don't worry. There are an increasing number of photographers out there who provide exactly what you need. Just keep looking, and good luck on your wedding!
Like other posters have said, retaining the copyright is not as high of an issue. We ended up using one of the images on our thank you cards! Ballsy? Yes. Stupid? Probably, but all we got were ooh's and ahh's (maybe the CaD letter is in the mail ;).
Just think of what the photographer is trying to do... he/she just wants to make sure that they're going to make more then their attendance fee. Printing off the occasional photo 20 years from now isn't going to chap their hide (or, at least it shouldn't). My advise - be open with them, say you're concerned that they'll be long gone X years from now and you will still want to have access (but make it clear that their reassurances are not good enough, that you want the HiRes images no matter what or you'll go else where).
On a side note... the suggestion of a News photographer is sweet! We were 110% happy with our wedding photographer, but I would have liked that idea originally as an option!
"1984" was ment to be a warning, not a guidebook. You hear that Kim Jong-il!? BushCo?!
If you want, you can read hepkitten's explanation of where all that money goes... It's quite informative, as long as you skip the drama that comes right after >_<
[o]_O
When we got married abroad we were actually offered all the negative for about $400. The simple reason is that the photographer know that no-one is going to contact im from your home country to get new photos so he just makes a quick buck and you get what you want. Alternativly get someone in the family to do it
rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
Actually, I make my living as a wedding photographer. Well, I do other types of photography, too, but weddings are my favorite.
You can certainly find photographers who will either include reproduction rights with their packages, or who will sell them to you for an additional fee. Notice, I didn't say "copyright." No photographer will ever sell the copyright. See, there's two parts to copyright. First, you have the right to make any copies of the images you want. Second, you can prevent anyone else from making copies. Many photographers will let you make whatever copies you want, but no photographer is going to give up his right to make copies.
Essentially, it works like this. Let's say that for a particular package the photographer realizes that he needs to make $2,500 on the wedding in order to make it worth his time. That's a reasonable fee for a small package. Consider that we bring about $45,000 worth of photo equipment to a wedding, which all has to be paid for, maintained, insured, repaired, replaced, etc, and then use another $20,000 worth of computer equipment to edit, retouch, and archive...that adds up. Then there's business overhead from taxes, office supplies, advertising, etc, and on top of it we have to put food on the table and pay for health insurance and what not.
So, $2,500 in gross sales in the goal. We know from past experience that we can expect $500 in additional sales to friends and family after the wedding. So, the couple (or mom & dad) pay $2,000, and the other $500 comes from friends and family later. If you want to have the high-res digital files, that's fine! But it's going to cost $500, because then we know we're not going to get any reprints from friends and family.
Shop around...this is a completely free-market enterprise. There are NO requirements to be a wedding photographer. Any asshole with a camera can call himself a professional photographer, as no licensing or oversight is required...that's why there are so many bad photographers out there, and why a photography business it the most failure-prone business venture next to a restuarant. You can pay as much or as little as you want, but you get what you pay for. You can hire a student from the community college for $200 plus the cost of film and he'll hand you the rolls at the end of the night, but he's probably going to be using sub-standard equipment, and have very little knowledge of posing and lighting, and there will be no retouching, editing, or album design. Or, if you're interested, I know several fantastic photographers who will produce stunning works of art, but you're going to have to pay them $15,000. Shop around until you find the photographer who'll give you price you want and the quality of work you're willing to settle for. Good luck with your wedding!
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
scan the best prints as a personal backup copy... That's what we did with the 10 by 8s that we had from the baby photos done by a mall photographer...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Although that was important to us, it was much more important that he could straddle the line between artsy and archival. He took b&w as well as color photos and -- this was so cool -- he took some 3D photos that turned out to be the best shots of the church's grandeur. (Stanford Memorial Church)
I say, demand the negatives, but expect to make a reasonable concession. Make sure you get someone experienced with weddings since they are going to help you wrangle your family for the group shots, and that's hard. And hey! you only get one wedding. An idea-- ask someone from each side of the family beforehand to be designated wranglers. You'll probably need the extra help.
We had an unexpected use of our wedding photos: we gave a beautiful picture of my little sister to the surgeon to reference during her reconstructive surgery following an accident. (She's recovered- thanks.) We were really grateful to have the photo already digitized.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
A photographer should get out of the printing business and worry about the photography business. then they can get a ton more work done. I don't know a single photographer that loves making CD's and prints. they love to shoot, and do it right.
maybe a photographer can "give up" a revenue stream so a hardworking young man or woman can save some much needed money as they start their lives together in marriage. Of course, why would the photographer care, it's his IP right? He should be able to over price his services. "Hmm, let's see I'll charge 2 grand for this wedding for 3 hours of work, but only 200 dollars for this frat party dance."
whatever, such BS if I've ever heard it. This world is more and more dishonest every day.
...::----::...
I am in no way affiliated with this sig.
When I got married, my soon to be wife and her father made up a contract that specifically stated that we will pay the photog for services, purchase all film used and will retain all said rights to the film and photos.
We went to a few photogs before one agreed, then kept the negatives after the wedding. Needless to say - he signed the contract and we got our negatives. Which we promptly had scanned, archived on CDs, and uploaded to shutterfly.com to allow anyone to purchase any photos they want without having to go through us.
Stupid stupid stupid business model. Enjoy the $1500 you made for one nights work.
There will be a photographer in your area who is
a) reasonably priced
b) will let you have the negatives, photo-CDs etc
c) is not hung up on copyright
Be prepared to walk away from a few before you you find the one you want. What you're looking for is someone who will produce the photos as "work for hire" and is prepared to make his money on the day, and no more after that.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
Since I don't have mod points, I've added you to my friends list instead.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
When we were initially searching for a photographer we asked about getting the negatives, the answer was basically no but one offered to sell us high-resolution scans on CD for GBP 600!
She's based in Toronto, here's her website: http://www.katiataylorphotography.com
With the ongoing extension of copyright time limits, when does it even expire?
You will be long dead.
What if my grandchildren want copies of my pictures?
Turn it around: Do you want copies of your grandparents' wedding photos?
That's what I thought.
Go to a service bureau instead of a photo store, and ask for a drum scan.
Damn, I'm a wedding photographer, and I wish I could get $2,000 for three hours of work! Instead, my $2,000 wedding package takes about thirty hours (three hours pre-event consultation, six hours at the wedding, and another twenty-odd of editing, retouching, and printing afterwards), requires $40,000 ~ $60,000 worth of photo and computer equipment, and then I have to pay all those pesky taxes and the business overhead and what not, plus fund my own benefits. No company health and retirement plans when you're self employed! So, where can I get one of these $2k for 3 hours of work gigs you talk about?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I don't say that to put myself forward, but to give an example of how pros should work in that case. As hired contractors. Not as artists with a god given talent.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Whilst your wedding is probably the most significant thing that's happened to you, try to remember that everyone else, while they are almost certainly pleased for you, really don't care that much.
I don't think your grandkids are gonna be that upset if they can't reprint your wedding phones.
Think about it, what do you feel when your grandma/friend/family member suddenly pulls out the wedding photo album?
...who workes purely as a commissioned artist and expert. I work for travel companies, tourist agencies, media, personal commissions and the like, but the bulk of my work is as a theatrical photographer.
When I am comissioned, my clients pay my for an agreed period of time, for a minimum number of images, of subject matter and style they specify.
We discuss the shots, we discuss the intent of the shoot, and I go to work. I then provide the customer with the copyright, a full set of RAWs, TIFF and JPEG versions of the postprocessed images (straight RAWs are never at their best, but give more versatility for the customer if they want to do other things with the images).
My fee is for hire of myself and my equipment, along with my expertise. I give the customer the photos that had they owned what I own, in terms of kit and ability, they would have wished to create.
As part of my agreement, I buy limited rights back from the customer to use as portfolio shots.
And I seem to make enough money... the market for fully-owned images definitely exists. My per-hour fee is higher of course than some, but not so very much higher.
My advantage is that I don't have to worry about being a reprographics business as well as a photographer! The shoot's done, and I can worry about the next commission.
That sounds like a great way to get your wedding photos destroyed...
First, as many people are saying, you can find photographers that will give you the negs, or CDs. Whether you can find a good one that you like in your area, I don't know, but they are out there.
As far as the one you have talked to, what is "medium resolution"? It may be fine for the album prints (2MP is fine for 4x6), and keep you from hassling him for reprints other than the enlargement.
One of the reasons many photographers are giving out the negs/CDs is because having to do reprints and deal with labs f'ing them up is a pita, and not really worth it.
But you might also try approaching photographers with a request for a copyright release after a certain date, i.e. after June 2010, you get a release. That way, they are assured that you aren't interested in trying to rip them off now, but are only looking to the future when you may not be able to track them down (and when they almost certainly wont want to try and dig out that old crap to do a half dozen 4x6's for a scrapbook). That should at least get them thinking along the right lines. If you can work something like this, get it in writing, and dont lose it.
So most of your time is the editing and printing, right? Are you printing in-house? If so, what printer? If you're sending them out, tell me how much you love dealing with the printshop, and how getting request for reprints down the road really make you say "Yippie! More money and I don't even have to take anymore pictures. I love this easy stuff! Now I just have to get the lab to print this right and get it off to the customer, and it's $5 in my pocket! I love this job."
Reprints suck.
I was at a wedding recently where everyone got a disposable camera as they entered. We where asked to make as many photos as we wanted. This was cool because: * Its distributed photo making (think cluster!) * OpenSourcing (we returned the camera but coud reorder prints online) * Chances of good pictures where great And they had a normal Photograph for the standard pictures of bride and groom, but only for that!
You missed the point. If you don't like the price somebody charges, then go somewhere else. But don't get all bent out of shape about the normal business practices and pricing in an industry. Next you'll be complaining that houses cost too much and BMW should lower their prices.
You sound all whiny that weddings are expensive. The photographer didn't start that trend. Go buy a wedding cake some time and see what a real scam looks like.
I'm guessing that prices have historically separated prints from service because people are more OK with being charged a lot of money for a tangible good, rather than for what looks like a simple service. Now that some people (and it really is a small number) think they should just print their own photos, they want to pay substantially less for what was really a package price all along. The cost of goods on prints isn't anywhere near what is charged, because there is a lot more going on that the cost of goods.
Professional photographers know better than to give away their copyrights. Period.
AH, welcome to Slashdot - the land where intellectual property has no value, all businesses are evil and everything should be open sourced - even wedding photography.
>> What you say peaks my BS-O-Meter
> What you say piques my Grammar-O-Meter.
The only grammatical superiority you can claim in that quote is putting a period at the end of the sentence. Other than that, the original is superior to your own version. Meters are "peaked". People are "piqued". The original post, in sections not quoted, did omit some non-essential words as a form of shorthand. The use of "un-copyrightable" is a little suspicious, but use of "un-copyrightable" and "uncopyrightable" combined exceeds use of "not copyrightable", "non-copyrightable", and "noncopyrightable" in a google search. (My punctuation is deliberately placed outside the quotation marks as I am using the alpha version of the English language, in which maintaining the integrity of quotations gets precedence over superficial typographic conventions).
This would be outrageous and unacceptable for a commercial contract: i.e. you are the marketing department and you contract a photographer to take photographs for use in advertising material. No marketing person who wanted to keep their job would allow the photographer to retain any copyright in the photographs: under a work-for-hire arrangement, all copyrights would vest in the company paying the photographer. No commercial photographer who wanted to keep doing future business would try to hold onto the rights either.
The fact that wedding photographers try to change this, is entirely an attempt to milk further money from the customer, and needs to be stopped by actually resulting to hire photographers that operate this way.
The dangerous thing is that if you become famous in 10 years time, then the wedding photogapher (as the copyright owner) can - without your permission, depending upon the terms of your contract with him/her - sell your photographs for other purposes: possibly a tidy profit, without needing permission from you, nor needing to deliver any of that profit back to you.
Finally, just an important note: unless your contract with the photographer actually says that the photographer owns the copyright, then in fact, the default position under USC17 is that you as the commissioner own the copyright, not the photographer. So make sure you check the fine print in the contract, because the photographer may be making claims that are not legally correct.
The solution is actually simple. Don't hire a photographer who is not willing to do what you want them to do.
Programmers, even consultants, almost always assign copyrights as part of the contract. There's no reason photographers can't. It comes down to the fact that they don't like to. And if you agree to those terms, you're stuck.
However, since you're comissioning the work, you have just as much interest in the copyright as they do. Don't sign away your rights. Find a photographer that will share the copyrights, or give them over.
Photography is a tough business to make a living in. I'm sure there are some photographers willing to go that extra mile. Many would be thrilled to have the job.
As a side note, photographers also have to have a release signed from you in order to use your image for commercial purposes. They can't use the photo (commercially - like promoting their business) without it. If you didn't sign such a release, you could point out that the images are of no use to him. Offer to sign a release in exchange for shared copyrights.
If you did sign a release AND signed away your interest in the copyrights, well... consider it a learning experience.
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
We got our negatives for a few hundred dollars, but the type of negatives that most good photographers used even a few years ago are the type you can't get prints of at the local photo lab. You have to use a pro service. When you _have_ to use a pro service, photographers like it when you go through them, because they have a relationship with the developer, and/or profit from the development of new prints.
Nowadays wedding photographers will use digital or even 35mm film and it's possible to get high quality prints that way. If that's the case, along with the "source" (negatives or digital files) ask for a "copyright release" form, similar to what, as an actor, I ask for when I get a headshot.
Place a big order with the photographer for initial prints and make an offer for the files or negatives and a copyright _release_ of a few hundred dollars and it'll probably be in his or her best financial interest to accept.
Some photographers don't like this idea and won't do it under any circumstances. But I'd sooner find a great photographer who's reluctant and try to convince him or her to release the negatives than a mediocre photographer who's more than happy to hand over his or her work.
Alex.
For many years as I grew up, my Dad was a part time wedding photographer (His day job was in IT). So every weekend he earned extra money doing weddings.
When I approached the only good studio in town about doing my wedding, he was very frank about it. I want x$ as a minimum garauntee, because I know that you will have other photographers there (He knew I had hi-quality equipment of my own, because he processed most of my film in those days).
I opted to have my Dad do the job. And one of these days, I will own the copyrights, though I have the negatives now. And it was free. And I got a professional to do the job.
In case you think that is a nasty thing to do to your Dad during the wedding, he did the same thing to his Dad all those years before.
When my little brother got married, I shot a roll of 35mm and had it processed to a Kodak Photo disc. While I kept the original disc, I did burn a copy for him.
My wife and I had a hard time finding a photographer for our wedding. We did not have a lot of money to spend. All of the photographers we spoke with wanted more money than we could afford. Also since we ware short on money we wanted to be able to make our own copies where ever we could get the best price. Everyone we talked to wanted you to go through them for the reprints.
My wife placed an ad online out of desperation. She got a reply from a woman who was a substitute teacher that did photography on the side. We contacted her and set up a meeting with her. After seeing samples of her work (which were as nice as any of the "Professionals" work) we learned that she had a Package deal that included you getting the negatives.
So we went with her and I we had not one problem. She was very professional and courteous. Everyone loved the pictures when we got them. The best part was that we could make reprints for friends and family from where ever we wanted.
I've attended a few weddings over the past years.
My first buddy to get married asked me if I would take photos during the ceremony and after, even though his wife's family had hired an official photographer.
Another one of my friend's girlfriend was also taking photos too.
In the end, everyone liked my photos and my friend's girlfriend's better.
At another buddy's wedding, there wasnt any official wedding photographer, but every major guest was "loaned" a disposable camera, and at the wedding banquet, there was a disposable camera on each table, to be exposed and returned after the party... it gave interesting and sometimes hilarious results. There is still one camera missing though, the one that was at the most rowdy and alcohol-laden table (?)
So if any of you intend to get married (or even have any hopes thereof), get some of your friends some film and some cameras if they dont own one, and have them take the photos. You can even assign different kinds of film to each person, so you can have various formats in the end, eg slidefilm, sharp black & white, grainy black & white, color, sepia, false color IR, B&W IR...
All of those reasons you stated, such as "what if I can't find him in 20 years?", are the whole POINT of them retaining the copyright and/or negatives.
:)
You see, they have a choice:
1. Actually store all of those negatives for 50+ years, etc., to alleviate your concerns;
2. Sell you the negatives for a fixed amount, and never see another dime;
3. Retain all rights so that their only method of easing your fears at stated is to buy as many of the photos as you can afford, right now, and in the future as you go.
My wife and I used a photographer that included an album with a single unretouched 4x6 of EVERY PHOTO THEY SHOT as part of the shooting package. Expensive? Yep, but we can always scan them in or get them copied for personal use to our heart's content. Great photos, too, even unretouched.
Here's the thing: you need negatives to make beautiful enlargements, but you might as well pay for those up front. If what you're looking for is memories, a mediocre copy of an unretouched small photo is as priceless as a big poster. Find someone that will give you an album like we got. It was well worth it, and we even have the pleasure of being able to look at the crappy, funny photos that we would NEVER have paid for framed versions of.
Another way of looking at it is that since the wedding party is providing both the subject matter and the market for photographs is that the photographer should pay the wedding party for the concession right to take and sell photos. Of course, unless there were an unusually larger number of guests or it was a celebrity wedding, the cost per photograph would need to be pretty high for the photographer to recoup their costs (so high it might kill the market).
After seeing the mediocre results of our wedding photos (some were great, others looked like cheesy glamor shots) I am convinced that unless you pay over $5000 you are probably just as well off hiring someone who needs you more than you need them.
I know of many photography students who have shown better work than this guy (they didn't -suck- or we'd have told him to piss off) and will almost certainly bite at the chance to do so for 1/2 the cost or well less (including surrenduring the copyright).
I have a friend who did this, then his siblings arranged the photos and had them professionally mounted. Total cost was far less than what it would have cost to have a photo pro do it all (and often the photo pro doesn't do the layout/mounting, they subcontract it).
If you have a school in your area, see if there is a bulletin board around the photography area. If not, see if there are any amateur groups in your area. Ask to see a portrait portfolio. You should have enough bites to find one that will work well.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
But what about embarassing photos/films? I mean, sometimes things go wrong (hopefully not at your wedding:), and you don't want others to see it afterwards.
So, if a for example a dress breaks down, does the photographer have the right to sell the resulting photo's to Playboy, with the bride powerless to stop it?
We used Studio One Photography in Crystal Lake, IL. We were told that we could get our proofs and all of the photos scanned in at high rez on DVD if we purchased enough pictures. With our Album purchase, we needed like 180 "points" to get our dvd and the proofs (when you own the proofs, you own the copyright). Our family purchased lots of pictures, and we were able to get 140 points like that. We bought the rest of the points at a certain price (like $150 or something like that) and we got a DVD with all 789 shots they took at the wedding and the reception. It's very cool. I then used my Yahoo SBC dsl's unlimited photo album to upload all of them on the web. The rest of my family that wants pictures either downloads them and prints them out or orders them through Yahoo's online photo ordering which is pretty handy. We purchased our Wedding Album and a certain amount of extra photos (our families ordered most of
Why do you want pictures of your wedding?
So you can reminisce about "how things were back then"?
So you can primp to your so-called friends? Vain.
So you can have a conversation piece over afternoon tea?
All self-serving selfish things.
Oh, so you can make your wife happy?
I tell you what: take the skirt off and get your pants back from her, and tell her that if the marriage starts with her spending money on frivolous things, it would be better if there was no marriage. No need to set a dangereous precedent.
Listen, make it a habit of taking care of each other and each day will feel like your wedding day.
300 years ago, people didn't have wedding photographers.
If you have 5000 to spare, give it to your church. They can do something better with it.
"Piter, too, is dead."
Because that equipment doesn't come cheap. I bought a nice DV camcorder last year with the intention of doing wedding videography this year. Every time I quoted someone a price, the basic reaction was, "WTF?" And my quotes were known to be as much as half of other videographers listed in the yellow pages.
For some reason, people planning weddings seem to think you can give them a widescreen feature-length film for a couple hundred dollars. And get those forty DVDs burnt and out the door the following Monday.
I sold my camera equipment last week.
We got married only a few months ago, and we had the exact same concerns as you. We were able to find a photographer who shot only digital, and was willing to give us a CD of the original hi-res images.
We found most of our vendors for the wedding, by asking around. We'd ask florists who they had worked with as photographers, and then ask our photographers what florists they had seen do good work. This was a very helpful strategy for us, and we were extremely happy with every single one of our vendors.
Our photographer worked for the local newspaper, and so had a background in photo-journalism. But she had also been doing weddings for the last 3-4 years, and had done a couple dozen weddings in that time. We were most concerned with getting unscripted shots that captured the moment. Our formal pictures were a secondary consideration. Because our photographers experience was limited she was about half the cost of similar photographers.
Most papers have switched to completely digital photography, so if you find someone who works or worked at a newspaper they are likely to be digital. If you can find someone who is still starting off, you likely get a better deal, and have more bargaining power to get the negatives or hi-res originals.
Keep looking around, we talked to atleast 3 other photographers before deciding, and most of those wanted to keep their own negatives.
Computers don't make mistakes. What they do, they do on purpose.
Yeah, because paying $15 to $50 per image for drum scans is economically feasible for crappy wedding photos.
PepperHacks - Hacking the Pepper Pad
is a bit off, but a good try. Actually the photographer is like the recording studio engineer. He only captures the artists work. You are the artist because you are the model. The photographer captures your work, just as a studio engineer captures the work of the musicians. The studio engineer gets paid for his services but he doesn't own the recordings. The artist, or artist's management (record label) retains rights to the recordings. Unfortunately the analogy doesn't hold up because photographers work by a different set of rules. I agree, it's a load of BS, but it's one of those things that just always been that way.
Traditionally, wedding photography has worked on a speculative basis. The old Weegee type photographers attended a society wedding on behalf of the press, and then went back and tried to sell the couple prints to make some extra bucks. Most wedding photographers work that way today -- the packages offered are almost never the total number of pictures you'll want, usually don't have quite enough time alloted to complete the wedding photography (extra time - extra expense), and prices on reprints are 5 to 7 times what the labs charge the photographer. That's where the real profit lies for the speculative photographer, and why they've traditionally been reluctant to give up the negs or digital files. Advertising photographers work differently -- they charge on a time, materials and usage basis. A wedding photographer working on this basis would charge you, say, $2000 to appear and shoot the wedding plus expenses (film, processing, printing) plus a percentage (handling, etc. ). Your total expenses will usually run out to an additional $1500-1800 to cover the cost of film and get the film/files professionally processed and printed. There are a few wedding photographers who work this way, and it seems to make a big difference. We do, for example. We insist that we proof everything, however. This is to show the customer that the neg (or digital file) is properly exposed, sharp, and capable of making a good print. We give our couple a copy of everything we shoot. We also give them all the negs and a full-sized copy of every digital file on a CD. At that point, they have a choice. They can either go their merry way and have another lab make prints, or they can have us do them (our prices are about twice whatever the lab charges us, but we're dealing with the lab, specifying the quality, watching for problems and being picky on the other end). We'll also design and build albums on a custom basis, both digitally and traditionally. Charges are about twice whatever the album companies charge us. There IS an issue with copyright, and most people don't understand it at all. We will present the couple with a grant of limited rights. In other words, we'll provide them with a letter that allows them to make all the copies they want for their personal use. Even though they have physical possession of negatives or files, they don't own any copyrights beyond that. In other words, if that couple decided to write a book and include photographs of their wedding, or if they decided to write a book about wedding photography, or if they wanted to use the photographs in advertising or as props in a movie, etc. they'd have to get permission (and probably pay a fee) to me as the copyright holder. In short, a photographer can issue certain limited rights while retaining all other rights, whether physically possessing the original film or digital files or not. I don't have an issue with someone damaging my reputation by having their own prints made from my files or negs. It's far more likely that they're going to have a GOOD print done than if they scan a print and have copies of that made up. We make it clear to all our couples that they should take their originals to a PRO lab for pro results, and not to a consumer lab. Most couples notice the difference and would rather have us make their prints and pay the (relatively minor) extra cost to insure the quality. When the prices of reprints are extensively inflated because of the marketing model most speculative photographers use, there's more incentive for customers to seek out a cheaper alternative, and *that's* where crappy prints result. In short, that couple could have had their cake and eaten it too. They simply need to find a photographer that does what we do; charges a fee and expenses to photograph the wedding, provides them with a set of proofs and a set of digital files (in this case) at full resolution, and offers a release of *specific* rights to print copies of the photos for their own use. No biggie. There ARE other photographers that work that way, but the majority are still using a marketing model that goes back to the thirties.
There are plenty of good photogrophers in the world. Find one that does weddings and will give you the negatives and/or hi-res digital images. Forget the ones that want to "retain" copyright. After all, they are doing a job for you and not creating art.
I had a friend of mine - a decent photographer - take the vast majority of my wedding pictures. He just gave me the rolls of 35mm film at the end of the shoot and had me dev them.
This sig no verb.
Just marry someone who has a relative who is a professional photographer. Seriously, my sister got married last month, and between our two families, there were something like 4 professional photographers present. Needless to say, there will be plenty of photos to choose from, practically for free.
Sig is a crazy old German guy.
Hahahaha, $2000 is too expensive for you? I hope you didn't want any good photos.
As stated here, the reason wedding photographers retain copyright is to force people to buy prints from them. However, if you agree to buy the negatives from him in, e.g., one year, he'll get all the initial print orders. Because very few people will be buying prints a year from the wedding anyway, he isn't losing anything.
So try that tactic: offer to buy prints from him as normal and buy the negatives (and copyright) from him in a year.
The rights to not have your work butchered and presented as your own or misrepresented as someone else's are protected even if you assign the copyright... at least that's the case in Canada.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/38965.html#rid-3 9073
I'm not sure about the U.S... A quick Google turns up stuff which makes me wonder if the U.S. is screwed up in this regard:
http://www.rbs2.com/moral.htm
Thanks everybody for all your help! I didn't expect such a great response. Here's some comments of my own.
1. I completely respect what photographers do as artists, and I specifically respect the photographer I talked to. I don't feel like his prices were scams or ripoffs. I recognize he would be putting in a lot of work, and the pictures were amazing. My fiancee has been a musician in dozens of weddings, and she knows he's highly recommended. I think his prices were fair for what he offered, but they were simply out of our price range. As much as we would like to spend $3000 on wedding photography, we can't.
2. I especially appreciated posts from the photographers on why they want to keep copyrights. I realize now that I don't need the full copyright signed over to me. But I do want a full license for reproduction, modification, publication, distribution, etc. The photographer can keep his originals, my family members can buy their prints from him, and he can use them for his portfolio. But I also want no restrictions on what my fiancee and I can do with the images.
3. I probably want a photographer who uses some (or all) digital photography because hi-res digital images would be more useful to me than negatives. I would want hi-res files of the images both before and after retouching. I could compromise on 150 dpi jpgs delivered with the photos and hi-res files a year later.
4. When I talked to the photographer, said he would give me "medium quality" images suitable for the web. This made me think of 72dpi. But I could very well have reasons to want to print 300dpi images on my crappy inkjet. Or my fiancee may divorce me, and wants to put up a picture on her website of me with devil horns and pointy moustache. I know the photographer as an artist might not like that, but she should have the rights to do that.
5. Part of the reason I don't want to deal with these restrictions is because I don't know what we will want to do with the pictures in future. What if, 20 years from now, I buy some fancy hi-definition OLED picture frame to hang on my wall. Boy, I sure wish I had some high-resolution images of my wedding to put on that screen!
Or what if my daughter is running for President, and she wants to put my wedding pictures in her cheesy Mom-and-Apple-Pie 30 minute campaign spot transmitted directly to voters' brains? Would she have the legal rights to use those images? I think she should.
>> I'd rather put a single-use 24-shot 35mm on each table with instructions for the guests to use up all the shots by the end of the even.
1. "Borrow" a camera from a table of old ladies (so it's already got pictures of them on the film).
2. Go to the bathroom and take a picture of your genitals, a big turd, or something wierd or gross.
3. Return the camera to the table from which you borrowed it.
The computer cost only makes sense if it involves an $18,000 film scanner. I have doubts about that one as well, but OK, I'll grant you that one.
The student might be a good choice. He'd need clean equipment and a good eye for composing the shots. (background, left-right and up-down angles, distance, focus, shutter and arpature -- but no stilted "formal" or "artistic" shit)
My side takes good photos. I find that composing
a good shot is easy. Can't everybody do this?
Um, no. I was shocked to discover that nobody on
my wife's side of the family has a clue. From them,
we got what looked like pictures of tourist trip
to visit a statue... except that the statue was
off-center and very ugly. These morons were
completely ignorant of the concepts of lighting
angle and camera angle.
My wife and I looked around and found a good reputable photographer who was not too tech savvy. She had great equipment, but never made the connection to copyright. We ended up asking for just the bare minimum package of prints, and then got all of the digital on cd. She also had her photo processor digitize the large format film, so we have that on cd as well. Ended up paying around $1200, as she had a flat $850 shooting fee, and the rest was prints and transportation. You can always find a smaller company that will be a little more flexible on these kinds of things, a. to get the business b. so you spread the word about how good they are We have been able to use our digital photos to create gifts for our families, and my wife loves the fact that she can paper our house with pictures of the wedding.
I was given specific instructions by my mother that I was to use up all of the shots on the camera at my brother's wedding. For some reason, she got all pissed off at me for using up the pictures.
I mean, we were in a boat, and I tried taking pictures of things we passed on the boat...how was I to know the cameras were too cheap for them to come out well? And besides, wouldn't you want a picture of the bathroom to remember your wedding by?
She said she wouldn't have had to pay as much if the cameras hadn't been full... so just be careful when you tell soemone to use up the shots on the cameras, unless you want pictures of people's feet. [But those feet happened to have been the bride and her father, during the father/daughter dance]
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
You sure don't need to be burning money like you do though... unless it's for looks. This should remind you of audiophile gear. Those low-oxygen mega-cables do beat cheap hookup wire, but you know damn well that something 10% the cost would be just as good.
The computer equipment looks like a tax write-off. Now that I think about it, film scanning should be done by the developer. You don't have the volume required to be your own developer. That leaves you with producing CDs, which doesn't require the kind of equipment you have. I won't tell the IRS.
Retouching ruined a photo of my mother. Her eyes were closed. The photographer painted in some eyes to fix that. Yuck! Wedding photos are a historical record that you shouldn't screw with. Art effects... I'm sorry, but they look so... well, there isn't a polite way to put this. Photos with art effects have been damaged in a swishy-fruity sort of way. (so, have you painted eyes on anyone?)
The flush-mount album sounds neat, but that has nothing to do with the photo shoot. I may well want to do that for some of the many negatives that I have.
People spend $10,000 on a photographer so that all their friends will know they spent $10,000 on a photographer. It's a status thing.
I would have liked a shy photographer. I think the photographer should avoid being in the way. The photographer doesn't get to interrupt anyone or ask anyone to move.
The first photographer my fiencee and I talked to told us that he didn't do prints and that we would have to take the negatives and get the prints done ourselves.
Did you catch that? He never even considered keeping the negatives, in fact he considered it more profitable for him to let us worry about prints and such after he provided the service of taking our pictures.
And he is right. Now, every time I hear a photographer tell someone they will keep the negatives and charge per print, I referr them to the photographer who won't screw them.
I consider photographers keeping the negatives about the same as me keeping the source code to a website I developed for someone else.
-Wes
-Wes
Nobody at the wedding should remember seeing you. I wouldn't want people to remember being pestered by a photographer. Skip the flash. With a proper lens and a stepstool, you shouldn't need to get in close. Don't speak to anyone unless spoken to. If you didn't have a job to do, you wouldn't even be welcome at the wedding. Accept this, and keep a low profile. Nobody should be expected to pose for you or wait for you. Bring quiet equipment so that nobody hears motor noises.
On the subject of wedding photos and copyright, try meeting the photographer half way.
When I got married earlier this year, I found a photographer who would sell me what he called a "digital negatives" package - he gave us 4 CD's with all the original 6 megapixel images, with unlimited rights to reproduce for personal use.
Strictly, the photographer retains copyright on the photos, and we are not allowed to use the photos for commercial or competition purposes, but we can take the photos to any lab in the world and get as many copies as we want for Grandma (which, at the end of the day, is all you really want).
As far as cost - this worked out at around AU$1000 (about US$650) for a 1PM-6PM session, covering a pre-wedding, wedding and post-wedding shoots. We didn't get anything but the CD's - no complimentary prints or album. Essentially we were just paying for his time and equipment.
Not all photographers will be as acommodating (some are downright pricks), but it's probably worth asking for something less than complete copyright.
For the record - we used Robert Reeves, a Perth, Western Australia based photographer. He's a really nice guy, and did a great job with our photos. I can't recommend him highly enough.
Russ %-)
... and never, ever play leapfrog with a unicorn.
I think a fair contract would give the photographer any and all commercial rights to the images, and grant the wedding subjects the rights to make any number of non-commercial copies. It's going to be tricky, because the photographer would like to be treated like a service so he can generate revenue from reprints over the years. You, however, want to treat the photographer like a caterer, who shows up for one job and is basically done. You should probably be prepared to offer a higher up-front fee.
:)
Shop photographers until you find one that will accept terms you think reasonable, or until you run out of local photographers to try.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
You hired the guy. He is working for you under contract. Thus the creative works he creates while working for you belong to you. This is a no brainer. It's just like you not keeping copyright to the software you write for your employer.
If he wants to use some of the prints for advertising purposes, then let him. But no way should be he retaining any exclusive rights to those photos. You paid for them so they belong to you. Period.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
This kind of thing is covered in copyright law under the rubric of "work made for hire". Unless the contract contains specific language to the contrary, you, not the photographer, will own the copyright on these photographs since you're the one who is commissioning the work. See Circular 9 from the Copyright Office.
Simply put, this guy was being misleading at best. He has no copyright to sell you that wasn't explicitly assigned to him by the contract he insists on. If there is no such language in his contract then he's an out-and-out liar. The law says that you own the copyrights, not him, and he has nothing to sell you at all.
But let's assume he's being honest. It's perfectly reasonable that you want to do whatever you want with photographs you commission of your own wedding. If this guy's being too much of a butthead to take the language assigning him the copyright out of his contract, then find someone else who will, or who doesn't have that language in his contract in the first place.
And the brethren went away edified.
I have mixed feelings about that one.
In the original, the lighting is too one-sided.
The background is quite ugly and, particularly
on his left (your right), too bright.
That said, there is something phony about the
second version. It feels wrong. The cropping is
good and the color curve adjustment isn't bad,
but now the shadows don't feel right to me.
I can't tell why exactly, but it creeps me out.
Not that I like posed shots that much, but since
it is anyway, you might have rotated the subject
about 35 degrees to his left, seat included.
That would improve the lighting and hopefully
the background. Then use a lens with a shallow
depth of field to better emphasize the subject.
"If they have the negatives, they're still going to have to find someone to make a print like the one I made. They're going to have to pay for a custom printer to make it."
They are? o_O
Anyone can walk into a Wal-Mart (and I happen to know their labs are well-maintained and keep *precise* process control) and get an 8x10 or nice full-frame bordered 8x12 of any negative for a nominal fee.
What are you referring to?
+++ATH0
Let me present both sides - and then say I while have shot weddings - only for friends and gifted them the negatives - I write software used by pros.
This view of retaining negatives and copyrights is a stressed tradition and is shifting.
One of the reasons photographers are so expensive up front is the growing expectation that the back-end purchases will be shorted by reproduction.
But the essense of the artistic reason is much the same as a chef in a kitchen - he wants to retain the right to prepare in secret and to toss the rotton egg and the sunken souffle while keeping up a shining - everything-is-perfect mirage.
That is the world of art.
How many olp painting did picasso simply paint over because he wasn't happy with the result.
Now you with your tech-savvy computer graphics computer want to come back into the kitchen with the raw materials, and cook up whatever you like, and then present it to your friend like some kind of original. Who's responsible for the result?
It get's tricky.
Photography is a process that hardly ends when the trigger is fired - and the more professional the artist - the more this is true.
All that said - I believe the industry is quickly moving towards charging once for the copyright of an image and allowing you to use or print it as you like - with - in some cases the hope that you would see value in the print service provided under the same roof.
AIK
For what it's worth, I am a "professional digital photographer" (ten years), specializing in sports, events (weddings, reunions, etc), nature photography and photojournalism.
What I've found is that most photographers-who-have-gone-digital fail to understand that the release of a raw image or "prime distributable" (aka full-res JPEG) is simply the transfer of a copy and is, in and of itself, simply a form of publication. In the film days, the release of the negative was "the end" of the usability of that photo for the photographer. Indeed, it would mean several things: no more use for self-promotion, loss of portfolio, and no more ability to make money from copies or archive being the foremost of them. Naturally, in the digital age, this is no longer true, because every transfer is really just a copy. Even if I put all the raw files on CD and hand them to the client, the original raw files may well be sitting on the camera's microdrive, and maybe on my hard drive, too -- at least until I "take care of them."
In reality, though, if I release raws (rare) or prime distros (common), I simply ask the client as to whether or not they'll sign off that I have the right to continue using the image(s) in the promotion of my services. It's a fair-and-equal exchange world, right? (or, it should be). In other words, we tend to equate the release of a prime distro with release of copyright, but that's not necessarily true.
Copyright, per se, in the digital realm, does not really mean "the right to make copies". Think about it....if I sell "copyright" to a newspaper, but they ask me to maintain a searchable archive for their convenience (almost all of them do), how can I do so without making copies? I can't even back them up on CD without doing copying the original files.
So what's being bandied about in most cases as "copyright" is really "right of publication". When I ask a client to allow me to continue limited use of the photos and they grant it, what is literally happening (and what the contract language stipulates) is that the client is being awarded non-exclusive publication rights, and I am signing off that I will limit my use of the photos.
All that having been said, if I do sell Copyright in the traditional sense, that's another matter. After ten-plus years as a photographer, I find that Copyright only gets sold to newspapers, other publishers, and the government. In those instances, it is more apropros to say that I am granting those institutions exclusive publication rights. The simplicity of maintaining an archive means that I retain copies even of these files, but have signed an agreement that forbids me their tangible use.
To address the original post more directly, your cited photographer comes across as a bit of a knucklehead to me, and with all due respect, you were asking for the wrong thing. What you should have asked for was simply copies of the prime distros and exclusive or non-exclusive publications rights, with the photographer committing to limited use and/or publication rights.
In truth, though, in a fair-and-equal exchange world, it benefits neither the client nor the photographer (of a wedding, anyway) to limit the photographer's permissive use of the results of his/her own creativity, and some photographers would indeed find the premise rather offensive. I'm just an easy-going guy who has learned that Copyright and Publication in the Digital Millenium are sorely misunderstood, so I've come to offer variances in the wording of things that seem to make everyone happy. However, if a wedding client was absolutely steadfast about wanting Copyright (in the traditional sense), forbidding me the use of my own creative impetus, well, it's almost like a hostile bid in a corporate takeover: it makes nobody feel good about what they do. There are several ways I rid myself of such clients; the easiest is to jack my prices so high they no longer want me.
~jdg~ "There are no divisions between things about to collide." - Ian McCullough
Make him sign a work for hire contract -- a contract that states that the photographs are created as a work for hire and that he does not retain the copyright. I have done this numerous times for various clients in other industries.. it would easily apply here.. you can find sample contracts like that on line or ask a lawyer to draft you a simple work for hire agreement...
Just got married a few weeks ago.
- 04-2004/i ndex.htm
:-)
I talked to the photographer durring all of the shoots about photoshop, and got her really stoked. She thought it was great that I would touch up the photos myself. I ended up giving her $100 over the package price, and she burned the 100+ photos to CD for me, and typed up a document that releases all claim on the photos.
(These are the reduced images, of course)
http://sbnsor.com/familyphoto/Wedding-07
Moral of the story? It pays to shmooze...
I didn't see a response to the question: "How long does the copyright last?"
Does anyone know?
When we were looking for a photographer for our wedding, I was very disappointed in most of the more popular ones we met with. They all wanted to charge way more than it seemed the job was worth, and none were willing to part with the negatives.
I had a darkroom at the time and was very interested in printing some of the photos myself and made it clear that I was willing to pay somewhat "extra" for the privelege, but no one would go for it.
We did eventually find a photographer who worked out perfect. He shot about 15 rolls of 6x6 medium format and three rolls of 35mm (for low-light and candid shots) for about $1000. This included 5x5 inch proofs of every shot in two albums and all the negatives.
He was primarily a commercial photographer, but we were very happy with him. He got some great shots of fine technical quality, and was very unobtrusive.
So, keep looking, and don't be afraid to look outside of photographers who advertise themselves solely for weddings. I think that there is a lot of compulsive buying behaviors associated with weddings and those "wedding" photographers leverage it to their benefit.
Wow... I wish I had thought of that when I got married. If he owns the copyright, can he do things with them that I wouldn't agree with? Could he sell them to news media if I became famous (or infamous)? Could he decide to sell them to a stock photo service, and then suddenly my wedding photo would turn up as the 'stock' photo that comes in a frame when you purchase it?
Is that why you always see pictures from people's high school photo albums whenever someone needs a mug shot?
From the sound if it, I think you want a security camera for your wedding photos. Good luck finding a professional who will meet your needs. Anybody who works like you want them to would likely not stay in business long enough for you find them.
Now everybody's seen or heard about a jerk photographer who took crappy photos, yelled at the bride, and so on. I work for a wedding lab (where pro shooters get their weddings printed), so I know plenty of jerk photographers. But that is certainly not a fair generalization of the industry.
As with most in this industry, I'm also a freelance photographer, which means I also shoot weddings -- but not very often. That's because I absolutely will not shoot a wedding where I would not be considered a guest. And when I shoot my cousin's wedding next month, I will be getting paid.
A girl who works at a wedding studio was getting married on short notice, so all of the photographers there were booked out. She wanted to pay me $400 to spend 12 hours shooting her wedding and give her the files, and she would have her friends at the studio design the album, print it, etc... So she wanted to pay me $30 per hour to bust my ass all day on a weekend.
That means she thinks my time is only worth $20 on a weekday out of which I have to pay for my own equipment (she's expecting me to bring $10k worth), health care, pension, vacation, and sick days. Talk about insulting!
Is that really how much you people think photography is worth? How many of you do computer consulting for $20/hr?
I'd offer him a couple hundred dollars above his normal fee if he will sign an agreement giving all copyright ownership to the bride and groom. If he refuses, he doesn't get my business.
There is no way in the world I'd allow some third party to "own" the rights to my wedding images.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
With the ongoing extension of copyright time limits, when does it even expire?
It depends on a lot of things. To put it simple... The Berne convetion for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works protects the photographers right for 50 years after his/her death.
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/index.htm l
Don't know where the story submitter is located, but this is the woman who photographed my wedding: Susanne Pridoehl. Right upfront she offers to sell you your negatives. "Make all the prints & enlargements you want and save a small fortune."
She did a fantastic job (she has a good eye and was very good at herding my relatives around).
I might add also that Susanne Pridoehl's photographs were better than the fancy "society" photographer who used the traditional pricing scheme who photographed my sister's wedding a few years ago. (Hint, if you are a photographer: if the bride is 6' when wearing high heels, the groom is 6'5", the families also have a lot of tall people, and you are about 5'2", don't take flash photos of everyone using a flash which is near head level for you when they are standing near a white wall, producing lots of ugly shadows behind everyone's heads. The majority of posed photos the ding-a-ling took were like that!)
Heck, at too much longer than 2 years the couple is probably divorced anyway...
We apologize for the preceding message. All those responsible have been sacked.
Wedding protography is not about making good images - it is about making people pay for photographs. Good photographers are rare in that line of work - say one in a hundred max. Keep looking. Good professionals usually know how much his/her time cost, so they are not trying to chase extra money. Good artist can rarely be a dishonest cheat.If you spot a desire to make you pay more then you originally agreed on through some copyright things - chances are his images are crap as well.
I'd say: 1) let the photographer keep the copyright
2) Make sure they agree to give you the highest resolution originals (or negatives) and that you have the unlimited right to reproduce except for:
3) Give #2 a slightly distant effective date (6-30 months, I'd say) That way they'll keep most of the money they would've made off of prints, so their pricing shouldn't have to change almost at all.
4) (make sure 2, with regard to negatives, becomes yours whether or not you actually pick them up. That way even if you pick them up years later, they're still yours)
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
Really. Especially "Wedding Photographers", who are often somebody with a 35mm camera who wants to believe that they're an "artist".
When I got married, I found an excellent photographer. He's actually an architectural photographer. He had so many requests for weddings, he hired an assistant just to shoot weddings.
Now, he doesn't want to have the hastle of keeping an expensive office just to make people feel good when they come in to order prints. And he doesn't want to have to pay a secretary to sit and take orders all day. And he doesn't want to deal with endless orders for reprints.
All he does is send out the assistant with a medium-format to shoot pictures, send out the film for developping, proofs, and an initial package of prints. He gives you the whole mess - including the negatives. Then he tells you the photo house he sends out to for prints, and lets you get whatever you want.
He told me that just by hiring the assitant (who actually does TERRIFIC) work, his income jumped up by $70,000 per year. Now, for a lot of people, just making$70,000 per year would be very welcome. For him, it's just a raise for sending someone else out to do the work. And he still charged us much less than any of the other bidders.
Here's where it gets really good: We wanted a 16x20 print to hang on the wall. We took it to the photo house he recommended, and had it printed. It was done at exactly the same place it would have been printed at had a "traditional" photographer done it for us. But it literally cost us less than one-fifth of what the "traditional" photographers wanted for their prints.
It's really just a racket. Photogs keeping their negatives is just a protectionist movement designed to keep them in business, it's a tradition going back to the inception of guilds and before. And to boot, a lot of "wedding photographers" are nothing more than someone who bought an SLR and want to think that they're big-time.
There are photographers who truly are artists, and whose art truly deserves recompense. But when someone shows up, spends an hour taking pictures of your $2,000 wedding dress, your $5,000 ring, your $5,000 reception, and you, I find it truly hard to accept that they themselves have created a piece of art, of which they should retain copyright (and profits) for the rest of eternity. You paid for everything, you did all of the planning and work, and it's your image. They showed up, called up the family members, and told you where to stand. You should retain the copyright.
Like so many other businesses ($100 chinese-made polyester wedding dresses selling for $1,000 or $50 worth of titanium selling for $500 because it's in a ring-shape), they're just jumping on the "Wedding Gravy Train".
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
If a wedding is long, the couple will be to tired to enjoy fucking. They'll fall asleep with their shoes on. The groom isn't much of a man if he lets his evil mother-in-law make the wedding take damn-near forever. The sooner things get done, the sooner he gets to take his wife home.
In the unlikely event that the shutter breaks, you could go home without pay. Alternately, you offer a discount and use consumer equipment.
im trying to remember back to my intellectual property class. i think the copyright expires 80 years after the death of the photographer or 120 years, whichever comes first.
You're going to look at these pictures maybe 4 or 5 times in your whole life-- and most of those times will be in the 3 weeks after your wedding. Admit it, you don't really give a shit, you're just pussy-whipped right now.
Buy a bunch of disposable cameras. Put them on all the tables, collect them at the end. Process.
Better yet-- do nothing. Everyone and their brother is going to have a camera and they'll send you a picture.
I don't understand this stupid wedding culture. My wife and I eloped, then we had a party about six months later. We spent $5000 *total* on the wedding. This included about 10000 square feet internal space and probably 30 acres outdoors for 13 hours, food, open bar and barstaff. We had nearly 200 people there.
Most weddings suck ass. Ours was really fun.
There are only a few things you need to do for a successful wedding.
1. have the ceremony and reception in the same place.
2. If you are going to serve alcohol, have an open bar-- it is really not that expensive. What a pain in the ass it is to give a stranger $2 every time you want to freshen your drink at a *private party*. If you have a pay bar, you are an asshole and a cheapskate.
3. Be able to go outside. My top three favorite weddings of all time had this (my own was #3 in terms of fun because there was no skinny dipping, nor was it held at a B&B eliminating all the travel). And by outside, I mean suggest that guests bring a change of clothes so they can go swimming/canoeing/play volleyball/whatever.
4. be unstructured. have the service, then sit/play/dance/run around for 8+ hours so everyone can talk to every single person there if they so desire.
Photographers? Do you know the guy? Then why the fuck would you invite him to your wedding? Why would you pay him? Sucker.
Seriously-- think back to all the weddings you've been to-- what was the worst part? The photographer (though some ministers have come close). Here's this guy making you get in all these pain in the ass poses for 30 minutes to an *hour* when what you really want to be doing is hanging out with people you haven't seen in 5 or 10 or 20 years. These people are going home in the morning and you may never see them *ever* again (they'll die, you drift apart, whatever). Meanwhile, the time you have left in this rented space is ticking away and instead of enjoying it, you're working. I suppose this is only really true if you're in the wedding party or family (I've been through that mini-hell 6 times I think).
If he sells you the copyright, he can no longer use the images for self-promotion (like in his sample album). Worse -- if he got a great shot of you in your Vera Wang dress and you own the copyright, you can then license that to Vera Wang for use in ads and such -- not something he's going to want to see (unlikely, but there you go).
What you want to do is license the images for personal use -- state that you want to be able to reprint them to share with friends and family, in print and on the web. All should be fine, and he may not charge much for it (if at all).
Most photographers are now going to a "pay me for my time up front" pricing scheme, as photo-quality inkjets and cheap flatbed scanners are making the traditional pricing methods (charge little up-front, and make it up on the print and album sales) obsolete. These folks will generally be glad to let you have high-quality image files/negs once the shoot is over -- they've already made their money, have some images to show, and want lots of referrals from happy brides.
I was visiting Prince Edward County (Quite's Isle) recently and came across a brochure for a local, well-known photographer. Interestingly enough, she offered various wedding packages, with the option of including certain numbers of prints of various sizes, -OR- the high-res images on CD with no prints. I thought that was fairly progressive...
As long as Disney is around, forever.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
If you are willing to accept a bit of risk and have a good quaility potography school around you can post there. You will have to interview the candidates and it will be more time consuming for you but the price difference might be worth it. Another choice is most metropolitan areas is the somewhat shady Chinatown photographer whose price will be way cheaper than usual.
I run into this all the time, I work in the entertainment industry, and any time a photographer takes photos of a band or musician, they always want a bazillion dollars for rights of the photograph, depending on use.
The short answer is you can *ALWAYS* find a photographer who will transfer copyright to you as part of the deal. Established wedding photographers, because they know the scam, generally won't do it, but you can always find a great up-and-coming news photographer who will probably do just as good or better a job.
I'm sorry, but it's appalling to pay $3000 for 6 hours of a photographer's time and then, on top of that, have to pay for the right to use the photographs you just paid to have taken. You can definitely find an excellent photographer who will work for a flat fee of maybe $50-$250/hour in almost any city. If you're in a city covered by Craigslist.org, I'd suggest posting there, making it clear that you're only interested if you can buy out all rights, including copyright.
Hope that helps.
http://www.fineart-weddings.com/contact.html/
He charges for his time, and prints. He does keep a copy of the digital files (he's got to advertise). He did a great job and I recomend him.
my sister just got married and she made damn sure that the photographer was handing over ALL film, negatives, etc. truth be told it was actually pretty easy to find one who would do it.
i can never understand why people allow that crap to happen, you are buying a service. when the service is rendered the contract should be closed.