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?"
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
- EOS 300D at ISO 50.
- EOS 300D at ISO 200.
- Pro 1 at ISO 50.
- Pro 1 at ISO 200.
The ISO 200 shot from the Pro 1 is actually noiser than the Rebel at ISO 1600! Are the extra couple of megapixels and the more flexible bundled lens worth that much noise, lower battery life, icky electronic viewfinder and poorer autofocus?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.
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.
Firstly, as far as creative control... You wouldn't realize how much of the quality of a print comes from the actual printing process. I maintain a full color and black and white darkroom as well as do digital work with labs I've used in the past. A great image needs careful printing to become a great print. Since most business is booked via word of mouth, you don't want someone showing some cheesy ink jet print off. Your paying for the time it takes to make that print, the test prints, the times i have to stop and just stare at it trying to decide what wil make it really sing. You're paying for an artist to capture the moments and present them as best they can. You can get all the same songs a dj will play and some stereo system to play it through but it won't be the same.
Secondly, you see these as photos of yourselves. I don't see it that way. I see it as my photo of you, or my photo that you happen to be in and sometimes even just my photo and you completely dissapear in it and all i see is my work. I guess it depends on the photographer. What I do is try and capture you as I see you. While I'm a fairly cynical and sarcastic jerk I do have a love of people and emotions and try and catch people through the rose colored glasses that sometimes fall on my head.
You're not buying a picture of yourself, you're buying how I saw you, wanted to see you for that moment. It takes a lot of time, effort and dedication to be able to do that in some cases though there are more standard type shooters. People sometimes ask me why I have so few photos of myself. The answer is, well i'm behind the camera :) But my private answer which I feel sounds too conceited is that I"m in every photo I take. I worked hard to take it, I worked hard to print it and it's very personal to me.
There are lots of people that will give you all the negatives, cd,s prints etc at the end of the session, some of these people are quite good, others are just your generic shooter trying to accomodate the new demand for such. Prices vary widely for each.
In addition to weddings, I also do a fair amount of intimate type portraiture. Same deal applies, copyright is mine and it's my work. I've photographed all kinds of women from really hot models to women you might not even give a second look at and they've always been very happy with the results, some brought to tears when they see the photos. Even women that have gone to other photographers. I guess there are photographic technicians and there are photographic artists. My desire is to be the latter. Just like there are system integrators and developers... some people have a passion to create not just replicate.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is find a photographer who you like and see what you can work out. Do you really need 1000 negs of your wedding? If so find someone that will give them to you. A lot of photographers will be somewhat accomodating.
The big issue isn't so much owning the copyrights but having the rights to reproduce. I would never give up my copyrights but I do sometimes make arrangements in regards to reproduction.
On another note, keep in mind, this person has to pay his expenses, (eqiupment, rent, insurance, assistants, accountants, lawers, etc.) There is a lot of work that goes into a wedding from the consultations to the shooting, to the final output. If you want someone to show up, get paid for the day, give you the film or cd at the end of the day and be done with you you can find those people as well.
Open Source Java DAO Generator