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?"

Comments

It's your wedding, and you're are the customer

[stefanlasiewski]

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.

Cheap prints erode my reputation

[-=[Dr. AJAX]=-]

This is one I've never understood.

1. Why would I make a crappy print to put in my album?
2. If a relative made the print, exactly what is the probability they remember the photographer who took the shot?
3. 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.

Pros tend to be inflexible, first-class twits.

[Glytch]

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.

He should get paid and be happy

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Re:He should get paid and be happy

[Breakfast Pants]

the price he is initially charging is based on the fact that he will get additional revenue, its already considered in the price. if you want more than he initially offered to sell it is quite reasonable to expect to pay more than he initially offered to charge.

Re:What about my right! Damnit!

[MaxwellStreet]

Secondly, you see these as photos of yourselves. I don't see it that way. I see it as my photo of you, or my photo that you happen to be in and sometimes even just my photo and you completely dissapear in it and all i see is my work. I guess it depends on the photographer. What I do is try and capture you as I see you.


When I write software at work, I see it as my solution to their requirements, or my software that happens to solve their problem, and the company completely dissapear (sic) in it and all I see is my work.

Funny... the company still keeps its copyright. It's called a work for hire. Get over yourself - we're all professionals - and when we're getting paid, we're serving our employers.

Re:What about my right! Damnit!

[Pieroxy]

You don't relinquish any copyright, you keep your copyright, but you distribute it with a specific license. Things are different: You are still the copyright owner.

In the business world, and a lot of artistic areas too, when you are hired to do a job you relinquish copyright almost every single time. Whatever I do for my company is owned by my company.

I still don't get why it has to be different with photography.

Yes, I asked you your view of my wedding. I'm f#$%ing paying you for it, so at the end it should be mine. Which doesn't mean you can't get credit for it.

When you hire a contractor, they don't leave with the furniture they built. When you hire a portrait painter, they leave you the frame. When you hire a software engineer, they don't leave with their code.

So why when we hire a photographer he leaves with the pictures!

Re:What about my right! Damnit!

[LWATCDR]

"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."

Well I see it as I am paying you to take pictures of me and my wife. If I paid you to write a program, manual, ad copy, or even a book I would own the copyright. The photographer that we used at our wedding is offering to sell me the negatives for $75 three years after the fact to clean his files out.

Yea if you hire the model I do not see a problem with you keeping the copyright but if I am paying you then like any other situation like that I should own the copyright.

digital photography copyrights

[dawnne]

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.