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.
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????
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Turn it around: Do you want copies of your grandparents' wedding photos?
Yes, they're hanging on my wall, along with my parent's weddings photos, and my great-grandparents' wedding photos. Thanks for asking, though.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
...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.
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
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.
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.