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
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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?
One of my clients will give you a CD and the copyrights.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
>Why should the photographer give up to you a potential revenue stream for cheap?
I work in the satellite business and I know there's two kinds of installers.
There's the kind like me, who go to a person's house, point the dish, program the satellite receiver, and that's it. Customer is happy and they pay me. When the transponder list goes out of date, sometimes they'll come to my store and pay $15 to get me to update it (it only takes 10 minutes), or sometimes they'll just download a new one from satcodx or lyngsat. I don't get worked up about that, it's only $15.
Then there's type number two. They do the same work as me, but they spend an extra minute secretly setting the lockout code on the receiver. Then, when the transponder list is out of date, they charge another $75 to go out and push a few buttons.
Guess who sells, and eventually, makes more?
I do. Becuase, the people who bought the other guy's service come to me after and buy a new receiver to replace the one the other person wrecked, or, if they're lucky, they pay me $15 to find the generic unlock code for their receiver (often, but not always, available).
Get over yourself. You just make yourself look unprofessional by retaining rights to something that makes absolutely NO sense for you to own, and you encourage people to do the work for themselves (just as word gets out about the "lockout guy" people buy satellite meters from me and do the work themselves). Sure, they'll definately do a poorer job than you, just as people trying to point their own dishes rarely peak them properly, but as with photos they'd rather have an "OK" job over a "Great" one if they don't have to take the same asprin you're taking right now whenever they want reprints.
But hey, it's your business. All I know is, when my wedding comes up, I don't think I'll be bothering with a photographer. Not unless I find one that is willing to, at no extra cost, let me have the rights to the photos. Otherwise, fuck it, I'll just get buy a couple of nice cameras and ask the moms and dads to take the shots. I know my parents are competent to take a level shot, and since they know that if they don't take half decent photos, they're wrecking the wedding, they'll know well enough not to get completely smashed.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
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
I don't think you understand how much professional camera equipment costs. A Canon 1D Mark II costs $4,500, just for the body. I have four of them (two for me, two for my wife). A lens costs $1,200 to $2,000 for fast Canon L glass. We have wides, mediums, longs, and specialties (like fisheye and macro). Then there's lights...professional quality portable studio strobes (I use Lumedynes) plus lightshapers will run you about $4,000 for a decent set to bring to a wedding, plus all the extras. Flash units, light meters, radio slaves, flash cards (about 20 $250 1GB Sandisk Ultra IIs. I know they only cost $200 now, but I've been buying them steadily over the past year), digital wallets, bags, stands, tripods, etc etc etc. It adds up. Do I need it? In order to produce the quality of work that people will pay $2,000 to $10,000 for, yes I need. If I were going to use 2nd-rate equipment, like a student might have (digital rebel, sigma EX glass, no lights), sure I could do an okay job, but the quality of the work would not be anywhere near as good.
The computer equipment is easy...try two G5s with artisan monitors, a linux server with a TB RAID 5 array, tape backup, external harddrives, and a 17" Powerbook. Plus scanners, printers, networking, etc etc etc.
Again, it's just a different level of service. Not even counting artistic ability, experience, and interpersonal skills (photographing a wedding is a lot like herding cats, and can easily overwhelm a shy person or a novice), the raw quality of the student's images are not going to be up to the standards of a professional.
For $500: Novice student, inexperienced, undeveloped style, no assistant, limited second-rate equipment, no retouching, no art effects (no black and white, no sepia, no hand-tinting, no vignettes, no diffusion filters, no watercolors, etc etc etc), no album
For $5,000: Experienced full-time professional, two photographers plus assistant, first-rate equipment, backup gear, lighting gear, digital retouching, art effects, and a custom designed flush-mount leather album. A flush mount album is one in which the entire page is a photo, flush to the edge, on a hard board, and bound like a coffee-table book. See here for one of our sample designs.
You can spend as much or as little as you want, but you get what you pay for. Some people are "picture people," and they want an extremely high level of service with regards to their wedding images, they're willing to pay for it, and that's the market I serve. That makes me happy because I like to try to produce the highest level of quality I can, but in order to do so I have to spend 40 hours or more on a wedding, and I can't do that part-time. Some people couldn't care less, and only hire a photographer because, "you're supposed to hire a photographer." Two different kinds of clientele, two different kinds of photographers. Pick the one that suits you...it's a free market.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
The highest quality gear costs money, and I want to produce the best images I can...it's as simple as that. This is also a very competitive field. There are a lot of photographers, and every little edge helps. Instead of buying a 1DmkII for $4,500, I could have bought a 10D for $1,500, but having looked at thousands of 10D images, and thousands of mkII images, the mkII produces a cleaner image (less noise), with about an extra half a stop of shadow detail, with a greater dynamic range of colors. Then there's the increased shooting performance. The autofocus is so much faster and more accurate, so I'm less likely to miss shots. It's worth the extra money, so I can produce better images, so I can charge more for them.
Of course the computer equipment is a tax write-off, but it's also necessary. We're all digital, and a typical wedding produces about 2,500 8MP images. It takes a lot of redundant storage to store them and make sure we don't lose any, and then it takes a lot of horsepower to sort through and edit all those images. Designing the album pages is also a monster, as I'll frequently be working on several 500+ MB page spreads at the same time.
Retouching is entirely necessary. I'm not talking about painting eyes on people...no I've never done that. I just make sure people aren't blinking when I take the photo. Skin retouching means removing blemishes, bags under the eyes, shiny skin. The wedding I did last weekend was in a garden, in Florida, in July. It was about 95 degrees with about 80% humidity. Yes, it's a historical record, but how do you think the bride would rather see herself? With greasy, shiny, oily skin with tired bags under eyes, or fresh with clean skin? Tough call there...or not. Just because one photographer ruined an image, does not mean that all retouching done by all photographers ruins photos.
I'm not quite sure you understand what I mean by 'art effects.' I mean that we capture all of our images in color, and then can convert them to black and white, or sepia, or modify the contrast and tone curves to produce a more striking image. Or we can alter the saturation of the image, or darken some parts to bring emphasis to others. For instance, here is an image as it came out of the camera, and here is it after some work in photoshop. That's just one small example, and is entirely subjective. You may not like it at all, but there are others who like it very much, and those are my customers.
The flush-mount album is just one of the services we provide, and has a LOT to do with the actual shoot. We pretty much plan the album as we photograph. I look around for details I can drop in as inset photos, or take an wide shot and make sure I leave a clean area so I can place images in that area later. The album design is just part of the fee...if you don't want it, you don't have to get it. We have prints-only packages for a lot less money.
$10k is excessive, I agree, but there are people who want to spend that, and who am I to stop them? No one has ever actually purchased our $10k package and our average sale is a $3,500 30 page 10x10 leather flush-mount album with 8 hours coverage and two photographers. That's hardly excessive.
There's a difference between "shy" and "discrete." Our formal training in photography was in photojournalism, in which you are expected to stay out of the way and not interfere. That's absolutely the way I cover candid events. However, formal portraiture is required at a wedding. It may not be your cup of tea, but most people do want posed portraits of their friends and family on their wedding day. During this time, a shy or befuddled person is going to have a very difficult time, as family members tend to mill about and waste time during the limited window of time available to the couple between the wedding and the reception. If the photographer's shyness results in a) the bride not getting the photos she
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
The way you print a negative will make a big difference when it comes to the final quality.
With machine printing, there are some things you can control. Primarily, overall density and color balance. With digital minilabs you have some control over contrast as well. In addition, the quality of the paper makes a big difference. Some types of film work better with certain types of paper. With most minilabs, you don't have too much control over cropping and rotation. The quality of the operator makes a difference as well.
With a custom color print I can match the paper with the negative I'm trying to print. I have the same controls over overall density and color balance. I have more control over cropping and rotating. Minilabs will generally pick a density and color balance setting based on the overall scene, I can more acurately fine tune that. Sometimes it might be better to have it a little darker or lighter. In addition, I can choose to manipulate the density locally by dodging and burning certain areas, making them lighter or darker in just certain areas of the print.
In black and white custom printing, you have the same controls as in custom color except you have more control over the contrast of the print. There are two main types of paper you can print on and the type many people find to be more aestetically pleasing doesn't work well in an automated feed system and needs to be tray processed, then archivally washed for a long time so that it can last.
Basically, there are a lot of things you can do in the printing stage that give a print more life. These are all subjective judgements and they take some experimentation before you can make the final print.
For a good idea of what it takes to make a fine art black and white print have a look at this page for an example.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
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
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...
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.