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.
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..."
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.
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.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?
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.
- 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.
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)
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.
Chose NOT to moderate... to ask following
Proof, law, sources please?
Does that mean that National Geographic photo's are un-copyrightable?
What you say peaks my BS-O-Meter
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.
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
Some people do, some people don't. Some people also don't know the difference between a really good steak house and Outback, some people are content having all their meals come in little paper boxes. Some people can also appreciate all different forms of satisfying their hunger. People have different tastes.
"and as the artist is payed (usually ALOT) it is more then reasonable that the person hiring the photographer gets copyright. Like for ANY other hired artist situation."
I'm all for this. Some work I do I bill an hourly rate for all the time involved plus expenses. Considering a typical wedding will take about 80-100 hours of time and I consider a decent work for hire rate at LEAST $50-80/hr or more sign me up.
When people ask for copyright I quote them a fair market value. If you don't think my time and services are worth that, find someone else. There are plenty of people to chose from.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
Secondly, you see these as photos of yourselves. I don't see it that way. I see it as my photo of you, or my photo that you happen to be in and sometimes even just my photo and you completely dissapear in it and all i see is my work. I guess it depends on the photographer. What I do is try and capture you as I see you.
When I write software at work, I see it as my solution to their requirements, or my software that happens to solve their problem, and the company completely dissapear (sic) in it and all I see is my work.
Funny... the company still keeps its copyright. It's called a work for hire. Get over yourself - we're all professionals - and when we're getting paid, we're serving our employers.
You don't relinquish any copyright, you keep your copyright, but you distribute it with a specific license. Things are different: You are still the copyright owner.
In the business world, and a lot of artistic areas too, when you are hired to do a job you relinquish copyright almost every single time. Whatever I do for my company is owned by my company.
I still don't get why it has to be different with photography.
Yes, I asked you your view of my wedding. I'm f#$%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!
Write boring code, not shiny code!
"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.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.
That's lovely. You can see it however you want, the fact of the matter is you were hired for the end result, and in *every other for-hire situation*, the result is what the customer owns. You said it yourself; the customer is buying your work. It should be theirs. You poured your soul into it, and then you sold it to them.
It's a good thing you're an artist, because the rules would be different if you produced any other type of product, regardless of how much of yourself you put into it.
I'm not saying you shouldn't cover your costs. Charge what you need to, or even what you can get away with...
You're right about one thing though. There are plenty of photographers out there that understand the way the rest of the world works. The people who hire a photographer who keeps the copyrights are the people who don't understand what they're getting. Anybody else would have no trouble finding a way to get the rights to their images.
As for this:
Do you really need 1000 negs of your wedding?
In 50 years when you're dead, and your customer wants a fresh set of prints from their wedding, if they have the negatives they're fine. If they don't, the best they can do is get high res photocopies of whatever prints they happen to have. As somebody who loves their work, I'm sure you know what the quality difference there is. Chances are, you're never going to do anything with those images again (unless your real reasoning is gouging your customers on reproductions, which is counter to what you're claiming). You'll have other work of subject matter you actually care about that you can enjoy and the rest of your work that you did for-hire will be rotting away somewhere instead of being appreciated by the only people that actually care about it. Is that the best way to treat something you claim is very personal to you?
My favorite is the box cameras on the tables that have become endemic at weddings. I have seen tons of these 'action shots' and they aren't very good most of the time.
Of course, I don't help matters. At every wedding i've been to with one of these box cameras, I hide it in my pocket, go to the restroom, drop my pants and take a nice shot of my ass. I figure that's my little protest against bad amateur photography, or maybe I just want to gross out the bride when she gets them developed. I've been party to several manhunts trying to find the person who shot their ass. Never been nabbed.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
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
Who provides the equiptment etc. is irrelevant.
What is relevant, the ONLY thing that is relevant is what the employer wants.
If I want to hire you to do a piece of great art that can turn ugly Aunt Joan with two moles and a hump into a thing of desire, then you should keep the copyrights.
If on the other hand, I just want you to take some photos, that I expect to be of at least good quality, then I should be able to get that done.
Yes, photographs CAN be artisticly meritous. But not everyone wants to get that high end quality stuff. Most people just want a resonable set of photographers and if they had the guts they would demand the copyright. The problem is that most wedding photographers have an inflated sense of there worth.
Lets be honest here. Wedding photographers are NOT the high end photographers. Yes most photographers forced to make there living as a Wedding Photographer likes to believe that they have huge talent,are destined for greatness, and are just biding their time till they are discovered. But most of them will not become the next Ansel Adams. So they get on their high horse, demanging Great Artist rights to copy-rights, when they and there work is merely above average stuff.
We are the clients. We decide what we want. We don't want the next masterpiece. We just want a photograph of Grandma Ida before she dies. We want reasonable quality stuff, and for the Great Artist prices you guys insist on charging, we should get the copy rights.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com