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..."
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.
- 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 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?
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.
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?