Explaining Copyright ...

Evan Auster · May 31, 2006

Respectfully, maybe our Canadian brothers should re-think their copyright law. You just set yourself up for what we Americans call "Work for Hire" and now have no way of creating a residual income from your work. Perhaps a look at the ASMP website would be a good lesson for ALL Pros.

tony field said:
The Canadian copyright for photography stipluates that the person
who contracts and pays for the service owns the copyright - the
photographer only holds automatic copyright for un-contracted
images.
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

Evan Auster · May 31, 2006

coontie said:
udaman said:

This may be crazy,
but I am going to get back into Weddings. And I will GIVE the Files
to the clients. I will retain a copy for self promotion (it wiill
be in my contract), but the client will be able to print untill the
cows come home., Who cares! I will make my profit up front..

Click to expand...

And when these same people start to lower their prices with the included files, then what?

You lower yours, and so on and so forth... until we all shoot weddings with point and shoot cameras!
Then just hand the cameras over to the client!

coontie said:
I'd just like to point out that photographers that don't start
doing this soon will not be in business for much longer. Simple.

BS!!!

coontie said:
I've a lot of friends that have gotten married over the past 5 yrs
and while in 2000/2001 asking for HighQ jpegs or .psds was uneard
of, now it's a lot more common. In fact, all 3 of my friends that
got married this year have received DVDs with images. It showed
such good faith on the part of the photog that only 1 ordered a
photo book from walmart, the other two went ahead and paid $$$ for
a nice looking photobook from the photographer.

Another friend did a modeling shoot from this hotshot in Manhattan
and he took about 100-200 photos, put thumnails on the web. She
chose two shots that she liked and received a link to download 10MP
.PSDs, hers to do with as she pleases. THAT is how this works.
Photographers that insist on retaining the original digitals,
selling prints only.. well, I'm amazed that they are still around,
actually.

You are talking "Apples and Oranges" here. Did you see the contract? Do you know what the photographer will be using the pictures for? I would venture to say that if she wants other images she will PAY for other pictures. Also, these are Head shots or Portfolio pix. That's a different business model. I live here in NYC and I guarantee no "Hot Shot" is giving his work away for free! THAT is how it works here!

Evan Auster · May 31, 2006

martynk said:
I understand that copyright is vested in the photographer, unless
transferred to some other party, but I'm a bit puzzled too.

Normally, photographers have to get a release from the subject -
including professional models - before they can use the images
commercially but wedding photographers have it sewn up the other
way round. They are paid to take the photographs, insist on a print
monoploy and are free to sell the images to third parties, or use
them to promote their own business without paying any royalties or
repro fees. Seems a bit one sided.

What if the bride/groom just want the pro to take the photographs,
and prefer to make their own arrangements for PP and printing?

What if the couple want to restrict/control distribution of the
images, or expect to get paid for any further reproductions? It's
their wedding, and the images wouldn't exist if it hadn't taken
place.

This whole concept seems wrong. The client should pay for what they
want, including the copyright to the images of their own wedding.
It's little wonder that more people are relying on friends and
relatives.

And that's exactly the event they will have! One taken by a friend or relative. Not a PROFESSIONAL!

This is exactly the kind of thinking that is killing this industry! Are you a PRO? Do you make your living and support a family from your photos?

PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE, listen to what the people in this forum are saying and realize we are fighting everyday for our livelyhoods. Yes, when the High School kid down the street sells his wedding pix on CD for 25 cents it's left up to us to re-educate the public as to why we charge what we do. If people don't like my work or pricing they are free to use another photographer. No problem! I just can't bend over and grab my ankles. I'd rather sell cameras at CC or BB.

Evan Auster · May 31, 2006

Cheers to you RK! I wish more people understood this. Written by a PRO!!

Richard Katris said:
Other arguments....that probably still won't work....

Buying a magazine does not give you the right to publish items from
it....

The problem is.....when a person "commisions" something to be
done...in the vast majority of commerce...they end up owning the
product produced. The difference is that the Photographic
profession with a relatively high overhead...needs to keep up front
prices low ...in order to get the work....and consequently has
historically made a high percentage of the income from the sale of
prints with a pretty high markup.

There is nothing wrong with this model, it is just that the client
is now able to either copy themselves, or have copied....any
photographic output....and as a consequence sees very little
"wrong" in copying the prints you provide to them. In the old days
"proofing out paper" was used ...the images would fade in a few
weeks....incentive to buy prints...and buy them soon. Later...big
nasty "PROOF" across the face of the prints was used.....again it
was effective...

I used to proof on glossy paper....now I use "E" surface...as I
know it doesn't scan easily....I sign all the images with a
signature embedded on the files....and back stamp the backs with
copyright/proof stamp....

I get calls all the time from Kinkos that want me to fax or sign
off on copying my work...and what I tell them is....give me your
company credit card, tell me how many prints you are making....the
charge is $X.XX per print you make...and you can pass that fee on
to the client......

None of the Kinko's will or course do this....so it goes back to
the client, and I often get a phone call ......

I then explain that the business model relies upon income from
reprints to stay alive, and that the Congress in passing the
copyright act agrees that it is right and necessary to allow
creative individuals the right to continue to make money off of
their creative talents....and that this is the reason that
copyright exists.....and why the law allows the photographer to
require that all copies of his work be supplied through his
channels in order that he can continue to run a profitable business.

The problem today, is that too many newbies willing to shoot an
event for cost...or a little bit more....do not realistically take
into account the real expenses incurred by a true professional. A
true pro needs multiple backups, including human resources. He
needs insurance, and he needs to keep current in the field, so has
continueing educational needs. Most importantly he needs to make
enough to actually live on...over and above the "cost" of doing a
shoot.

So now....the client's view that....."shooting digital is
free"....as they know you can erase all the bad images....and so
there is no "film" cost anymore.....and the number of newbies
underbidding jobs.....seriously erodes the real pro's ability to
make money by "charging enough up front"...which is an argument I
see here often... at the same time as the client doesn't really
see why they shouldn't save a buck or two by taking all the prints
to WalMart to have them duped.....especially if it is "just" to
give to the relatives......how you going to fight it? don't want
to alienate the clients.....want to get the business....all you can
do is make it hard for them...no glossy....stamp and sign
everything that goes out...price agressively so that the first
album pays for the time...and the additional prints really are
almost as cheap as they could do themselves....?...if we can...

The client also feels some moral high ground here...they paid you
to take the pics...why shouldn't they be able to make
copies?.....you really have to explain the reasons behind copyright
to them....and even then...only the honest ones will abide by it...
Luckily most WalMarts are actually monitoring and NOT duping images
which they think are professionally taken...a real pain for non
pros who do nice work...as I have seen some refused their own
prints....it is difficult isn't it?

--
Richard Katris aka Chanan

Evan Auster · May 31, 2006

coontie said:
Graham Snook said:

You might try explaining that by taking copies you are stealing the
image (from you, keep it personal) which is in it's basic form is
THIEFT. (no one likes a thief/robber/shoplifter etc) If you know
what businnes she is in, give her an example that is close to home.

Click to expand...

I know you mean well but this "explanation" is flat out wrong and
if that is how photographers explain it to people then it's no
wonder people "don't get it."

Copyright infringement is not theft. If something is stolen,
that means it is no longer in the possession of the owner. Simple.
THAT is theft. I steal your car, you no longer have a car. I take
your lunch when you're not looking, you're going hungry. But if I
"steal" your photos, how are you now deprived of said photos? You
are not. You still have them.

That is the essence of the problem. Intellectual property is NOT
property. It's this weird, intangible thing that very few people
understand and almost all intuitively reject....

Are you out of your freakin mind? You are purely speaking from personal opinion which has NO connection to reality. I don't know where your from but PLEASE read the US Patent and Copyright protection laws!!
And Oh Yeah, GET OUT OF THE PHOTO BUSINESS!!!

ericAC · May 31, 2006

martynk said:
I understand that copyright is vested in the photographer, unless
transferred to some other party, but I'm a bit puzzled too.

Normally, photographers have to get a release from the subject -
including professional models - before they can use the images
commercially but wedding photographers have it sewn up the other
way round. They are paid to take the photographs, insist on a print
monoploy and are free to sell the images to third parties, or use
them to promote their own business without paying any royalties or
repro fees. Seems a bit one sided.

Has anyone tried going to a McDonalds and asking for the Big Mac raw so that they can cook it at home? Go to a casino and tell the dealer you want him to use YOUR cards. There is also a REASON for the studio to want to limit prints to just those that meet the studio's QC standards. While home produced images may be good enough for the couple. Sooner or later those images will be seen by others who may have higher or normal standards. At which time your works has just be viewed as second rate. As a photographer and owner of two studios let me also take a minute to explain that there IS a difference between promoting your business and displaying you work. We promote our business by promoting the services that we offer. Private sittings, location sessions, various print styles, framing etc. etc. etc. Simply displaying one's work does not equate to promoting one's business.

Let me put that another way..... I am quite possibly the most fanatical football nut you will meet so I use a football analogy, T.O. promotes his business with his actions BOTH on and off the field, he promotes his skill ON the field. Some clubs will want him for his skill regardless of his business practices others will pass on his skill BECAUSE of his business practices.

Customers are no different, they always have a choice, we call it the front door. They choose to come it and they can choose to leave. As long as a studio is keeping their target market happy then I don;t see a gripe.

martynk said:
What if the bride/groom just want the pro to take the photographs,
and prefer to make their own arrangements for PP and printing?

There is nothing that says that a couple can't do that. They just have to find a studio / photographer that is will to do that. They can only "buy" what the seller offers.

martynk said:
What if the couple want to restrict/control distribution of the
images, or expect to get paid for any further reproductions? It's
their wedding, and the images wouldn't exist if it hadn't taken
place.

Nor would the images exist if a photographer wasn't there to make them. If they want to make restrictions then negotiate the terms with the studio. Either the studio will accept the couples requests or send them away.

martynk said:
This whole concept seems wrong. The client should pay for what they
want, including the copyright to the images of their own wedding.
It's little wonder that more people are relying on friends and
relatives.

Yes they can own the copyright providing that they are will to pay what the copyright holder is asking for in fees.

Seriously, maybe I shouldn’t take days off .... This is the 3rd thread today that I've read where photographers, business owners really, are under fire for simply having a business model of their choosing.

To the original poster I offer this:

Realize that in this day and age the fact is that poeple WILL scan your images. There is little that can be done, have your proofs printed on whatever textured paper is offered by your lab so that scans will atlest be of a lower quality. Bundle your ablums and wall prints in packages so that after the wedding there is no fear of spend additonal cash. Everything has been paid for now it will only be a matter of selecting which images to print.

Market to a better client base. If you have been doing this for any length of time you can spot the 'problem' clients within 15 minutes at the first meeting. We market to a higher end client, They don't want to spend time scanning images or playing with printers. They want to write a check and walk away with a product. SERVICE your client every step of the way. MAKE them WANT to come in to select their prints. MAKE them want YOUR prints. Look at the prints that you offer, if they aren't 100% higher quality than what can be produced at the something-mart change labs.

Your clients are doing this because they haven't realized the value of your offerings or because you are offering yourself to clients that can't afford what they want. Either way you can't change what she has done or will do. All that you CAN change is who you select as a client in the future. Remember that you chose her as much as she chose you. Take a page from other industries that offer professional services. We seem to be in the only industry where we're constantly under fire like this.

Eric

ericAC · May 31, 2006

coontie said:
udaman said:

This may be crazy,
but I am going to get back into Weddings. And I will GIVE the Files
to the clients. I will retain a copy for self promotion (it wiill
be in my contract), but the client will be able to print untill the
cows come home., Who cares! I will make my profit up front..

Click to expand...

I'd just like to point out that photographers that don't start
doing this soon will not be in business for much longer. Simple.

And those that do will cycle trough the industry every 5 years. A key issue here is they care that goes into the PP work. SIMPLE

coontie said:
I've a lot of friends that have gotten married over the past 5 yrs
and while in 2000/2001 asking for HighQ jpegs or .psds was uneard
of, now it's a lot more common. In fact, all 3 of my friends that
got married this year have received DVDs with images. It showed
such good faith on the part of the photog that only 1 ordered a
photo book from walmart, the other two went ahead and paid $$$ for
a nice looking photobook from the photographer.

I'm glad that you have friends that know what to do with a PSD. And I'll assume (here it comes,, I'm assuming) that they also have invested in CS2 and calibrated a monitor and have a profile for the something-mart printers.

coontie said:
Another friend did a modeling shoot from this hotshot in Manhattan
and he took about 100-200 photos, put thumnails on the web. She
chose two shots that she liked and received a link to download 10MP
.PSDs, hers to do with as she pleases. THAT is how this works.
Photographers that insist on retaining the original digitals,
selling prints only.. well, I'm amazed that they are still around,
actually.

Can you tell us how much that 10MP file cost and what the 'hotshot' charged for his servioce?

ericAC · May 31, 2006

Cal516,

I feel for you, I made a similar mistake years ago, in that I admitted to a client that I had culls. The lesson has stuck with me ever since, and this one will stick with you too. When we are asked if these are ALL of the images taken we respond that, no of course not, no photographer has a 100% keeper rate, but that these are all of the images that were suitable for the event. If pressed we simply tell the clients that any other images were deleted during the edit process. They're gone forever. No one will ever see that picture of you dribbling wine down your chin, or the shot of him with his fly open. We keep the tone VERY light but also firm in that what they are holding is the total take on the wedding or mitzvah.

You've let the cat out of the bag and now are paying the price. She can get as mad as she likes but remember that you culled those images for a reason. If you want to explain anything, explain that you have allowed her the privilege of looking behind the curtain and seeing the wizard in all his glory but that at the same time you must protect your reputation as a photographer and that images marked culled artistic reason have been deleted. Let her get as mad as she likes. Depending on the language of you contract with her you are under no obligation to her to provide images that do not meet your standard. Face the fact that she has already told every friend and co-worker how bad a hack you are.... Nothing that you do, NOT ONE THING will get her to go back and tell everyone how wonderful you are. You are now in damage control. Firmly explain that the original proofs are the only files that are available to order from or produce future images from.

As far as selling proofs, proofs are just that proofs, they are watermarked. IF someone wants to buy 4x5 prints (or whatever size proof you show) then they can buy PRINTS. 4x5 to 20x30 The business of selling proof sets at a lower price without the watermarks under values the rest of your prints. All of our prints are corrected, proofs on the other hand aren’t, and we won’t waste time trying to make a proof look any better than it has to. For us, proofs are just a rough preview of an image, eyes open or shut, boobs in or out.

Why are you letting this woman dictate to you how you run YOUR business? Customer service does have a line and she is crossing it. There are times when the client is just plain wrong. Keep to your standards. She is plain wrong and in trying to be ‘nice’ your getting hosed. And if you really want to test her will, tell her that the proof book that she now has with the culled images were NOT part of the package (she has the first proof book right?) and that if you find out that it was copied or not returned you will invoice her accordingly.

RDKirk · Jun 6, 2006

Maybe you guys need to look at your law more closely and go to court. The Canada law says this:

"Where, in the case of an engraving, photograph or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration, and the consideration was paid, in pursuance of that order, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom the plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright."

Notice "...the plate or other original..." If the author has a contract stating that your negative or CF card is what the commissioner has purchased, then the commissioner owns the copyright to any subsequent copies made from it. This is not much different from the US "for hire" immediate transfer of copyright.

It seems to me, however, that if what the author has actually agreed to sell are copies made from the original, then as in keeping with the Berne Convention, the author owns the copyright to the original. You should push the interpretation of the Canada law against the Berne Convention requirements in court.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

Patrick Wu · Jun 6, 2006

I find so many photographers holding on to this rights issue almost obsessively.

To me, one simple rule: If they have the money and are willing to pay for it, the more the better. If they have no money, and I can't make money with these photos from somewhere else anyway, they can have it.

A 10,000 carat diamond buried 30 miles underneath is worth nothing to me.
--
http://wupatrick.com

NW Charlie · Jun 7, 2006

coontie said:
Copyright infringement is not theft. If something is stolen,
that means it is no longer in the possession of the owner. Simple.
THAT is theft. I steal your car, you no longer have a car. I take
your lunch when you're not looking, you're going hungry. But if I
"steal" your photos, how are you now deprived of said photos? You
are not. You still have them.

The thing you will have stolen from me, the thing of which you would have deprived me, is not the photos themselves. It would be my sole possession of the photos. That, though not tangible, is property. If I am the only one with a copy, then I am the only one who can sell or give away the next copy. If I sell or give away one or more copies, and if nobody makes copies from those copies, then I am still the only one who can sell or give away the next copy.

But if you take a copy from me, and if you make copies from that copy, then I am no longer the only one who can sell or give away further copies. If you make lots of copies and give them away to friends and family, you will have deprived me of the opportunity to sell copies to those same people. That is the essence of copyright infringement.
--

One does not achieve success by being at the right place at the right time, but rather by being ready when the right place and time present themselves for your inspection.

Patrick Wu · Jun 7, 2006

Hm.... Sounds like you are describing the Web servers and the Internet browsers. Let's put them in jail.

Just joking. Now you see how the Web put so many people out of business.
--
http://wupatrick.com

NW Charlie said:
But if you take a copy from me, and if you make copies from that
copy, then I am no longer the only one who can sell or give away
further copies. If you make lots of copies and give them away to
friends and family, you will have deprived me of the opportunity to
sell copies to those same people. That is the essence of copyright
infringement.

coontie · Jun 7, 2006

ericAC said:
And those that do will cycle trough the industry every 5 years. A
key issue here is they care that goes into the PP work. SIMPLE

Yea. I'm not sure how many photographers still rely on reprints to make money, but those who do must understand, that nowdays this sounds like a total rip-off. Especially to an educated consumer in this day & age.

If you charge for PP, then that's a whole different business. People will gladly pay money for PP, of course. Not just that, they will gladly pay money for things they can't/unwilling to do themselves. But nowdays, any shmoe can order a pretty good looking, leather bound photobook from shutterfly, for $40 and be real happy.

Photographers should charge for PHOTOS. Taking them, manipulating them, processing them, enhancing, etc.. Somebody here already said that. We're photographers not printers. Exactly.

ericAC said:
I'm glad that you have friends that know what to do with a PSD. And
I'll assume (here it comes,, I'm assuming) that they also have
invested in CS2 and calibrated a monitor and have a profile for the
something-mart printers.

No, they didn't. It didn't seem to matter, though.

ericAC said:
Can you tell us how much that 10MP file cost and what the 'hotshot'
charged for his servioce?

$200. I double checked, she could keep 1 image only, not two like I said earlier.

So, basically, she paid $200 for a 15min thing, ended up with 1 photo. She's real happy with the service. She's since used that .psd to produce a small passport size photo, to create a 8.5x11 portrait, & to produce a .jpeg to create a collage with many photos. I'm telling you, if she had to go back time & again for reprints, she simply wouldn't do business with the guy.

coontie · Jun 7, 2006

NW Charlie said:
coontie said:

Copyright infringement is not theft. If something is stolen,
that means it is no longer in the possession of the owner. Simple.
THAT is theft. I steal your car, you no longer have a car. I take
your lunch when you're not looking, you're going hungry. But if I
"steal" your photos, how are you now deprived of said photos? You
are not. You still have them.

Click to expand...

The thing you will have stolen from me, the thing of which you
would have deprived me, is not the photos themselves. It would be
my sole possession of the photos.

I'm not sure what you mean. If you took a photo, you have it. No amount of copying will deprive you of your original photo. If somebody takes your photo and you no longer have it -- THAT is theft.

You can't steal "sole possession" -- what does that mean even?? Can I steal the air you breathe? Music you listened to on the way to work? Can I steal the movie you saw at a theater last week? No.

NW Charlie said:
But if you take a copy from me, and if you make copies from that
copy, then I am no longer the only one who can sell or give away
further copies. If you make lots of copies and give them away to
friends and family, you will have deprived me of the opportunity to
sell copies to those same people. That is the essence of copyright
infringement.

Absolulely! The only problem is that you're not entitled to profit. It's that simple. You may have been making money that way all this time but the world has changed and people who don't adapt, go out of business.

You see this all the time. Makers of player pianos were not entitled to profit. Nor were buggy whip manufacturers. Or makers of turntables. Or any of the countless other things which have been rendered obsolete. If your business depends on government granted monopolies such as copyright, then your business will die soon. We can debate this until we are both blue but only somebody in denial will ignore what's happening. The internet has taken the concept of a copyright and rendered it obsolete. Hundreds of millions of people around the globe think nothing of downloading music from the internet. The populations of china, india, bangladesh, ussr, & entire south america have reached piracy levels in the high 90%. In the US alone an estimated 60-70million people routinely download intellectual property w/o paying for it. I bet we're now up to 70-80% of the world's population! if not more...

Given these facts, are all these people criminals or does your thinking need to be upgraded?

You are a pro. You take pictures better than the guests at the wedding. You can use CS2 better than the guests. You know composition, light, exposure, setting, etc. You've the equipment. THAT is what differentiates you from the shmoes with a dRebel & a kit lens.

Besides, I know what I'm talking about. I started out doing 1 line of work (creating software, btw) but then the influx of foreigners that were a) cheaper than me b) better than me threatened to render me useless. I shifted to a different line. Then THAT became commoditized. I switched again. It wasn't easy. I didn't like doing it. Guess what? I make MORE money now than before, happier than before. It all worked out.

Patrick Wu · Jun 7, 2006

You don't like doing it? What do you do now? Selling bootleg copies of Windows XP?
--
http://wupatrick.com

coontie said:
Besides, I know what I'm talking about. I started out doing 1 line
of work (creating software, btw) but then the influx of foreigners
that were a) cheaper than me b) better than me threatened to render
me useless. I shifted to a different line. Then THAT became
commoditized. I switched again. It wasn't easy. I didn't like
doing it. Guess what? I make MORE money now than before, happier
than before. It all worked out.

coontie · Jun 7, 2006

Evan Auster said:
You are talking "Apples and Oranges" here. Did you see the
contract? Do you know what the photographer will be using the
pictures for? I would venture to say that if she wants other
images she will PAY for other pictures.

sure, if she wants other images, she'd probably be paying for it. But she only wanted one and she got one. The photog's package provided for 1 photo only and that is the package she chose.

Evan Auster said:
Also, these are Head shots
or Portfolio pix. That's a different business model. I live here
in NYC and I guarantee no "Hot Shot" is giving his work away for
free! THAT is how it works here!

Yeah, it was a head shot but who said he gave it away for free?!?!? She PAID money for it! $200 for 15 mins of work -- not too shabby, eh?

I'm not sure what you mean by a diff biz model. She wanted the original .tiff/.psd because she needed to send digital images of varying sizes to different organizations, she also needed to make various sized prints. He got the money, she got the 10MP image, both are happy. Where's the problem? She paid the photographer for his time, skill, and equipment. NOT for prints. THAT is what we're discussing here.

This photographer was smart enough to realize that the real money is in what he can do that others can't, NOT in ripping people off by charging for prints every time they wanted one. Besides, she was dealing with people that accepted digital photos on a CD only.

coontie · Jun 7, 2006

Patrick Wu said:
You don't like doing it? What do you do now? Selling bootleg copies
of Windows XP?

Ha.

I design highly available stock trading infrastructures for Wall St. I like this a lot better than developing software. Especially since I would now have to compete with Indian/Chinese/Russian PhDs charging $30/hr, most of them with dual degrees in physics or math. They look at my pathetic computer science bachelors & they laugh.

Richard Katris · Jun 8, 2006

from creative effort has been stolen from the artists.

You give as a defense for breaking the laws....the fact that it is easily done. The real fact is that as soon as the powers that be...the economic engines of the world...find a way to charge us for all content...they will. They are now trying to charge us all for the water we drink...and I mean in a major way...and world wide. You give China, and Russia enough vested interest in data and you bet they will begin to defend it's encroachment to the nth degree. It is only a matter of time until digital property becomes better guarded...and this interim time we live in will be shortlived.

You are right....they are all breaking the law...and in time law enforcement will find a way to make profitable these products.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan

MazG · Jun 8, 2006

Another option, one that I insisted upon with my wedding photographer, was to be able to purchase the copyright to the images (at that time the negatives).

I explained to her that I wanted to be able to make copies at will, forever. This is not an unusual request as the risk with your wedding photog being the only one who can make prints is that you or they might move away and access to the photos lost over time.

She priced out a package for the negatives/copyright I'm sure based on the average profit she would have made from additional prints had we ordered any (we only ordered an album).

Perhaps this is an option to either this bridge/groom or a future couple? It also makes it very clear up front that unless they purchase this option, you will retain copyright and be the only one able to make copies.

--
MazG

lild01 · Jun 8, 2006

I am a photographer and do not view my images as just a picture. However to some of my customers thats just what they are. Pictures of a important moment in time.

I had a bride and groom a few weeks ago that waited until the last minute to sign the contract. The problem was they had overspent their budget. They really wanted me to take awsome wedding portraits but settled for cousin whoever to take pictures insted. I am not mad at them and really understand. I dont take myself so seriously to think that everyone is moved by images as I am. Most people arent, at least in my local area.

I think alot of the old guard photographers need to understand that the mystery of photography is almost gone. Regular people may not buy a high end DSLR. But there are alot of people that have spent from $500-$1699 for a decient Digital camera. And these people are learning to use them. Quiet as kept, they are also finding out about the labs that we use to get our prints. Do you think that MPIX will turn down Mrs. Smith if she uploads her pictures and gives her credit card number? No they wont, so alot of photographers need to get real.

Treat customers with respect and be honest. I as a professional photographer am able to take quality pictures and do things with a camera that they may not be able to with their camera. Make your money based off of your skill, ability, and passion for photography. Price the pictures at a decient price or point them to where they can get them printed out on there own. Give them a fair copyright release and move on. That is what I do and my customers really like the honesty and send their friends to me.

Bottom line I make my money from selling my services. Once I am paid for the doing the shoot. I really dont care what they do with the pictures. Maybe this is because I am from the napster, digital, everything now age.

What good does it serve me to hold a brides pictures hostage per print? When she has paid me a fair and agreeded on price for doing the shoot?

Ok I am ready for your rocks to fly now.

http://www.pbstudios.net

Explaining Copyright ...

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Keyboard shortcuts