Interesting Perspective on Professional Photography

Enjoyed it as well. The lessor orchestras are MUCH cheaper than the top ones. Usually can find them in the bargin bin for $4.99.

alFR said:

John Burns said:

I admit my example was meant to be tongue in cheek but your
argument is weak here. I have a large classical music collection.
Almost all of my recordings are of major symphony
oprchestras(Mercedes). I could have bought the same works recorded
by much lessor orchestras(Kia).

Things are almost always more complicated than they seem at first
glance.

Click to expand...

True.... but do the CDs for these different recordings cost a
different amount, or are they all the same?

Anyhow, I think we're going to have to agree to differ on this one
. Been good debating it with you though.

Al

Click to expand...

--
John

DarrenH said:

It's an interesting read, and an accurate one. To think that all
our jobs will be preserved in their current state for ever and
ever, amen, is naive.

Click to expand...

I agree with you, DarrenH. We have to accept that many of today's jobs won't CHANGE - but (maybe worse) DISAPPEAR.

DarrenH said:

Before computers, there were rows and rows of clerks who did the
books for large companies. The computer turned those jobs into
something else (some of them got turned into networking and
computer maintenance people). And it will follow with every new
technology as it becomes integrated into society. What's wrong
with that?

Click to expand...

Right that each computer took over the jobs of a dozen people. Wrong that these dozen people could magically turn into something else requiring long training.

Not to mention the age factor. Many employers prefer "factory-fresh" young people who just finished their training; than middle-aged people who have been re-trained for a different job but who have not grown up accustomed to the new technology.

BTW, back to the article re.: the same is happening very faaaaast here in the tiny island republic of Malta.

Clients are expecting full hi-res images on CD for all types of commercial, advertising, etc. The trend is catching up even in weddings.

Ironically, though, many Maltese photogs who were pioneers in giving out full-res images - but didn't raise their prices - are now reverting to keeping the digital negs for themselves, & giving lo-res (600X400) previews on CD.

WHY?

Because clients ususally don't give a damn that the pro charged very inexpensively for the originals. They just do reprints somewhere else (many times 'cos it's more convenient, NOT 'cos it's cheaper)

At ou studio we believe in charging a creation fee for a CD of full-res images; & charge very low priced for reprints. Most of our commercial clients do only very few reprints anyway.
--
JF

http://www.jfphotostudio.com
[email protected]

CliffB said:

As an attorney you know this very well from dealing with your own
clients. You deal directly with the client; and, most often must
develop a good relationship with that client. In your field of the
law, this is particularly important. This relationship would be
analogous to the wedding photographer and his/her client. However,
if you were to write a book on family law, and sought to mass
market that book nationally or internationally, you would be in the
situation more akin to the sale of a CD.
Your relationship to the book buyer would be far different than
your relationship to a client in your practice of law.

Click to expand...

Your point is well argued. So ... the pleadings that the client had me prepare, (which are my intellectual property) ... or, say for example a "living will" ... he can remove his name and make a copy for all his family to use? My point was and remains, what consitutes "fair use"?

Karl H. Timmerman M.A.,J.D.
http://www.karltimmerman.com

Capital Man said:

Michael Eisner, CEO of Disney, made $500 million in just a single
year. With him making that kind of money, it's hard to fault a kid
with a minimum wage job for copying one of the CDs that his company
owns the rights to.

Click to expand...

"From each according to his ability, to each according his need"???

Perhaphs you should seriously consider changing your name to "MarxMan" - but then there is no "natural morality" against misrepresentation I assume...

Doug

Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D. said:

Your point is well argued. So ... the pleadings that the client had
me prepare, (which are my intellectual property) ... or, say for
example a "living will" ... he can remove his name and make a copy
for all his family to use? My point was and remains, what
consitutes "fair use"?

Click to expand...

As an attorney, you should know very well that pleadings, once filed with the court, are public records and not anyone's intellectual property.

Capital Man said:

As an attorney, you should know very well that pleadings, once
filed with the court, are public records and not anyone's
intellectual property.

Click to expand...

Why? So publication transforms my work product into fair game? Does that apply to the photos in the "National Geographic"? ... once published? And my "living wills" are not filed ... they are delivered to the client. Your argument has no merit. What constitutes "Fair Use"?

Regards
Karl
Karl H. Timmerman M.A.,J.D.
http://www.karltimmerman.com

I almost hate to add to this very long thread, but I do feel that it is an important subject for wedding photographers and other creators of art.

I have been a wedding photographer for 27 years, and this is both the scariest and the most welcome trend I have ever seen. First, our past business model of charging a low price up front and hoping for print sales has to go. That's scary. Our new model must be to charge a up front price which reasonably compensates for the time spent. Attorney's charge for time, Accountants charge for time, Doctors charge for time, Plumbers charge for time. Why shouldn't we? Second, we should release the negatives/digital files to our clients. They paid us to create them, and we made our money. Third, we should offer our expertise in getting prints from those negatives, again at a price commensurate with the time we spend.

The challenge is to educate our clients that they should have us produce the prints to preserve the quality image that we created for them. If they are happy with bad color and density from Walmart, so be it. But, if they want an album that they can be proud of and didn't have to spend days working on, they should turn the job over to us.

Frankly, the weddings I'm happiest with fall into two categories. One, the clients that take their original sets and I'm done with. Free's up my time and I make my highest profit per hour.

Two, the ones that sit down with me and allow me to create the best possible album for them to remember their wedding with and to pass on to their kids. Satisfies my creative needs and my ego.

Change with the times and give your customer what they want!

--- I am more and more simply providing the CD - getting a price for it is, as mentioned in the article, the only real stumbling block - looking for €300 for a CD one client threw me out complaining that it was only a 50C disk.

However, I am beginning to go at this from a slightly different viewpoint – I am recently ONLY supplying CDs and have raised my price for the prints very much higher.

Clients still want proof sheets and hard copy and don’t seem to have the same resistance to paying a bill even after I have provided the full quality CD in the first instance and included it price in my initial fee.

My stand by argument – not used yet is I have to spend so much more time to view and select from the CD and make ready for any individual viewing medium that it is no longer cost effective for ME to print my client’s work, except as a fee per hour including travel expenses, parking etc. They are free to take it to a bureau themselves and spend as much time on the images as they like.

Sorta the same logic used when Rodney King was beaten ... the locals felt 'entitled' to riot. Entitled to steal ... I think not. Who bestowed the entitlement?

I agree that Eisner and some others aren't worth what they're paid ... and it would change if the stockholders took some action. They ... like the voting public on both sides of the pond ... simply don't.
Ken

Capital Man said:

John Burns said:

You seem to have a very simplistic outlook. Do you feel the same
way about the fixed income senior citizen that relies on Disney
stock to eat?

Click to expand...

I think if the Board of Directors were worried about the senior
citizens owning Disney stock, then they would have used the
$1billion paid to Michael Eisner to pay out dividends to the
shareholders instead.

When a company can pay one man a billion dollars in salary, how can
you expect a teenager not to feel entitled to a free DVD or CD?

Click to expand...

Ger Bee said:

--- I am more and more simply providing the CD - getting a price
for it is, as mentioned in the article, the only real stumbling
block - looking for €300 for a CD one client threw me out
complaining that it was only a 50C disk.

However, I am beginning to go at this from a slightly different
viewpoint – I am recently ONLY supplying CDs and have raised my
price for the prints very much higher.

Clients still want proof sheets and hard copy and don’t seem to
have the same resistance to paying a bill even after I have
provided the full quality CD in the first instance and included it
price in my initial fee.

My stand by argument – not used yet is I have to spend so much more
time to view and select from the CD and make ready for any
individual viewing medium that it is no longer cost effective for
ME to print my client’s work, except as a fee per hour including
travel expenses, parking etc. They are free to take it to a bureau
themselves and spend as much time on the images as they like.

Click to expand...

Yes, along the sames lines as Gerbee, you can present a nicely bound proof book (of contact sheets with small enough images as not be subject to scanning and reprints), a CD of 72 dpi images(with file names for proofing) and with "proof" masked over part of the image and then the client can either:
1) order prints from the studio using the proof sheets or proof cd or

2) can purchase (for a price) a cd of high res images which they can take to a service bureau

3) My clients always have an option, as well, to purchase a CD with slide show (picstoexe) no proof masked over the image and no file names to detract from the presentation. It has a custom CD cover made from one of the wedding shots that takes less than 10 minutes to do in PS.

This workflow gives "some" protection to the unauthorized scanning and printing of the digital images, it gives those who want hard prints an option and those who are more high tech another option. Money is made from reprints or the CD. Either way their are after-the-wedding sales.
--
CharlieMcD

If there's no passion in life - there's no life!

Member said:

Member said:

Why should this be any different for wedding photography?

Click to expand...

Short answer: Because the law says it.

Click to expand...

That's a pretty lame answer. The DMCA, another law, is being used to say that you can't watch movies in the US on a DVD player purchased overseas. Who honestly respects that law? Or follows it out of eyesight of the police? How about if the UCITA passes and shrink-wrap licenses become valid, are they going to be reasonable and moral all of a sudden?

Member said:

Long: Because you didn't hire the photographer full time offering
him/her a stable sallary, paid vacation, health and dental
insurance and so on.

Click to expand...

The usual contract for any professional you hire involves you owning the work they produce for you. Only a couple of fields are different here. Why should a photographer own your pictures, but a plumber not get a per-flush royalty?

Member said:

In return for your fee, the photographer will licence to you some
of the rights over his/her images

Click to expand...

Not if they ever wish to work for me, or any of the people I've discussed this with. Adapt or die.

Member said:

So, I, after years of research, develop THE
ULTIMATE MOUSETRAP ... you have a natural right to copy it ...
and sell it to your friends and neighbors?

Click to expand...

I think most people are okay with the idea of someone owning something they produce, even intangibles such as an unbuilt invention, or a song, but only to a certain point.

Patents are absurd, especially recently, because they let you control who can use an idea even if they came up with it on their own. Copyrights are nuts, extending basically another lifetime beyond the death of the creator.

All of these could be made reasonable, but people would have to give up their sense of entitlement. Ideas are different than physical objects. If I hear you whistling a song I can whistle it too, it doesn't cost you anything. However if you were playing a flute and I took the flute you'd be unable to play.

Because ideas are inherently copyable we view them differently. If physical objects were easily copyable we'd have different societal views about them as well.

If you want society to mandate that someone can't copy an idea, really an impossibility in many cases such as trying to forget the tune you whistled, you need to give something back to society. If you want to make money on whistling your proprietary tunes and you expect my taxes to pay for the enforcement of your exclusive right, perhaps you'd better offer me something in return. After all, I doubt you were born a full adult, knowing everything that you do now. Your melodies are probably based on your experiences listening to artists of the past. If you have the right to listen to Bach and copy something, why don't I have the right to listen to and copy you?

"IP rights" wouldn't be so distastleful if they didn't try to mandate the impossible and if they weren't so harsh in doing so. Drop copyright to 20 years, shorter if the holder is refusing to release their work. Change patents to not cover independent discovery, and change trademarks to not be enforceable if someone tries to use them for anything except product identification. (This last bit to stop people who make part of an access-control measure be their trademarked logo so that they can hit anyone accessing something without permission with a trademark suit even though the overall action is perfectly permissible.)

Do those things and I'll agree that your mousetrap can remain yours for a while.

Michael Long said:

You didn't steal a digital file. You stole someone's work.

Click to expand...

No. To steal means to deprive the owner of something tangible.

I agree that you've been slighted, even that you've now got less opportunity to sell something, but it's not stealing. Just being worked up about something doesn't excuse making up new meanings for words.

You should stop trying to make direct analogies between things. Copying a photograph isn't anything like taking someone's physical property. You hide any valid points you have when you make up a dumb analogy.

Laws have very little to do with morals, less so now that corporations are buying politicians (Senator Disney, for example.) It's only because photographers don't have a powerful lobby that it's not against the law to take a picture of the same subject/setting as someone else just did. Many photographers feel they own a particular composition and that someone is ripping them off they shoot the same thing... Can you imagine if it was a crime for you to look through the portfolios of the greats and shoot similar things? But for the luck of the draw, it would be. Would you then feel that to take such pictures was wrong, or would you feel that the law was wrong and ignore it?

As for music, it's hard to believe the music companies when some millionare tells you to stop copying files before it hurts the artist, just after he himself participated in the shady practices of the music industry which cost artists much more than unauthorized copying do.

bhenning said:

How would your hypothetical couple react if the photog, instead of
charging for prints, charged as follows:
[snip]
They could easily end up paying $5000+ for that CD and not get any
prints!

Click to expand...

Do you make $5000 per wedding under the current fee structure? (If so, tell everyone your secret!)

Why not look at the ammount you make with your small up-front charge and the normal ammount of prints sold. Base your fees on wanting to make the same ammount now.

You can even charge for a basic package (of up to x hours, n photos retouched, etc) and go into hourly rates if you run over. Many clients might prefer this to the alternative of working out every little detail.

Don't forget to provide them with a nice large print of their favorite pose. Not only is it a nice touch, but it'll give them something to compare drug-store prints against and to show to friends.

What many photographers miss is that clients want files these days (though usually not exclusively). Prints have value but they can't be put on a webpage, or emailed to friends. Part of this scanning of prints isn't to lowball the photographer on printing, it's to get a product that many photographers will not provide at any price.

William Night said:

If you want to make money on whistling your proprietary tunes and you
expect my taxes to pay for the enforcement of your exclusive right,
perhaps you'd better offer me something in return. ...
If you have the right to listen to Bach and copy something, why
don't I have the right to listen to and copy you?

Click to expand...

We live in a capitalistic society, where people are (were) taught that if you work hard, if you can create something worthwhile, then you're entitled to the fruits of your labors.

The person who created that song probably spent a decade or more learning how to produce music. He (or she) would probably like to make some kind of living doing something they love.

Now you just want to make a copy of it because you're "entitled" to it? You're rationalizing that it's probably not original anyway, so why not? Let's just forget the fact that it must have SOME value, otherwise you wouldn't want to listen to it.

Personally, I think that the creator of a work (music, art, book, software) is "entitled" to benefit from it. I think they'd like a little protection from people who think they can steal their efforts. It took time (often years or decades), effort, and money to create, after all.

The real problem in the US dates all the way back to the declaration, consititution, and bill of rights. The founders went to great pains to specify your rights -- and did NOT spent an equal amount of time explaining your obligations and responsibilities.

It now seems that we have a couple of generations that feel they have the "right" to do whatever they want. Too many seem to think that lying, cheating, and stealing is perfectly acceptable -- as long as you don't get caught.

Enron et. al. is a perfect example for our times. What we need to learn, and quick, is that actions have consequences. Lie and we won't trust you; steal and you'll be fined or go to jail.

If that doesn't happen we're in trouble. And at the very least, if you steal an artist's work often enough, if they can no longer make a living at what they do, then they're simply going to stop doing it.

William Night said:

You didn't steal a digital file. You stole someone's work.

No. To steal means to deprive the owner of something tangible.
I agree that you've been slighted, even that you've now got less
opportunity to sell something, but it's not stealing. Just being
worked up about something doesn't excuse making up new meanings for
words.

Click to expand...

The artist is selling his work, packaged as a CD. Correct?
Do you own the CD? No.
Did you pay for the CD/music? No.
But you have the music in your possesion? Yes.
Is it an authorized, legitimate copy? No.

I don't need to make up new words or meanings when perfectly acceptable ones already exist.

steal : 1. v. tr. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

I'm not excusing the excesses of record companies. But I'll also make the case that for every big name there's also a garage band out there trying to make a living doing gigs and selling cd's of their music. You don't think copying their songs for free hurts them?

I do photography, I create software, I write. All of those things are the efforts of my skill and my labor and are MY property. You do NOT -- no matter what your rationalization -- have the right to steal it.

I may try to sell it to you, and you may decide it's not worth what I'm asking. But again, just because you think I'm overpriced doesn't give you the right to steal it.

You're not entitled to it just because you think you are.

William Night said:

The usual contract for any professional you hire involves you
owning the work they produce for you. Only a couple of fields are
different here. Why should a photographer own your pictures, but a
plumber not get a per-flush royalty?

Click to expand...

Shhhh! - we don't want plumbers getting any royalty ideas!

Ownership of the copyright for a photograph is given to "the one who causes the image to be affixed" - that is, the primary author of the image. Oscar Wilde was involved in the landmark case that established this precedent. The photographer won, mainly because he proved that he constructed the imagery and took the picture. Despite Oscar Wilde's presence in the picture and the fact that another company had hired the photographer, the court still found that the photographer was instrumental in the creation. See: http://www.cfpca.wayne.edu/faculty/wright/FPC502/05.%20U.S.%20Copyright%20and%20the%20Photograph.html

This key concept is the moment of creation and establishment of the image. If an individual sets up a shot, frames everything, but someone else snaps the picture - the copyright owner is not the person snapping the picture. That would be considered a mechanical action. The reality is, even if you paid for a photography service, the photographer is still the author. The viewpoint of a photographer at a wedding, when they elect to take the shot, the lighting and many other factors all support the notion that the work is an original expression and is authored by the photographer.

Others are free to shoot the wedding, and produce their perspective of the factual events, but obviously you pay the professional because you believe that they can do a better job at this expression than many others.

People are peculiar about photography as a service. Professional commercial rates for photographers would seem extraordinarily high to most people if at the end of the wedding you hand them a few CDs of images. People are buying the storytelling and the archival qualities a photographer can produce - yes the art.

Hi,

William Night said:

Do you make $5000 per wedding under the current fee structure? (If
so, tell everyone your secret!)

Click to expand...

No, I was trying to make a point.

William Night said:

Why not look at the ammount you make with your small up-front
charge and the normal ammount of prints sold. Base your fees on
wanting to make the same ammount now.

Click to expand...

I do not disagree; and I will probably try exactly that - what I was trying to point out is that the up-front cost would probably significantly increase; which is fine with me - but I can already hear "but photog XYZ only charges 1/2 that".

The obvious reply is "but look at his reprint prices, plus you don't get 'negatives' 'digital files'"

William Night said:

You can even charge for a basic package (of up to x hours, n photos
retouched, etc) and go into hourly rates if you run over. Many
clients might prefer this to the alternative of working out every
little detail.

Click to expand...

"Fixed Price" is the bane of the consulting industry; as once clients have you agree to a fixed price package they always squeeze you for all its worth; namely "but I thought that was part of the package", "naturally that is part of the package", "what do you mean I have to pay extra for that" etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

William Night said:

Don't forget to provide them with a nice large print of their
favorite pose. Not only is it a nice touch, but it'll give them
something to compare drug-store prints against and to show to
friends.

Click to expand...

Agree 100%

Actually, I am not certain how much photogs in general will like having their names attached to WallMart or "Uncle Bob's" inkjet prints.

William Night said:

What many photographers miss is that clients want files these days
(though usually not exclusively). Prints have value but they can't
be put on a webpage, or emailed to friends. Part of this scanning
of prints isn't to lowball the photographer on printing, it's to
get a product that many photographers will not provide at any price.

Click to expand...

Again, I am not disagreeing; but I do expect people to get a "sticker shock" at the up front price.

Best Regards,

Bill

--
http://whphotography.com/
http://www.cpureview.com/

Michael Long said:

We live in a capitalistic society, where people are (were) taught
that if you work hard, if you can create something worthwhile, then
you're entitled to the fruits of your labors.

Click to expand...

Your expectations don't necessarily translate to my obligations.

Michael Long said:

The person who created that song probably spent a decade or more
learning how to produce music. He (or she) would probably like to
make some kind of living doing something they love.

Click to expand...

I agree. And I think they should make a living. But I don't think they should get the life+75 year monopoly they do. Their creation depends on their exposure to the world and culture around them, for them to deny anyone the right to the same thing seems unfair.

Carl Orf wrote Carmina Burana based largely on the music he experienced as a child, borrowing everything and putting his own spin on it. Apotheosis, a techno band, did the same, making a new work based on the O Fortuna aria. They were promptly sued by Orf's estate, Orf being long dead.

Copyright isn't inspiring Orf to produce anything. He's dead. But it's stifling the creativity of those who come later.

Michael Long said:

Now you just want to make a copy of it because you're "entitled" to
it? You're rationalizing that it's probably not original anyway, so
why not? Let's just forget the fact that it must have SOME value,
otherwise you wouldn't want to listen to it.

Click to expand...

Sure, it has some value. But that value didn't appear out of the ether. And asking people not to base their ideas on things they've heard is as alien as asking people to not look at things you're looking at.

Michael Long said:

Personally, I think that the creator of a work (music, art, book,
software) is "entitled" to benefit from it. I think they'd like a
little protection from people who think they can steal their
efforts. It took time (often years or decades), effort, and money
to create, after all.

Click to expand...

Ok, so how do we balance their benefit with the benefit to the public who is being asked not to exercise natural rights on this work for a period of time?

Michael Long said:

if you
steal an artist's work often enough, if they can no longer make
a living at what they do, then they're simply going to stop doing
it.

Click to expand...

The sillyness of the term "stealing" aside, I agree.

I think we need a balance. Otherwise there won't be a tune I can whistle in twenty years without paying someone royalties. In the software business I could parlay a two-year lead into market domination. A well-played six-month monopoly would even be worth a fortune.

How are life+75 terms reasonable in any way?

The copyright law only specifies that if there is no contract being written, the photographer owns the copyright. Both parties have full right to draft a contract such that the copyright of the photographs be transferred to the hiring party. Other contracts specify that the photographer still owns the copyright, but give full right of use to the hiring party (wedding or commercial work) to use and print photos.

I am a semi-professional photographer myself, generating income on weddings and portraits work.. although not to use it as my main income. I always give all the negatives back to my clients.. I charge an hourly fee for my wedding work and a fixed price for portraits. I don't give a damn how they use my photos. I DON'T want to maintain their negatives.. I pick the ones I like most and put them into my own profolio and give them everything else.

BTW, I still own the copyright.. but who cares? They are not going to use their wedding photo for a commercial promotion that I can charge big money on.. so why bother..

Michael

Chrisat said:

Ownership of the copyright for a photograph is given to "the one
who causes the image to be affixed" - that is, the primary author
of the image. Oscar Wilde was involved in the landmark case that
established this precedent. The photographer won, mainly because
he proved that he constructed the imagery and took the picture.
Despite Oscar Wilde's presence in the picture and the fact that
another company had hired the photographer, the court still found
that the photographer was instrumental in the creation. See:

http://www.cfpca.wayne.edu/faculty/wright/FPC502/05.%20U.S.%20Copyright%20and%20the%20Photograph.html

Click to expand...