Wedding pros

Kenny Caudill said:

The copyright is for the image, not the negative. This is why it
extends to each print made.

Click to expand...

The copyright is for the image, but usually when someone buys a negative, it's assumed that they want the copyright as well, the negative being the best way to reproduce additional images.

Kenny Caudill said:

I believe that any photographer that subscribes to the notion that
negatives are the final product is not a professional. And any
potential client that believes this should have a relative or
freind take pictures and give them the negatives.

Click to expand...

"The negatives", meaning an easily reproducable form of the image, is the final product I want. That doesn't have to mean it's the image directly recorded by the camera. If it needs work before it's finished, that's fine. When the customers on this forum are talking about wanting the negatives, they mean they want the finished work and no obligations with prints or anything.

Pros who believe that everyone must deal with wedding photos in a certain way, doing exactly what the professional says, with no creative or business-level input, should get out of a business where they deal with customers.

Kenny Caudill said:

Kenny Caudill said:

There's a big difference between art you produce (landscapes,
whatever) and then sell prints of to various customers, and prints
made specifically at the request (and expense) of the customer.

Click to expand...

WHY?!?!

Click to expand...

Because the work is more intimately related to the client than to you. You're the interchangeable professional photographer. Had the client hired someone else, they'd still have a book of pro-quality wedding pictures, of themselves.

This is why it's morally repugnant to the non-photographers on here to sell pictures of your clients for any other reason. Using their pictures as a portfolio seems reasonable, but to sell their pictures to anyone who wants to buy it... Not okay.

Kenny Caudill said:

Kenny Caudill said:

I'm not calling it that. I'm saying it's a trade, the same as
plumbing. You hire a professional, they provide a product or a
service and you own results. The fact that photography doesn't
always work this was is a bug that should be worked out.

Click to expand...

Photography is not, and never will be, a trade. To expand on your
plumber analogy, the result of work by every plumber I might hire
to repair a sink will be identical. The plumbing will be made to
work in exactly the same way by whomever I hire.
Every photographer's work at a given event will vary dramatically
based on his vision, skill and training. If this were not the
case, every client would chose the lowest cost photographer (as
they do with plumbers) to shoot thier wedding. There are many in
my town that will work for under $400 dollars. My least expensive
package is $1,195.

Click to expand...

And this is where perceptions differ. Even in the "trades" there are huge differences in quality of work. Every plumber may run water from A to B, but every wedding photographer takes pictures too. It's how it's done that's important. Does the plumber use high-quality parts and strap the pipes to studs every half-meter, or do they use cheap parts and rely on glue to make a waterproof join, skip anchoring, and so on. The result will be a toilet that flushes, or hot water in the bathroom, but one will last longer, one will have less leaks, etc.

The person who simply calls the cheapest plumber is in for a nasty suprise. As is the person who relies only on price to choose an auto-mechanic, computer programmer, gardener, or photographer.

If all of these cases the client sees only a black box. They don't know, or care, what's involved in doing what they hire a professional to do. They simply want to compare your finished product (as they see it) with that of some other professional, hear a few testimonials, and let you get to work. They don't, and shouldn't, care what machine you use for prints, or what brand of camera you use. Just like you hire a plumber and everything magically works and you don't have any idea what was involved.

Kenny Caudill said:

I create art wherever I work. Many great classical artists chose
people as their subjects. As I posted to an earlier remark like
this, do you beleive that photography is not art unless it is
landscapes or bowls of fruit?

Click to expand...

Art is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is if you create it for a general audience, or for a specific client.

Kenny Caudill said:

I haven't seen this yet, I'm heading there now. I'm not upset with
this line of discussion. I do really hope to change your opinion
in my direction. The ability to convince people that our work
should not be copied is essential to staying in business. I would
hate to have to depend only on the rich in my town to buy my
services. If I had to charge a $1000 creation fee up front (rather
than sell prints) most around here could not afford it. The way we
work now, clients can have images made of their children at various
ages, and then purchase prints as they can afford them. Your view
of photography would take this away from them.

Click to expand...

I don't see why X+Y=Z doesn't apply to the client as well. If the end up paying Z in the end, isn't it the same? You could even offer installment payments if you wished. $500 at/before the wedding, $500 when picking up the results, if $1000 in a lump is hard for them.

But the X+Y=Z isn't the full story. The client has to pay the cost of making prints on top of your profits, for anything they want in print form. If they, like me, don't want many prints, they get a cheaper deal. If they want prints, it costs exactly the same as it would otherwise. (Assuming that having made the same ammount of profit on the job, you'd be willing to make market-rate prints.)

Michael Long said:

Any business class will tell you that one of your major expenses is
customer acquisition. Since it costs so much to get one, why not do
your aboslute best to keep him?

Click to expand...

There's no relation between stringing someone along for prints and keeping them as a customer.

Just because someone is still buying any reprints from you doesn't mean they're hiring you to do any new work.

Michael Long said:

Done correctly, you and your customer can enter into a relationship
that lasts a lifetime.

Do it badly, and you may have simply made a grand or two.

I know which one I'd prefer...

Click to expand...

Idclick1 said:

And then when your house and prints burn so will your negs. LMAO

Click to expand...

Wow, you are most likely the biggest jerk I've ever talked to. Please tell me where you live so that I can make sure nobody ever deals with you again.

I'll use my safety deposit box for this. My pictures, along with the rest of my important data, are safely in a safety deposit box along with jewellery we don't wear and legal documents we don't want to lose.

You'd see a house fire as a great opportunity to resell a bunch of prints, wouldn't you?

Now I am confused... Michael was agreeing with me, as it seems you do, but you seem to bag him in your thread. I was pointing out releasing the negatives/files and the benefits it can have for the client/photographer relationship. You seem to be contradicting us while agreeing at the same time.

You seem to be a thoughtful person, so I would appreciate it if you Read "Expectations 1 & 2" and responded to them.

Thank you for your time

--
'In cyberspace, you can't hear the screams...'
'Price is only an issue in the absence of value.'
'Being 6'8' means not having to say you're sorry...'

Equipment list in profile.

William Night said:

There's no relation between stringing someone along for prints and
keeping them as a customer.
Just because someone is still buying any reprints from you doesn't
mean they're hiring you to do any new work.

Click to expand...

Is it just a habit to disagree with anything I say now, without even considering the context?

I was agreeing with jblann, specifically:

"Attract them back for Baby pictures, anniversary pictures, family pictures, engagement pictures, etc by your attitude and your willingness to show them how to get the best bang for their buck. Your bucks will come. Sitting fees, package pricing, all of the above for all of the referral opportunities represented by that one client... And you're going to force them to "buy Canon" over maybe a $100 in reprints in 25% of your clients? Give me a break."

Give me one too.

jblann said:

Now I am confused... Michael was agreeing with me, as it seems you
do, but you seem to bag him in your thread. I was pointing out
releasing the negatives/files and the benefits it can have for the
client/photographer relationship. You seem to be contradicting us
while agreeing at the same time.

You seem to be a thoughtful person, so I would appreciate it if you
Read "Expectations 1 & 2" and responded to them.

Thank you for your time

Click to expand...

Perhaps I misread. I assumed that he meant you should try to make a lifetime customer in the way most photographers seem to want to do - by coercion.

If I misread his opinion, I am sorry. I had just read Bob Niel's "LMAO" post and I was a little annoyed.

Matthew Cromer said:

I'm interested in how many of you give up your negatives / digital
files for weddings versus how many of you do not and find that idea
repugnant.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work

Click to expand...

Matthew for many years I kept the negatives. Then I began selling the negatives after the final order for a reasonable fee. Over the past few years scanning and printing technology have cut down on the number and amount of my reorders. So in response to being highjacked, I raised my initial price to meet the average reorder sale I used to get, in return for the negatives in the deal. The old price structure is'nt working for me anymore thanks to that digital technology that many like me find to be a great new tool. Who knew that on the other end of that tool was a screw driver. Scott

Jim, I am happy to hear about your willingness to release the negs. My thought was based more on the photographer having a policy of releasing the negs after x yrs and then the client contacting him to get them. I don't think it should be the photographers responsibility to track down the client. Not everyone is going to want them. But people need options. Best regards Jim, glad you have a clearer outlook than Bob Neil. He has issues.

Jim DeLuco said:

HaloFX said:

I believe that no matter what your business model is, the negatives
or untouched digital files should be made available to the client
at some point, even if it is for a fee or after X number of years.
Simply for archives sake.

Click to expand...

ya, but after years you can't find the bride and groom and even if
you could, would you want to go thru potentially 100's of orders to
try to find these people?

I would rather give them to them earlier. One idea is to send them
as a gift on their first anniversary. Currently I give them to
some brides after the final order is complete, as long as a minimum
is met.

--
Jim DeLuco
DeLuco Photography
http://www.delucophoto.com

Click to expand...

You think the Photographers Studio is more fire proof than my home? The idea is to have options. If I did have the originals, they could also be Digitally archived on multipe DVDs, at home and the bank. Now that would take a hell of a fire to take out.

LMAO, at your short sightedness..

Bob Neil said:

Bob

HaloFX said:

I am still trying to get the negs from my wedding 6yrs ago. Do I
want to make prints, No! I want to put them on an airtight
container and place them in my freezer to preserve them. Can the
photographer do this for every wedding he shots, no. Can I provide
it for me 2 rolls of film, yes! No doubt, that 6yrs later setting
in what ever room temp enviroment he provides, they have started to
fade.

Michael Long said:

Idclick1 said:

Most clients want them as insurance more than for printing.

Click to expand...

Good point here that hasn't been touched on. What guarantee does
someone have that you'll still be here (out of business, moved) a
year from now?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

William Night said:

William Night said:

And then when your house and prints burn so will your negs. LMAO

Click to expand...

Wow, you are most likely the biggest jerk I've ever talked to.
Please tell me where you live so that I can make sure nobody ever
deals with you again.

I'll use my safety deposit box for this. My pictures, along with
the rest of my important data, are safely in a safety deposit box
along with jewellery we don't wear and legal documents we don't
want to lose.

You'd see a house fire as a great opportunity to resell a bunch of
prints, wouldn't you.

Click to expand...

I find it annoying that you pre judge me every step of the way.
"You'd see a house fire as a great opportunity to resell a bunch of
prints, wouldn't you?"
Go choke on a fur ball Mr. Catty!

Bob

Idclick1 said:

I find it annoying that you pre judge me every step of the way.
"You'd see a house fire as a great opportunity to resell a bunch of
prints, wouldn't you?"
Go choke on a fur ball Mr. Catty!

Click to expand...

Oh, sorry you just LMAO about the idea of someone's house burning down, but you're not a jerk. Gotcha.

So, if you didn't mean anything rude by laughing about the idea of someone's house and posessions burning up, what did you mean? The sort of "hahahahaha" that means "What a terrible thing"?

Steven Lott said:

Andrew,

I agree with Bill

You may not have intended to, but you expressed a high degree of
arogant artist in this one.

We love to get hired by Dad, does not happen often enough !

In fact what I really like is meeting the Bride & Groom and then
the follow-up with Mom & Dad before they choose us

steve
--
Steven Lott
http://www.LottsPhoto.com/ProTips.htm

Late reply but anyway,

Click to expand...

No did not intend that,

The reason I like to book the bride and groom is that THEY are the most important people at the wedding, we are priveliged to be there with the B&G all day, so it is important to us that THEY are comfortable with us, and that we are on the same page as to what they are expecting in their photos, and from us on the day. For this reason I won't book a job by a proxy, and I prefer to see Bride and Groom, not just one of them. Just want to do the best I can.

I also love to meet mum and dad beforehand.

I am just a bit miffed because I have lost a couple of jobs that have booked or said the deposit was coming (being happy with what we had to offer) because someone else booked someone for them because 200 6x4's in a bag seemed like better value over the phone than 70 or 80 photos in an album, sight unseen of course.

And I sincerely wish Bill and his charges all the best for the big day, even if I rudely used his comment to try to make a point.

a

William Night said:

William Night said:

If I buy a print of a Picasso or a Rembrandt painting, in your
opinion, do I have the right to reproduce it, frame it and give to
my friend as a gift?

Click to expand...

Actually, yes. Copyrights expire.

William Night said:

If I like my copy of PhotoShop, can I
reproduce it and give a copy to my nephew? If I enjoyed Ann Rice's
latest novel, can I photocopy it to send to all my friends?

Click to expand...

Did you commission these works, paying all the development costs?
If so, and you don't have this right, you've been gyped.

If you didn't pay the R&D costs for Photoshop, it's not comparable
to photos the client payed for you to create.

There's a big difference between art you produce (landscapes,
whatever) and then sell prints of to various customers, and prints
made specifically at the request (and expense) of the customer.

William Night said:

Don't denigrate photography as a non-copyrightable art form.

Click to expand...

I'm not calling it that. I'm saying it's a trade, the same as
plumbing. You hire a professional, they provide a product or a
service and you own results. The fact that photography doesn't
always work this was is a bug that should be worked out.

Click to expand...

Why should the Client get the Copyright if he only negotiated for prints and the photograper to show up and take the photos.

If the client gets the copyright he should be up front with the photographer and not sneek around behind the photographers back and make copies of the photographers work.

If client wants the copyright he should pay the extra money for that copyright. We photographers put it on our price sheets and in our wedding contracts that we mantain our copyright. But still the client wants something he or she did not pay for.

Bob

William Night said:

William Night said:

I
sell single copies of my images to clients who can't afford to pay
what I feel the unlimited use of the original image is worth.

Click to expand...

Original use of their image you mean. Who's the picture of? Who
paid for it?

William Night said:

My
cost for making the image has no relationship to the cost of
creating a print. My cost is years of study, tens of thousands of
dollars worth of camera & computer equipment and years of starving
while trying to establish a business.

Opinions like yours will remove portrait & wedding photography from
the budgets of all but the rich. Only those that can afford
original paintings will be able to purchase photography services if
everyone believes it is thier right to copy a photographers prints
at will. We will have to charge exorbitant creation fees to stay
in business.

Click to expand...

Read the X+Y=Z post in this same thread.

Click to expand...

Bob Neil said:

William Night said:

Idclick1 said:

Don't denigrate photography as a non-copyrightable art form.

Click to expand...

I'm not calling it that. I'm saying it's a trade, the same as
plumbing. You hire a professional, they provide a product or a
service and you own results. The fact that photography doesn't
always work this was is a bug that should be worked out.

Click to expand...

Why should the Client get the Copyright if he only negotiated for
prints and the photograper to show up and take the photos.
If the client gets the copyright he should be up front with the
photographer and not sneek around behind the photographers back and
make copies of the photographers work.
If client wants the copyright he should pay the extra money for
that copyright. We photographers put it on our price sheets and in
our wedding contracts that we mantain our copyright. But still the
client wants something he or she did not pay for.

Click to expand...

I consider the current legal mistake of leaving the copyright with the tradesman in the case of obviously client-owned photos (pictures of their personal events) to be a temporary aberation. In no way has the tradesman done anything to warrant the perpetual rights to those photos, nor has the client indicated willingness to give up those rights. If the law worked the same way here as it does in nearly all analogous situations, we wouldn't be having a discussion.

No other work-for-hire contract leaves ownership of the finished product in the hands of the tradesman after payment is made, especially a work so obviously made for the client, of the client. There's certainly no moral reason why the employee should own the work they've been payed to produce.

I respect copyrights in general, including others of yours, as long as they're not wedding photos/etc (and in that case, I'd respect the moral copyright of the subjects). I don't have a problem with copyrights in general. I pay for my books, my music, and my software. I pay for everything of someone else's, that I use. But photos I pay someone to take, of my wedding, are my property, end of story. Ditto school/grad photos, and similar.

What kind of sick jerk thinks he owns what someone paid him to produce, Especially when it's merely an image of one of their personal moments?

William Night said:

Bob Neil said:

William Night said:

William Night said:

Don't denigrate photography as a non-copyrightable art form.

Click to expand...

I'm not calling it that. I'm saying it's a trade, the same as
plumbing. You hire a professional, they provide a product or a
service and you own results. The fact that photography doesn't
always work this was is a bug that should be worked out.

Click to expand...

Why should the Client get the Copyright if he only negotiated for
prints and the photograper to show up and take the photos.
If the client gets the copyright he should be up front with the
photographer and not sneek around behind the photographers back and
make copies of the photographers work.
If client wants the copyright he should pay the extra money for
that copyright. We photographers put it on our price sheets and in
our wedding contracts that we mantain our copyright. But still the
client wants something he or she did not pay for.

Click to expand...

I consider the current legal mistake of leaving the copyright with
the tradesman in the case of obviously client-owned photos
(pictures of their personal events) to be a temporary aberation. In
no way has the tradesman done anything to warrant the perpetual
rights to those photos, nor has the client indicated willingness to
give up those rights. If the law worked the same way here as it
does in nearly all analogous situations, we wouldn't be having a
discussion.

No other work-for-hire contract leaves ownership of the finished
product in the hands of the tradesman after payment is made,
especially a work so obviously made for the client, of the client.
There's certainly no moral reason why the employee should own the
work they've been payed to produce.

I respect copyrights in general, including others of yours, as long
as they're not wedding photos/etc (and in that case, I'd respect
the moral copyright of the subjects). I don't have a problem with
copyrights in general. I pay for my books, my music, and my
software. I pay for everything of someone else's, that I use. But
photos I pay someone to take, of my wedding, are my property, end
of story. Ditto school/grad photos, and similar.

What kind of sick jerk thinks he owns what someone paid him to
produce, Especially when it's merely an image of one of their
personal moments?

Click to expand...

The Copyright law is no mistake and as I said before if you want the copyright of a photos taken then negotiate upfront with the photographer before you have the photos taken. If that photographer is not willing to sell you the copyright to you then find another photographer. Just don't sneek around his back and steal from him and wast his time. Just move on to another photographer.

Bob

Bob Neil said:

The Copyright law is no mistake and as I said before if you want
the copyright of a photos taken then negotiate upfront with the
photographer before you have the photos taken. If that photographer
is not willing to sell you the copyright to you then find another
photographer. Just don't sneek around his back and steal from him
and wast his time. Just move on to another photographer.

Click to expand...

I don't feel a photographer has a right to the copyright on someone's personal photos, as such, negotiations with them are for your convenience in not having the scan the photos.

It's pretty well established that a photo of a sculpture is a derivative work, as if a photo of a choreagraphed dance. Why is a wedding any different? Add to that the personal nature of the event and you have something which, were the law to ever be evaluated, probably wouldn't be copyrightable (by the photographer).

If you want to hold copyright to something, go take the pictures yourself, of something not created by someone else, and then offer it for sale/usage.

William Night said:

Bob Neil said:

The Copyright law is no mistake and as I said before if you want
the copyright of a photos taken then negotiate upfront with the
photographer before you have the photos taken. If that photographer
is not willing to sell you the copyright to you then find another
photographer. Just don't sneek around his back and steal from him
and wast his time. Just move on to another photographer.

Click to expand...

I don't feel a photographer has a right to the copyright on
someone's personal photos, as such, negotiations with them are for
your convenience in not having the scan the photos.

It's pretty well established that a photo of a sculpture is a
derivative work, as if a photo of a choreagraphed dance. Why is a
wedding any different? Add to that the personal nature of the event
and you have something which, were the law to ever be evaluated,
probably wouldn't be copyrightable (by the photographer).

If you want to hold copyright to something, go take the pictures
yourself, of something not created by someone else, and then offer
it for sale/usage.

Click to expand...

If you are not willing to pay the photographer for his copyright then take your own photos and don't wast his time. Then you will own the copyright!

Bob

Matthew Cromer said:

I'm interested in how many of you give up your negatives / digital
files for weddings versus how many of you do not and find that idea
repugnant.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work

Click to expand...

When shooting film, I routinely give clients negatives, as I don't want the responsibility of care, I like to make money on the shoot rather than the prints. With digital It's easy to make a copy of the masterfiles on disc and hold these as backup and or sample images.

Bob Neil said:

William Night said:

If you want to hold copyright to something, go take the pictures
yourself, of something not created by someone else, and then offer
it for sale/usage.

Click to expand...

If you are not willing to pay the photographer for his copyright
then take your own photos and don't wast his time. Then you will
own the copyright!

Click to expand...

Or just scan the pictures. It's not as convenient as getting a respectable photographer up front, but certainly easier than dealing with some jerk who wants to hold your wedding photos ransom. And for people who were suprised by this clause (as I would have been, had I not been warned by reading about photography online) it's really the only way. Certainly, I'd never pay you a dime for the "right" to scan a picture and email it to my family.