Wedding pros

Bob Neil said:

William Night said:

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?

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

Click to expand...

dan rosen said:

I stopped frequenting this forum because of discussions like this
one. Everytime a meaningful discussion takes place, a non pro
comes to the pro forum and has no clue what he is talking about.
William, everything you say is based on a falsehood, you call the
photographer an employee. He is not your employee!!!
Understand??? That's why he can negotiate any contract he wishes,
within legal guidelines. Bob, you must have better things to do
with your time than argue with this uninformed man. When I log
onto forums, I am looking for meaningful discussion where I can
learn something. I hoe the other pros feel the same way,

Click to expand...

William Night said:

dan rosen said:

I stopped frequenting this forum because of discussions like this
one. Everytime a meaningful discussion takes place, a non pro
comes to the pro forum and has no clue what he is talking about.
William, everything you say is based on a falsehood, you call the
photographer an employee. He is not your employee!!!
Understand??? That's why he can negotiate any contract he wishes,
within legal guidelines. Bob, you must have better things to do
with your time than argue with this uninformed man. When I log
onto forums, I am looking for meaningful discussion where I can
learn something. I hoe the other pros feel the same way,

Click to expand...

And every time I log onto a forum I'm told that if I'm not working
as a pro I couldn't possibly understand the issues involved.

Employee: Noun.
1) A person who works for another in return for financial or other
compensation.
2) One employed by another.
3) A worker who is hired to perform a job

If you accept money from me, to provide a service, you are an
employee, plain and simple.

Furthermore, I find you attempts at censorship to be rude and
pathetic. If you don't wish to read a certain message thread, don't
open it. Obviously discussions about lenses won't be about legal
matters relating to copyright, whereas wedding or legal threads
will be. Thankfully DPReview has a threaded message base so you
have no reason to be reading posts you aren't interested in. I
can't help but think you know this though, so your message is
basically a rude attempt to make me stop posting things you dislike.

Click to expand...

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...

• For works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection will endure for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. In the case of a joint work, the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author’s death. For anonymous and pseudonymous works and works made for hire, the term will be 95 years from the year of first publication or 120 years from the year of creation, whichever expires first;

sean said:

Hmmmm.

contemplating my comments, I'm reminded of a line in the movie "THE
FIRM". at the IRS junket that Tom Cruise attended the speaker said
something about (paraphrased) "this program is high minded...that
is, there is something in it to offend everyone". LOL

that being said, I offer the following:

the photographer owns (as is appropriate) exclusive rights to
PROFIT from the images he/she CREATES. this is protected by
international law (as is appropriate). if that is a problem for
someone, i anyone is interested in the USA's version of these laws,
see:

http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/

specifically as it relates to this discussion:

http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ09.pdf

this may also be interesting reading:

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

regarding copyright expiration, the copyright office holds that:

• For works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection

will endure for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years.
In the case of a joint work, the term lasts for 70 years after the
last surviving author’s death. For anonymous and pseudonymous works
and works made for hire, the term will be 95 years from the year of
first publication or 120 years from the year of creation, whichever
expires first;

however, I also believe that the client has paid a fair price to be
able to enjoy the photos at the clients whim. since I shoot
digital, for me this includes email, slide shows, online albums to
be shared with friends, screensavers, and, well...the latter
portion of this excerpt from my contract should cover it:

"Photographer retains complete copyright(s), as provided by law, to
all images captured by Photographer. This includes, but is not
limited to, the right to display, market, and profit from images
captured by Photographer. Client is granted non-transferable rights
to duplicate for private, non-commercial, non-organizational use,
only those materials and images for which Photographer owns
copyright(s)."

I make it clear up front that Client will have all the latitude
they need to enjoy memories of the event, without giving away my
right to profit from, or use my work to promote my business. and I
do not have to worry about how many copies of the CDs they are
making...it's understood that copying (without compensation) is
allowed, and is a part of the package that I offer clients.

additionally, i do not lose sleep if they are getting what they
consider satisfactory prints from somewhere else. frankly, I prefer
to be left out of the printing end of it entirely even though there
is a print package that I do offer...as an option. I take my $1K
and they do not have to deal with me again until they wish to have
another event photographed. residual print sales are of no concern
to me.

they are paying me to CAPTURE IMAGES from which, they agree, I have
the SOLE right to PROFIT, or use commercially (promoting
myself/business). I do not believe that my model will fit every
photographer, or every client. fortunately there are enough photogs
in the field to offers a range of options. free enterprise baby!!

sean

Stupid me.....I thought a Pro was a Pro because of its ability to make great pictures,and not because he or she is a big moneymaker.....or is it ???

Click to expand...

Maurice said:

maurice buelens said:

Stupid me.....I thought a Pro was a Pro because of its ability to make > great pictures,and not because he or she is a big moneymaker.....or is > it ???

Click to expand...

Maurice

Click to expand...

dan rosen said:

William Night wrote:
He is NOT an employee in a legal sense, you are clearly mistaken.

Click to expand...

dan rosen said:

The biggest problem is that we log on to discuss aspects of pro
photography, stick to the amateur boards. You clearly are entitled
to your opinion, it's just that you have been beating the same dead
horse for months. i'm not trying to keep you from posting things I
dislike, just from wasting time on a board where you don't belong.

Click to expand...

William Night said:

dan rosen said:

William Night wrote:
He is NOT an employee in a legal sense, you are clearly mistaken.

Click to expand...

The only way he's not an employee is that the copyright law is
broken. In all ways, what a pro photographer does resembles what
any tradesman does. He's an employee for whom there's a special
loophole written, that doesn't mean he's not an employee.

Click to expand...

William Night said:

If no consumer would ever consider respecting a plumbers claim to
ownership of their pipes, why would they respect a photographers
claim to owning their wedding photos? It's the lowest of the low to
assert your ownership, based on an unjust law or otherwise, to
images of someone's private ceremony that they paid you to take.

Pros can sit around and keep asking each other "Why do they steal
from us? Why doesn't anyone respect us?" but the answer is staring
you in the face. As long as you hang your activities on
technicalities and screw over your customers, you'll keep having
them ignore your demands

William Night said:

The biggest problem is that we log on to discuss aspects of pro
photography, stick to the amateur boards. You clearly are entitled
to your opinion, it's just that you have been beating the same dead
horse for months. i'm not trying to keep you from posting things I
dislike, just from wasting time on a board where you don't belong.

Click to expand...

Check the dates of the posts in this thread, Bob started it up
again which would suggest there's something he wants to discuss.

Click to expand...