A question for the pros. Giving up your copyright.
Discussion
I have been searching for a wedding photographer and am staggered by the cost of some of thier packages.
One firm we contacted offer a CD of all the images with copyright ownership transferred over to us. It is their top package, costs £6k and comes with a ton of massive albums, full sized prints, small books, a selection of different sized framed prints, photoshopping the ugly people and some other stuff.
You can see where im going with this. I know this is something that is up to the companies themselves to decide, but I thought i would ask here to get a general idea of whether they are likely to accept, and how much is is likely to cost.
I'd like them to take all thier pictures, put them on a CD and let us do with them what we will. No albums, no prints, no small books. Just the CD.
What do the resident pros think?
One firm we contacted offer a CD of all the images with copyright ownership transferred over to us. It is their top package, costs £6k and comes with a ton of massive albums, full sized prints, small books, a selection of different sized framed prints, photoshopping the ugly people and some other stuff.
You can see where im going with this. I know this is something that is up to the companies themselves to decide, but I thought i would ask here to get a general idea of whether they are likely to accept, and how much is is likely to cost.
I'd like them to take all thier pictures, put them on a CD and let us do with them what we will. No albums, no prints, no small books. Just the CD.
What do the resident pros think?
WetPaint said:
I have been searching for a wedding photographer and am staggered by the cost of some of thier packages.
One firm we contacted offer a CD of all the images with copyright ownership transferred over to us. It is their top package, costs £6k and comes with a ton of massive albums, full sized prints, small books, a selection of different sized framed prints, photoshopping the ugly people and some other stuff.
You can see where im going with this. I know this is something that is up to the companies themselves to decide, but I thought i would ask here to get a general idea of whether they are likely to accept, and how much is is likely to cost.
I'd like them to take all thier pictures, put them on a CD and let us do with them what we will. No albums, no prints, no small books. Just the CD.
What do the resident pros think?
I reckon they'd still charge £6k, possibly more as they don't know what on earth you're going to do with them. If they sell you the copyright, you could license the images for a major ad campaign and make thousands more - this is why it costs so much. £6k for the package they're offering actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.One firm we contacted offer a CD of all the images with copyright ownership transferred over to us. It is their top package, costs £6k and comes with a ton of massive albums, full sized prints, small books, a selection of different sized framed prints, photoshopping the ugly people and some other stuff.
You can see where im going with this. I know this is something that is up to the companies themselves to decide, but I thought i would ask here to get a general idea of whether they are likely to accept, and how much is is likely to cost.
I'd like them to take all thier pictures, put them on a CD and let us do with them what we will. No albums, no prints, no small books. Just the CD.
What do the resident pros think?
//dean said:
I reckon they'd still charge £6k, possibly more as they don't know what on earth you're going to do with them. If they sell you the copyright, you could license the images for a major ad campaign and make thousands more - this is why it costs so much.
One of the biggest rip-offs of all time - you pay someone for their time, skill & use of their equipment and still they want more. Same for art-work.Now if they did it for free, they could charge what they like for the prints/images/whatever.
Contentious subject so tin hat on. I am NOT a professional photographer, but have used a few over the years.
Mermaid said:
One of the biggest rip-offs of all time - you pay someone for their time, skill & use of their equipment and still they want more. Same for art-work.
Now if they did it for free, they could charge what they like for the prints/images/whatever.
Contentious subject so tin hat on. I am NOT a professional photographer, but have used a few over the years.
We have to protect our copyright. Now if they did it for free, they could charge what they like for the prints/images/whatever.
Contentious subject so tin hat on. I am NOT a professional photographer, but have used a few over the years.
I'm not a wedding photographer but I imagine if they shot a wedding and handed the couple a DVD (only, no albums etc) full of images I bet they wouldn't make any profit.
It looks simple from an outsiders POV, but you have to consider the amount of work that goes into photographing a wedding. Like I said, I'm not a wedding togger but I reckon it goes something like this:
- Meeting with clients to tout for business
- Follow up phone calls/e-mails
- Meeting with clients to discuss what photography they want on the day and what packages and albums etc
- Day before clean all gear, charge batteries, format cards, iron suit, etc etc
- Day of the wedding - travel, shoot all day, travel
- Processing takes a day to sort through all images and then edit (maybe more)
- Order prints
- Order Album
- Add photos to Album
- Meet with clients and present album/prints etc
I reckon that's what, 3-4 days work there at least.
The tog not giving up copyright isn't the issue (most won't as that's them protecting themselves). What you want is a license to make non commercial use of the images that the tog takes and then the images supplied to you on a disc. There should be plenty of wedding togs out there that will do it and for a lot less that you've been quoted (£6k is right at the very top end of the market and sounds like that includes high end albums too which will be expensive products and take a lot of time to design).
Not sure this is relevant, but interesting to note that if an employee does some work and makes an invention/discovery, the employer has rights to invention and any subsequent patent.
I'm surprised on this basis that a photographer, who has been commissioned and paid to take photographs, has the rights to and copyright over the work and not the party that commissioned and paid for the photographer to do his work.
If the photographer can't make the money from his photographs, why should that stop someone else doing so? Passing off their photographs as someone else's is wrong, but making a living on selling work that someone else has paid for is equally questionable.
Discuss....
I'm surprised on this basis that a photographer, who has been commissioned and paid to take photographs, has the rights to and copyright over the work and not the party that commissioned and paid for the photographer to do his work.
If the photographer can't make the money from his photographs, why should that stop someone else doing so? Passing off their photographs as someone else's is wrong, but making a living on selling work that someone else has paid for is equally questionable.
Discuss....
We wouldn't have used anyone who wouldn't give us high res copies on dvd. We paid a little more than 1/10 of the figure you mention, then a bit more on top when we decided to take up an offer on an album and were very happy with the results. I've no problem with how pros offer their services but not offering the digitals wouldn't get a sale from me.
WetPaint said:
I'd like them to take all thier pictures, put them on a CD and let us do with them what we will. No albums, no prints, no small books. Just the CD.
MartinP said:
The tog not giving up copyright isn't the issue (most won't as that's them protecting themselves). What you want is a license to make non commercial use of the images that the tog takes and then the images supplied to you on a disc.
Bingo x 2I do this and can travel to Berkshire. You'd get a DVD-ROM of max-res, full size JPGs (too much for a CD) and license to use. PM if interested
//dean said:
- Meeting with clients to tout for business
- Follow up phone calls/e-mails
- Meeting with clients to discuss what photography they want on the day and what packages and albums etc
- Day before clean all gear, charge batteries, format cards, iron suit, etc etc
- Day of the wedding - travel, shoot all day, travel
- Processing takes a day to sort through all images and then edit (maybe more)
- Order prints
- Order Album
- Add photos to Album
- Meet with clients and present album/prints etc
I reckon that's what, 3-4 days work there at least.
Sounds close but my friends take 2-3 days to process and extra time for these photobook layouts now.- Follow up phone calls/e-mails
- Meeting with clients to discuss what photography they want on the day and what packages and albums etc
- Day before clean all gear, charge batteries, format cards, iron suit, etc etc
- Day of the wedding - travel, shoot all day, travel
- Processing takes a day to sort through all images and then edit (maybe more)
- Order prints
- Order Album
- Add photos to Album
- Meet with clients and present album/prints etc
I reckon that's what, 3-4 days work there at least.
I'm not really thinking of weddings as they usually only have value to the people at them, but...
Before 88, only photographers and engravers (IIRC) didn't own their own copyright in their work.
The point of copyright is to protect artistic craftsmanship:
"Works subject to copyright: artistic works (s. 4): includes buildings, photographs, engravings and works of artistic craftsmanship."
Since 88 photographers, by law, have the right to profit from their creativity, just like painters, writers, musicians, filmmakers etc. etc.
What is usual with advertising photography is to grant the client a licence for exclusive use for a negotiated time, a standard is two years. This licence may have clauses to do with how the picture is used and territory etc. So the photographer cannot resell the image until that licence has expired.
(I may own a Tiv, but would rather stick hot pins in my eye than photograph a wedding, or give up my copyright)
Mermaid said:
One of the biggest rip-offs of all time - you pay someone for their time, skill & use of their equipment and still they want more. Same for art-work.
Before the law changed in 88, commissioners such as ad agencies owned the copyright. So they could resell the images over and over, whilst the photographer got jack shidt. That was a ripoff. Before 88, only photographers and engravers (IIRC) didn't own their own copyright in their work.
V8LM said:
Not sure this is relevant, but interesting to note that if an employee does some work and makes an invention/discovery, the employer has rights to invention and any subsequent patent.
This is also true of an employed photographer, i.e. working for a bigger studio. The business owner will own copyright.V8LM said:
I'm surprised on this basis that a photographer, who has been commissioned and paid to take photographs, has the rights to and copyright over the work and not the party that commissioned and paid for the photographer to do his work.
Imagine you were a professional commissioned to take some pictures, lets say lifestyle, people, a girl playing tennis and scratching her arse for example. Because of your skill, you take a striking image. You get paid your half daily fee and that's that. How would you feel if your client went on to sell the image for hundreds of thousands of pounds and you saw posters of it everywhere? Would you still be happy with your, e.g. £500?The point of copyright is to protect artistic craftsmanship:
"Works subject to copyright: artistic works (s. 4): includes buildings, photographs, engravings and works of artistic craftsmanship."
Since 88 photographers, by law, have the right to profit from their creativity, just like painters, writers, musicians, filmmakers etc. etc.
What is usual with advertising photography is to grant the client a licence for exclusive use for a negotiated time, a standard is two years. This licence may have clauses to do with how the picture is used and territory etc. So the photographer cannot resell the image until that licence has expired.
(I may own a Tiv, but would rather stick hot pins in my eye than photograph a wedding, or give up my copyright
)WetPaint said:
Turning up in the Griff can only sweeten the deal
(where do you get time to take pictures in between posting on here!!!)
Fair question - well, I process and adjust every image from RAW individually, and double process about 30% of them to cater for high contrast. Not only does that take time but it's very exacting - so after about 30 minutes intensive tweaking my eyes start to cross and I surf PH to recover (where do you get time to take pictures in between posting on here!!!)
Not sure I'd want to do Berkshire and back in a decatted Griff on a wedding day, but if you visit we could fix up a jolly...
Bacardi said:
Imagine you were a professional commissioned to take some pictures, lets say lifestyle, people, a girl playing tennis and scratching her arse for example. Because of your skill, you take a striking image. You get paid your half daily fee and that's that. How would you feel if your client went on to sell the image for hundreds of thousands of pounds and you saw posters of it everywhere? Would you still be happy with your, e.g. £500?
The point of copyright is to protect artistic craftsmanship:
& how many such examples do we have? The point of copyright is to protect artistic craftsmanship:
And even in that example, did the guy not get paid for his time & skill - was he a professional photographer or a trader. Is photography a profession or a trade?
Bacardi said:
Imagine you were a professional commissioned to take some pictures, lets say lifestyle, people, a girl playing tennis and scratching her arse for example. Because of your skill, you take a striking image. You get paid your half daily fee and that's that. How would you feel if your client went on to sell the image for hundreds of thousands of pounds and you saw posters of it everywhere? Would you still be happy with your, e.g. £500?
Miffed. But perhaps I should have paid them instead and kept ownership, or charged them more than £500?
Mermaid said:
& how many such examples do we have?
And even in that example, did the guy not get paid for his time & skill - was he a professional photographer or a trader. Is photography a profession or a trade?
Photography is an artistic profession, it's not a trade. Selling yourself as a professional isn't like selling other products, a bag of nails, or a pizza, BOGOF etc. As to examples, in the professional world, it would run into millions, I just picked an obvious one.And even in that example, did the guy not get paid for his time & skill - was he a professional photographer or a trader. Is photography a profession or a trade?
V8LM said:
But perhaps I should have paid them instead and kept ownership, or charged them more than £500?
There's this thing called professional etiquette. You are not likely to keep clients who want to commission you if you decide that you've got a corker, so no, they can't have the pic after all (so sorry to have wasted your time etc). Or, I've changed my mind about my half day fee, I took a really great shot, so my fee has now gone up 5000%. It just doesn't work like that.Edited by Bacardi on Wednesday 8th June 00:38
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff