The Art of Intellectual Property 434
dpilgrim writes "When digital technology meets intellectual property, most of the attention focuses on the movie industry or the music business. I was surprised to discover how much of an impact there is in smaller areas like professional photography, and put together some reflections on my experience." This is why when I get married I want to make sure I contract only for the photographer's labor.
Echoes of the RIAA? (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is this: they are still living in a world of 20 years ago where the primary means for listening to and distributing music was as a casette tape.
Our photographer thinks she is in the business of providing high quality printed photographs. In fact she is in the image-capturing business, and as the business shifts from printed to digital format, she will either adapt or fail.
The RIAA thinks they are in the business of providing high quality music CDs. In fact they are in the audio-distribution business, and as the business shifts from CD to pure digital format, they will either adapt or fail.
when new technology != more freedom (Score:2)
for instance, divx, god rest it's soul, was basically an effort to remove our ability to purchase and watch our favorite movies again and again, by luring us with better image quality and sound. there are plenty more examples of this, and plans for even more.
it's up to people like us, who realize when people are being ripped off by technology because they don't know better, to get them riled up over the issue. send more people to the EFF et. al.
Intellectual Property? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Intellectual Property? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you ask him his opinion on "Intellectual property", he'll simply ask you to be specific. It's a bit like my asking you your opinion on "Computers". Or what is your opinion of "Politics". You can randomly choose one aspects of these things, I suppose, but you can't really answer the question correctly.
Incidently, to show how absurd the term "Intellectual Property" has become, a bottle of Soy Sauce I bought recently has a big warning on the back: "Intellectual Property Rights Reserved". What the hell does that mean? Legally, it's nonsensical, as IP doesn't realy mean anything, but refers to a wide class of legal constructs. And how it could apply to a bottle of Soy Sauce is beyond me - the title and logo might be Trademarked, but there's no reason to have this odd disclaimer on the bottle to support that.
--
Evan
Re:Intellectual Property? (Score:2)
Then why does he apply a strict copyright and license on every bit of code coming out of the FSF?
Re:Intellectual Property? (Score:2)
You would not make any profit, because there would be no way to restrict others from freely copying your binary. Without the artificial scarcity introduced by copyright, the marginal dollar value of your product would be almost zero. Therefore, you probably wouldn't bother to try that.
Copyright is Copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like with source code -- it is up to to the producer of the source/photograph to decide what copyright terms to attach to the product. You don't like the terms, go elsewhere. Once this gets off the ground there will be photographers (or artists in general) making "Open Art", and there will be the ones making "Closed Art." You can't get on a high-horse and say that "Art Wants To Be Free" or anything like that.
Re:Copyright is Copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth today is that there isn't as much value in the duplicate prints of keepsake photographs. There is more value in the ubiquitous distribution of the composed images, via the internet or sending someone a CD.
Ultimately it is an issue with contracts. The problem is that the photographer historically provides artistic service in composing the shot, and in printing the image. The wedding photographer's competition isn't digital copyright infringement, it is the throw-away cameras that are put up on all the tables.
All industries must continually evaluate where they add value. Duplicate prints aren't where a photographer should make their money today.
Re:Copyright is Copyright (Score:2)
Re:Copyright is Copyright (Score:2)
But it also has to be profitable. If people are making their own copies, whetherlegitimately or not, it's time to change to a different revenue stream.
Re:Copyright is Copyright (Score:2)
Jesus! The photographer is just someone trying to make money in a legal and ethical manner. What do you mean by:
The service the photographer provides is: "I will come to your wedding and take pictures; and I will provide you with prints as requested." What do you mean by "refuse to provide service" -- are they refusing to sell you more prints? That was the original agreement, surely?If you want the copyright on the images, you pay. If it wasn't in the original contract (which means you paid less money), you can enter into a new contract and purchase the copyrights. Right or wrong, this is what copyright is -- it establishes a right that can be sold.
Re:Copyright is Copyright (Score:2)
Art is about doing something because it's beautiful. If these photographers were artists, they sold out long ago.
And before you whine that they don't make much money, you can't garner much sympathy for those who sell out and sold too low.
Re:Copyright is Copyright (Score:2)
But there's another point worth considering- the original source in many of these photography situations is *you* and/or your family- just like nike can't run a commercial with Michael Jordan without talking to (and no doubt paying) him first, you should own the rights to pictures of you by default, which is not to say that the photographer can't share those rights, only that she can't exclude you from them.
Re:Copyright is Copyright (Score:2)
Isn't this the same arguement used by the RIAA? Musicians are just doing work for hire, so they don't own the copyright on their works, the labels do? Where exactly is the difference between the RIAA saying a musician is doing work for hire and you claiming the photographer is doing work for hire? In both cases it is someone paying an artist to perform their art (in one case they record music, in another they take photos) and then claiming they own the rights to the artists work because they are paying them. The only difference I see is that in one scenario, it is the "evil RIAA" depriving artists of their rights, and in the other it's you getting you're wedding pics cheaper, i.e. no difference.
Not quite the same. (Score:2)
Nothing so dastardly is being proposed for wedding photographers.
In the case of a wedding photographer, his technique is not the whole art of it. The subjects of the art are paying to record a deeply personal moment....one I would not suffer to let someone else own in any way. I would allow the photographer license to use the photos for promotional purposes or whatever other fair uses go into running his business. I'll cheerfully let them have the use of the photos. I simply won't allow one to own a part of my life. The musicians should not allow record companies to own parts of theirs.
Re:Copyright is Copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
When you contract someone to do something - whether its writing software or taking a photograph, you own the copyright. The only exception is when you sign a contract giving the copyright to the contractor.
So in effect it is up to the client who contracts the work to decide on the license, as they are the owner, not the contractor. This does not depend on any "Art WantsTo Be Free" argument - it is simply a fact of law.
Re:Copyright is Copyright (Score:2)
Re:Copyright is Copyright (Score:4, Informative)
This isn't informative -- it is 100% wrong. Copyright is held by the author of a work by default. Barring a contract that explicitly transfers copyright to the buyer, or an employee-employer relationship, the copyright will be owned by the photographer. Copyright is an asset to be sold or bought just as the negatives and prints are, and each has to be explicitly negotiated for.
Re:Copyright is Copyright (Score:2)
In the realm of patent law, if you create a patentable invention in the course of your duties while working for someone, or even just using their facilities, IIRC, it is owned by the employer. Regardless of any explicit agreement.
Lots of people work creating content for businesses as an integral part of their job -- I doubt a formal agreement is necessary if the nature of the work is intrinsically work for hire. But I'd want to check it out.
Re:Copyright is Copyright (Score:2)
We have copyrights because we generally view the market as having failed. Your solution, aside from being utterly incorrect, does not help the situation one iota.
Re:Copyright is Copyright (Score:2)
Re:Copyright is Copyright (Score:2)
I doubt it. No offense, but there is more to it than pushing the button at the right moment. Sometimes in news photography that is all that is necessary, but for a nature shot? There's a reason Ansel Adams sells more calendars than your sister-in-law. Selling photos to National geographic is one of the hardest gigs possible -- and it isn't because people can't figure out how to stand in front of a lion and push the button.
Re:Copyright is Copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, here's the simple facts:
1) You hire a professional photographer because you want professional quality photographs. If instead all you want is 3x5 out of disposable cameras processed at Eckerd's, then have your buddy do it, and you'll have crappy photographs.
2) Pro photographers have to make money. Their equipment setups cost tens of thousands of dollars, and they have to insure it. My wife uses the new Canon D60 digital camera body, which costs about $2600. Each lens is about $1000. A flash unit is about $600. Lighting equipment runs into the several thousands of dollars. Also, you have to have backups for EVERYTHING (flashes, batteries, lenses, bodies, etc). Then there's all the time. The photographer has to spend a few hours before the wedding discussing all the photos and the organization with the bride, travel to check out the location, etc. Then there's about 6 to 8 hours of work on the day of the wedding itself (the setup before the wedding, people like pictures of them getting ready, the guests arriving, etc), the actual event, then all the posed portraits, then the reception, and so forth. It's not just "pressing a button" either. Often, the wedding photographer winds up directing the wedding, too. You'd be surprised how often a bride fails to actually PLAN the wedding, and just ASSUMES everybody will go where they're supposed to, do what they need to, and not assign somebody to coordinate the wedding. The photographer has to corral everybody together, get them organized, and tell them where to go. Afterwards, the photographer will spend upwards of 20 hours retouching, editing, and color-correcting the photographs. That is extremely skilled labor--you couldn't do it. Then they plan the album. They pick out all the photos, order and arrange them, crop and size the photos to fit in the album book. All of these activities take years of training and experience, not to mention a natural artistic bent.
3) If you expect to pay $1,500 for all those services, get the proofs, then scan them and make all the copies you want, you're robbing the photographer blind. When you add in all the planning, on site work, retouching, album planning, and so forth, a wedding photographer probably puts in about 40 hours of time on your wedding. Where the hell else do you get 40 hours of skilled labor for a measly $1,500? Drywall contractors make more than that. This isn't like downloading an MP3 off the internet that you never would have bought anyway. You're not anonymously ripping off some multi-millionaire idiot in Hollywood by not paying him $15 for his CD. You're ripping off a small businessperson in your community, face-to-face, out of about $500 to $1,000. These are the photos of YOUR wedding, which have value only to you and your family, and also to the photographer, who will use them in her portfolio, or enter in competitions. If you want them, pay for them, one way or another. Most photographers WILL sell you the negatives (or in the case of a digital photographer, a CD containing the high-res image files, suitable for printing), but expect to pay more for it. Either pay the $1,500 dollars for the service, allow the photographer to keep the rights to the photos, and then pay another $500 to $1,000 for the album and the prints, or pay $2,000 to $2,500 and get the rights to the images and the negatives, and make your own prints (which, by the way, probably won't be as good, since most people would take them to the local one-hour photo, instead of using a professional photo lab with a $100,000 color-corrected professional photo printer).
Pay for what you get.
Will always be a need for wedding photographers (Score:5, Insightful)
The other thing is: never hire a friend to take your wedding photographs. Your friends are there to enjoy themselves. One of my friends hired another friend to take the wedding photos. Something went wrong and the photos were never delivered. Those old friends are still not talking. Don't be cheap, hire a pro!
Incidentally.... (Score:5, Informative)
Art is like like source -- copyright is copyright, and you have to respect it.
The photographer is right (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's face it, photographers are not millionares (for the most part!
So, I'm sorry, but this isn't an issue of "open sourcing" the finals. By giving High-Res pictures to your entire family without paying for each one of those photos distributed, you have cheated and honest, hard-working, photographer out of a living. (I know a few who have been driven out of business because of this.) So, please, spare me the "I have rights to a picture" argument... Sure, you have the right to do what you want with that photo... But by the same tokein, the photographer has the right to not sell you the super high res photo you want.
As an aside, and unrelated, I think that "analog" photography is a much "truer" art form. If anything, you have a negative, which you can use to prove you took the shot- as opposed to a jpg, tiff, or what have you which could be the property of anyone.
-jokerghost
The photographer is a thief (Score:4, Insightful)
If the photographer profits from selling additional copies, then he should do the basic work for free. The low-quality samples provided should be treated as a sales catalog. The couple who got married should be treated as models, they shouldn't have to pay anything for the production, and should get part of the profit from the sale of additional copies.
Suppose it was a fashion magazine which had a photo of, let's say Cindy Crawford, on the cover. Would ms. Crawford have to pay for the whole production and not get anything from the magazine sales? Saying Cindy Crawford is famous and her image is worth a lot is not an answer, since, if one can sell pictures from a couple who is getting married, then they are professional models, deserving as much respect as Cindy Crawford, only their image would not be worth exactly as much as Cindy's, since it would sell less copies.
Re:The photographer is a thief (Score:3, Insightful)
this is basically true of how it is done today. Photographers charge a minimal amount to cover expenses, but you don't make money from shooting the wedding, you make money from selling the prints. The proof sheets ARE a catalog.
The couple who got married should be treated as models, they shouldn't have to pay anything for the production, and should get part of the profit from the sale of additional copies.
LOL -- the couple is the customer. They are not models, if they were the photographer could fire them when they act like idiots and cause him to run 4 hours over, or burn expensive film on shots they'll never sell.
Saying Cindy Crawford is famous and her image is worth a lot is not an answer
Yes, it is. The magazine sells more copies because cindy crawford is on the cover, not because a person is on the cover. Being cindy crawford and having her image is of intrinsic retail value.
Re:The photographer is a thief (Score:2)
People buy copies of wedding photos because it's Don's wedding, because it's Lucy's wedding, they don't buy photos of some "persons" wedding. Being Don and Lucy has an intrinsic retail value to the photographer.
Re:The photographer is a thief (Score:2)
Okay, to make this clearer -- Cindy Crawford's image has value to the general public.
The wedding couple has value only to the wedding couple and the family (rarely do guests ever buy a wedding photo -- 90% of your money comes from the couple or the bride's family).
Being Don and Lucy has no value to the photographer unless Don and Lucy (or their families) are willing to pay the photographer for their images. Many photographers will take photos of Cindy Crawford's wedding for free, because they know they can sell them to someone other than the Crawford family...
Re:The photographer is a thief (Score:2)
(1) Don and Lucy's wedding has no intrinsic value for the photographer, or
(2) Don and Lucy's wedding has intrinsic value for the photographer.
In the first case, the photographer should give the negatives to the couple, along with any IP rights. There's no point in holding something that has no value to you, but may have value to someone else.
In the second case, if the photographer can get some profit from the sale of additional copies, the couple's image does have value, and they should get a share from those sales. It seems to me that the photographers are trying to get the best of both worlds, they want to get fully paid for their work while keeping any additional profit to themselves.
Re:The photographer is a thief (Score:3, Interesting)
The photographer, had s/he not been commissioned to do the work, could not care less about Don, Lucy, or their wedding photos.
Having done the work, they have value to the person who created them - the value, to be specific, is the fact that they can sell these photos to Don, Lucy, maybe D&L's parents, and maybe even a couple of guests.
That value must, necessarily, be enough to keep the photographer in work. Duh.
Re:The photographer is a thief (Score:2)
What value is there in keeping the negatives to yourself after the wedding's over and you've been paid already? I'd gather that almost all wedding photographers make the vast majority of their money for the job and almost nothing from exclusive (ick) reprints years down the road.
--
Re:The photographer is a thief (Score:2)
(1) Don and Lucy's wedding has no intrinsic value for the photographer, or
i made up my mind long ago -- D&L have no intrinsic value to the photographer. Luckily for his business, images of their wedding have a commercial value to D&L, and the photographer is in a position to sell them those images.
If the photographer blows off the wedding to go scuba diving, he hasn't lost anything (other than a customer), but D&L have lost a lot. They'll never have professional photos of their wedding.
It seems to me that the photographers are trying to get the best of both worlds, they want to get fully paid for their work while keeping any additional profit to themselves.
What would be the point of selling photos to Don & lucy of themselves, and then giving them a percentage of the proceeds? Do you just like paying extra taxes? I think D&L would rather that the photographer is able to offer them a cost they can live with than worry about royalty checks every time their mother-in-law orders reprints.
Feel free to negotiate this recursive royalty with YOUR wedding photographer, but I'd rather not waste my time or theirs.
Re:The photographer is a thief (Score:2)
Since they are customers then they own the images. Simple as that. The photographer wants to have his cake and eat it too. Either they get free prints and the photographer owns the image or the CUSTOMER owns his own fricken images. I certainly will make that clear to any such doing personal work for me.
Re:The photographer is a thief (Score:2)
Simple as that? Fine, but don't be surprised at how much you are charged for labor when you tell the photographer you want your prints for free.
You can negotiate the details all you want, but if you want a professional to show up on some saturday to take pictures of your personal events with expensive equipment he has paid for, you're going to get charged a lot for it.
Re:The photographer is a thief (Score:2)
Re:The photographer is a thief (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want, for your wedding, you could commission a photographer on the basis of "You can have some of the profits we make from selling these" - good luck in getting a photographer.
The basic profit for the wedding photographer is in the couple's and parents' books. Additional copies also help, but are financially much less significant.
Say a wedding guest has a camera identical to the photographer's, hangs over the professional's shoulder and takes the same photo... it is still the professional who has done the work - the guest is the theif.
The end result might be the same, but the guest's photo would not exist if the professional had not got the people arranged with the right background, lighting, etc.
Maybe paying a flat fee for "labour" would be one approach, but if that would include rights to the images, it'd be taking far more from the photographer, and should therefore cost you much more money.
Therefore, the status-quo is more likely to survive than be replaced - unless DRM takes off platonically, in which case you can have the images, but cannot share them / take credit for them.
Re:The photographer is a thief (Score:2)
Not that the photographer is necessarily in in the right either - a preferable solution would be to provide tiered digital service - by providing a catalog of screen-resolution images (unobtrusively watermarked with studio contact information so that recipients could obtain a physical print/hi-res filefrom the studio) at a relatively inexpensive rate, and the hi-res images at a greatly expanded price (perhaps even higher than what she had quoted for the CD she was actually offering).
This could even be broken down further, such that the bride and groom could pay piecemeal for the hi-res versions of the images that they want, which in some cases may be less expensive than obtaining the complete catalog.
In any case, it is naive to think that the photographer's labor/investment (in converting high-end negatives to digital format) is not worth paying for (even if this process is outsourced, someone is investing time/money in the process); therefore, this should be considered an extra cost, in addition to the cost of labor, developing photos, and putting together a catalog.
Do some of these material/transfer costs "go away" should a pro. photgrapher use digital cameras? Yes, but at the current time there are limitations to what can be done with these cameras, and so we will be in a "transfer period" for some time while technical details and training is taken care of; in the meantime, it is silly to assume that one should get digital cost savings when contracting for analog photo work.
Ultimately, it seems to me that article's author has point, but that this is overshadowed by taking a rather extreme position, mostly because he lost an argument with his father-in-law.
I'd say to get a life, but I'm at work on Saturday night. Alas!
Re:The photographer is right (Score:2)
Perhaps the issue is not that people want to screw such an "honest, hard working" individual as yourself. It's that the world is changing faster than your pricing plan can keep up with it.
As an aside, does it bother you when your eye doctor tries to keep your prescription so you can't buy glasses/contacts from anyone else? Is this any different?
Re:The photographer is right (Score:2)
Cheated? Really?! You are being hired for the SERVICE of taking photos. You are not hired to keep someone's wedding negatives hostage so you can gouge per print indefinately. Charge accordingly for your services (with one of those services being the non-exclusive ability to make prints from the negatives made for your employer).
As an aside, and unrelated, I think that "analog" photography is a much "truer" art form.
Mmm. Yeah. "analog" is "truer". Allow me to lift my pretentious left eyebrow and raise my martini glass with pinky extended.
--
The *customer* is right (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem here is that the photographer is trying to charge for the wrong part of the work. The photographer is trying to charge high prices for the easy part of the work - making copies - and keep prices low for the hard part of the work - setting up a good pose with good lighting and a good background - because the technology used to allow this pricing model.
It has become too easy for the customer to do his own copying, and the pricing plan needs to change to reflect the current realities. The high-cost part of this should be showing up at the wedding and setting up the shots. The resulting photographs should be supplied at close to actual cost, because that isn't the hard part of this. And none of this crap about how making the album is art, that's a cookie-cutter operation, pull out one set of photos and put in the next set.
I do agree, this isn't an issue of "open sourcing". This is an issue of not recognizing where your "art" is, and charging properly for it. Trying to charge for a package with a built-in (false!) assumption that people will come back to you for re-prints is not recognizing the realities of the business.
And yes, I *do* strongly object to being told I have to pay again and again and again for a picture of me. No, I paid for you to set up the shot. The resulting shot belongs to me.
I paid for your expertise at arranging the shots, not your abiltiy to make copies of pictures.
There Should be Multiple Business Models (Score:3, Insightful)
In reality, most photographers these days do make money from the reprints, but probably not as much as you might think.
I do agree, however, that given current conditions, perhaps multiple business models could be used. Many people who don't want to hassle making their own high quality scans and/or prints will still want things done the "old fashioned" way (my parents would certainly want it that way, they don't even have a computer at home), and, OTOH, more tech-savvy users will want a CD-ROM with hi-res images and then make reprints themselves (I'd prefer this myself).
A photographer could offer both models to potential customers, with the second approach being more heavily "front loaded" in terms of the fees since he/she knows that there won't be much income from reprints. One way or another, the photographer needs to get paid for their time and their artistic input to the end result, and earn an amount of money commensurate with the value associated with profesisonally taken photographs. Although I might want the option of the hi-res CD approach if it better fits my style of doing things, I shouldn't expect that it should necessarily be cheaper to get the images that way.
Re:The *customer* is right (Score:4, Interesting)
After about five calls I found one who would shoot in digital (Canon 1D) and give me the originals. He was twice the price of anyone else, but cheaper (in the end) than it would have cost going with someone who expected to have a monopoly on producing my wedding prints.
One photographer in that group of five understood that business models could change and found a niche for himself. Will the rest of the industry go the way of the RIAA and MPAA, luddits keeping everyone in the dark ages?
It would be one thing if photographers kept partial copyright, the right to reproduce for a portfolio or something, but for them to claim full rights to a picture of you, that you paid for them to take? They're dreaming.
I paid extra for the original files because I wanted to support a better business model, and because I wanted higher quality than I could get by scanning them. But I'd have copied them without a moments thought if it were the only way I could get electronic copies. Copyright makes no sense in these circumstances and I refuse to play along.
Re:The photographer is right (Score:2)
But the people hiring the artist considers the moment only pictures to share and remember. They do not consider the work as art. Sure these people are "bohemian" in the eyes of the artist, but they people DO NOT CARE.
So when the people ask for high res images and the photopgraher scoffs there is an obvious missing purpose of the endevaour. Who will win in the end? The customer because they will get pissed and bad mouth the photographer. And other photographers that consider taking wedding pictures solely as a job will get more work.
Re:The photographer is right (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, nowadays I run Oracle on a $1200 laptop and can charge $200/hr for my time while customizing Open Source software.
There's an economic difference that can't be ignored.
When computer hardware cost $30K (like my camera system cost me) there were very few open source hackers working at home on their own as volunteers. The open source movement owes as much to the fact that high-powered hardware costs trivial amounts of money than anything.
Meanwhile, high-end camera costs don't drop because there's no Moore's law to exploit in the construction and design of lenses. Yes, modern materials and techniques have vastly improved lenses over the last three decades but very slowly. The physics underlying lens design was figured out decades ago. Lens manufacturing and design is a far more mature industry than microchip design (likewise we're unlikely to see 767 equivalents on sale for the price of a new car in the near future).
If you don't want to pay for wedding photos
Re:The photographer is right... so what is right? (Score:2)
Moving from photographs to video, think of what will happen in the distant future, when our DVD players work no more. Historians will have no way of recovering the images stored there, because the secret of decoding them will be lost, thanks to the DMCA. That's not the intent of copyrights, as spelled in the US Constitution. If you have the means to keep your work secret, you have no needs for either copyrights or patents. These exist solely to give you an incentive to share your work with the whole world.
Re:The photographer is right (Score:2)
if you order twice as many photos, i guarantee you won't have to pay twice as much. But if you order one photo today, two photos next week, 2 photos 6 months from now, and 3 photos in a year, YES it does take a heck of a lot more work, and you will be charged accordingly.
Overrated (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is (Score:2)
Compare this to the cost of hiring someone to build an accounting package for you instead of just buying ACCPAC or Simply Accounting.
Maybe. (Score:2)
Of course it will, but not to the conclusion that this author states. Consider, if you will, this passage from my college-level textbook:
There are plenty of business weasels vying for the future of greater control and profit-through-litigation. Why? Because offering new service that goes above and beyond what is available now requires risk and, above all, more work--and as we all learned in our physical science courses, work = time + money.
Profit through legislation and litigation is easy. The RIAA wants to continue to sell you the same old plastic discs at an insane markup rather than venture into new digital markets. It's easy to pursue a BS lawsuit over an external linker.
Open Source, as in the author's usage of the term, is not a priori inevitable. It will take work to break the paragidgms that preceeded it.
Give her a brake! (Score:3, Insightful)
I feel she was ignoring the needs of her customer in a fundamental way, and that ultimately, for her and her profession, that would prove to be a mistake.
Sorry, while I in principle am very supportive of the Open Source idea, I think you just have to give it a break here. OSS developers do not demand everybody to go OS as well (that's one of the differences to RMS's FS-idea).
If this woman decides for herself, that taking "proprietary" pictures is the business model that best fits her needs, then it's OK for her. If her business will not survive in the long run, then it was her own fault. If you have hired her without talking through the terms of the contract, nobody else is to blame than you.
Everybody should have the right to decide for him/herself. I understand you point, but I sure understand her's as well. In your situation, I would just buy the 8"x11" variant, scan it, edit it in the way you see fit and put it on your web site. And if you get sued, you may have the opportunity to brake new ground regarding copyright rules on wedding photogrphs.
Re:Give her a brake! (Score:2)
The author wasn't forcing her to Open Source her photography. He was declining to subsize her closed-source model -- which is his right, under any circumstances. A trade transaction is always an exchange of equal value: You give up what you think the other is worth. He decided that her conditions did not meet his needs. Why on Earth should he pay her to not satisfy his needs?
People can choose whatever business model they wish. But that doesn't create some moral imperative for me, or anyone else, to subscribe to that model. The author wasn't dragging the photographer into court. He was making an observation and a prediction: Professional photographers are not adapting to the changes in what people expect, and -- if they continue to not adapt -- they will become extinct or nearly so.
I saw nothing in the article that indicated the falsehood of either of these statements. I think, in fact, the author got it exactly right.
Re:Give her a brake! (Score:2)
There is a problem with this viewpoint. The problem is that the customer is learning the pitfalls after the event is over, and he has no way of saying "you aren't providing the service I want, I will go to a competitor that does provide the service I want".
The wedding is over. You can't choose to hire a different wedding photographer now who will sell you full-resolution digital images. It's too late.
Now, you can have a nice argument over whether the customer should have asked ahead of time about something he just assumed, or if the photographer should have mentioned something she just assumed, but however that argument ends up, neither of the two are going to leave the transaction happy.
This isn't a false advertising situation. This is a buyer beware situation. ASK QUESTIONS. Make sure you know what you're getting yourself into. Know ahead of time when you can make a different choice, not afterwards when it is too late.
And doesn't it just suck that you have to be paranoid when you're setting up your wedding? What a time to have to ask distrustful questions of your contractors.
the issue is getting compensated (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of razors and razor blades -- right now you get the razor free because the blades cost a small fortune. if you came up with a way to make your own blades, all that would happen is they would have to start charging more for the razor in the first place.
If you really want unlimited reprints and digital originals, a professional photographer will be willing to sell that to you, but the price will probably be higher than you want to pay. The reason images are sold with limited rights is not to rip people off, but rather to provide the lowest cost possible to each person.
If you're only printing 1200 copies of a company newsletter, you probably can't and don't need to pay as much for a photo as the New York Times does.
Yes, professional photogaphers will go through the same business cycle that desktop publishing went through in the 80s -- everyone will think their brother-in-law is "good enough", but eventually people will remember why they paid a lot of money for photographers in the first place.
The low end of the market IS better served by a technology that lets them do it themselves. If you only have $200 to spend on wedding photography, you'll get much better results by spending it all on disposable cameras and having the guests shoot candids. Spending $200 on a pro will barely get you a seated portrait (and certainly not unlimited prints).
Re:the issue is getting compensated (Score:2)
The most they are willing to pay IS the lowest possible cost. There are two parts of this equation -- the seller and the buyer. The seller has a property worth (hypothetically) a million dollars. The buyer can only afford $10,000, so the seller will provide as much of the property as possible for that low price, hence it is both the "lowest possible cost" it can be sold for while also being "the most you are wiling to pay".
It's like buying bandwidth -- you don't get "infinite" bandwidth, there would be no way to calculate the value. You get as much as you are willing to pay for, and no more, which will make bandwidth available to the most number of people for the lowest possible cost while keeping the provider in business.
Re:the issue is getting compensated (Score:2)
But only in a fully competitive, informed, and open market that can be reached. In most (all?) real-world cases, the actual level of 'lowest possible cost' is not known by anyone, not even the sellers, because they may not even know how or if they are operating at top efficiency, and/or because the 'lowest cost' parameter changes continoously due to (for example) technological advances. Side effects also come into play, where companies have multiple products and may actually overprice one product while underselling another (without realizing it). Extreme examples are banks, the entertainment industry, operating system company, and... _maybe_ photographers too.
You/They will be overcharged, resistance is futile. But also, you/they will be underpaid, resistance if futile. And you and the other party in the exchange often won't even know what is really going on.
Which helps understanding economic fluctuations a lot more, they are mainly the result of large groups in the economy deciding that the price being paid is too much or too little, as a result of more information, or as a result of actual changes in the cost of products. But not necessarily, state-of-mind plays a big role too -> investors in a 'bearish' or a 'bullish' mood.
A big game with real stakes. Negotiation and information will always be the key.
Re:the issue is getting compensated (Score:2)
I'm not pontificating on pricing in general, I'm talking about selling creative work. of course I can't really negotiate with 7-11 over the price of my slurpee, but when you are dealing with an individual -- a photographer or artist -- they really are able to go up and down in price and decide what the least they can accept from you is...
Re:the issue is getting compensated (Score:2)
But if you want somebody to shoot a Nabisco product package, I can pretty much guarantee it won't happen for $2k a day.
By the way that is more than a lot of people make in two weeks!
A lot of people don't have $250,000 in equipment that they have to carry to work every day, along with multiple assistants and legal issues for every shot. It's like consulting -- if you're lucky you'll be able to bill for half the time you're actually working.
Re:the issue is getting compensated (Score:2)
Because there is always the possibility of selling other rights in the future. Opportunity cost -- you're asking the photographer to give up something of value for nothing in return.
The photographer spends the day taking photos of the wedding. He expects to make that back from selling photos. If he charged for his time, then he should charge the same amount as he would expect to make from selling photos.
Wedding photogs expect to make money from the photos in the future as well, as people order reprints, etc. If you want a lump-sum buyout, they'll sell, I'm just telling you that it probably will be a higher cost than you expect, because they have to consider the posibility that you're buying the photo to use on the cover of your autobiography or on your real-estate business cards.
This is slightly different (Score:3, Insightful)
Taco's Contract? (Score:2)
Just curious, what did your contract say, Taco? Were you scammed by the DMCA in a photographer's disguise at your wedding?
Getting what you paid for (Score:2)
As always, it pays to read the contract. I had to pay a high sum for the photography at my wedding, but I also got all the negatives, high-quality proofs, and high-resolution scans to distribute and reproduce as it pleases me. All I had to do was negotiate a work-for-hire.
If you don't read the contract, you are almost certain to get screwed.
Re:Getting what you paid for (Score:2)
Note that there are specific exemptions to work-for-hire covered under copyright law.
Re:Getting what you paid for (Score:2)
conkidink (Score:2)
I don't think the original poster's analogy holds, though. The source code for a photo is surely the information required to produce it, which is the scene, camera settings, darkroom/lab settings, etc, as well as the skill of the protographer. Information on how to take photographs is readily available, (though the
Well, of course. (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't help but think that photographer should simply leave the cameras at home and go out to weddings with scenery and LIGHTING... amateurs simply do not understand lighting... she could charge the same price for simply directing photographic situations. A full complement of lights, the right setting, and it's *tweet!* bring over all the amateur digicam people and have THEM do the photo taking. It'd come out much better than their usual stuff. She could have some prosumer digicam herself, but not consider for a moment that the resulting images were what she'd be charging for.
I've been fooling with studio building for a long time now- and currently my focus hasn't been on assembling a bunch of recorders and stuff- people can do that in their homes so easily that it's a tough sell even if I can trounce their quality levels. Instead, I've been getting TOYS. Guitars, basses, now an electronic drum trigger kit (eventually a real acoustic drumkit). People can have all sorts of (half the time warez) software for recording, but they will NOT typically have a mesh-head drum trigger kit to bash away at. I'm hoping to expand that out until I can get business as a studio- NOT for having recording equipment, maybe some people will even want to bring their PCs and use their own! Instead, it will be for having a killer SETTING and the environment that you just don't see in most pocket studios.
It's like that. I hope like hell I'm making the right call here but I honestly don't see how else to do it. The actual media is next to valueless, but making the environment for the media to be produced can be all the difference.
I once produced some totally pro-looking product shots for guitar boxes I make [ampcast.com], on an old Connectix Color Quickcam (640x480 webcam). Did it by using the sun for lighting, using a big curtain for strong diffusion where needed, taking lots of identical (except for lighting variations) pictures and averaging them together in software... couldn't overcome the resolution issues but dynamic range ended up being phenomenal, easily pro level...
And of course, there was a time when I could've told you that in a book and probably sold lots of them because it's such a killer effective trick, but now in the digital age I've just replicated those words God knows how many times over the internet for basically nothing, and have to hope that (a) it'll benefit people to know about PTAverage and averaging near-identical digicam pics together for dynamic range, and (b) if I keep giving good ideas, people might figure out that I tend to have them, and record in my studio or something :)
It's really quite a braintwister figuring out what constitutes work and value in an age of digital replication. It's like, to go into the future we need to DESTROY the idea of value for individual collections of bits and somehow reformulate business around expertise and convenience. In that light, the whole 'piracy' thing is counterproductive because it's a concerted attempt to teach people that copying is morally wrong, when it's still effectively costless and effortless.
What would the world be like if ALL copying was completely permitted and there was no IP at all, but then people had to seek out the producers of any particular new thing they wanted produced? Would it be abundance? Would it be drowning in media all of which was worthless?
Re:Well, of course. (Score:2)
This might be a marketing disaster -- people want to think they're hiring a photographer and getting something -- but it's not a bad idea. If I were to try it, I think I'd also take the pictures... but give the negatives for free as part of the service. Then play up the lighting, scenery, etc. And make amateur imitation a selling point, not an obstacle.
Re:Well, of course. (Score:2)
Same with music. Pay performers only for performing, the only one who actually does some itellectual work is the composer. This is my business model for music: the producer pays a fixed fee to the composer, hires people to perform the music, pays for each performance, charges for people who attend the live show. Bootleg copies would be allowed, without any copyrights attached. After all, think about it this way: suppose you want to go see a live show. Would you think, "naah, I guess it isn't worth the effort, after all, I can always get a bootleg recording later". Have you ever met anybody who thinks like that?
The photographer's business model is wrong ... (Score:2)
It would be more fair for everyone if the photographer just charged for his time, and then charged a fair amount for reprints. The end result should be about the same cost.
In fact, a wise photographer would offer two payment plans: the traditional one, and one that charges more per hour for taking photographs but offers the negatives and lower-cost reprints. People who don't want to make their prints can pay the photographer to do it.
Re:The photographer's business model is wrong ... (Score:2)
There are wedding photographers that do this -- I know one in Oakland, California.
Re:The photographer's business model is wrong ... (Score:2)
In this case, work for hire has drawbacks that need to be considered. Although people choose photographers based on reputation, paying them less upfront gives them additional comfort since there is even more incentive for the photographer to earn more money by producing quality prints. In many ways, this traditional payment model is precisely what makes them professional photographers rather than skilled tradespeople (whether they count as artists is actually beside the point). Many people would rather pay for good results than pay by the hour and potentially end up with crap. The prevalence of this model also serves to discourage fly-by-night operations.
It bothers me when flexible pricing terms are not available. For an economically justifiable price, I should be able to get any terms I want for any service or product. If suppliers are unreasonable or picky about their terms, then I should be able to use the free market to find someone else. Whether and to what degree this flexibility exists should be the true measurement of market health.
good luck (Score:2, Interesting)
Author makes weak open-source argument (Score:2, Insightful)
Photographers know this. It's fundamentally the same as the MP3 craze. What would you rather have, free low-quality MP3 format songs or high fidelity CD audio for $15 per album? Too many people choose the freebie, and thus less money to those who produce the content.
When you hire a photographer to take pictures, you are paying them for 2 services: 1-their time and effort. 2-whatever photographs you eventually decide to purchase. A professional photographer cannot hope to make a living on only the labor fee. Thus, photographers are beginning to limit the availability of proofs. Photography is a profession from the time when it took a hell of a lot of skill and experience to "capture the moment". Now, in an age where we have a cheap and inferior substitute to "analog" photography, the profession is finding itself in a vulnerable position.
10 years ago when you hired a photographer and bought prints, you were effectively buying a service and product that could not be easily or cheaply reproduced. In effect you weren't buying the rights to the picture itself, but a copy of the picture. Nowadays, you are still in spirit buying the printed photo itself, but you now have the power to copy them as much as you please, almost for free. How can artists compete with that? By A: charging more and B: limiting your ability to make high-res copies of THEIR artwork.
I also take offense to the comparison of "closed/open source" with the photographic medium. The primary positive philosophy behind open-source development is that when the original data is open to view and modification, it can be IMPROVED by the author's peers. This is completely at odds with the digital photography issue. The original data (the negatives/proofs) of a photo session can't be openly analyzed and improved by the photographer's peers. It can only be freely copied by the user.
IMO, this is a decently written, but very misguided commentary. You don't pay artists for all rights to a picture. You pay them for the limited quantity of paper images you receive. Hell, I guess you could buy the rights to the initial image, but if this were to become the case in the future, expect professional photos and negatives to cost much, much more.
waaa evolution is biting my wallet (Score:2)
Photographers have to eat too. (Score:2)
The fact is that the level of skill and equipment required to produce that color corrected perfectly framed razor sharp 8x10 is not going to be available unless you hire a pro. And that pro has a family to feed.
If you want open source, i.e. the negatives or high res scans, you can probably negotiate that with a photographer. But be prepared to pay a fair price for that, equivalent to what the photographer would normally net from selliing the prints and albums to all the relatives.
Re:Photographers have to eat too. (Score:3, Informative)
Popular Photography did a study where they reached the conclusion that a 35 mm camera with ASA 100 film on a tripod with a good lens can produce an image equivalent to 40 megapixels. That puts medium format up around 200 megapixels.
An 8x10 print using high quality equipment has EASILY 1000x1000 DPI resolution (probably more like 2000x2000). To take advantage of that you need something like 80 - 320 megapixels in your image. This is why a 35 mm film camera doesn't produce good 8x10's, while a medium format negative does. Digital photos and quality 8x10 prints? Not there, or even close yet.
What would Leonardo say? (Score:2)
It was a different time, with a different kind of economy. And guys like Leonardo, or later, Mozart, sought out sponsors, patrons.
This tradition continues today. Richard Stallman and Tim Berners-Lee being two receipients of the MacArthur "genius" fellowships [macfound.org].
Our modern understanding of intellectual property is merely a convention. It is not a natural law.
Having said all that I find I agree with dpilgrim that his photographer was making a poor choice about how to adapt to the introduction of new technology.
There are lots of tasks which were once the province of highly-skilled craftsmen. People who have had their rice bowl broken by technology have my sympathy. But they are best served by adapting.
Pay for what you get. (Score:2)
The photographer expects that they could make more money selling their work in the manner of reprints, and charges appropriately.
Just an idea, wait a year, the photographer will lower their expectations for reprints and sell the negatives for quite a bit less. My photographer wouldn't consider selling them until at least 1-2 years after the wedding. Of course by that point I realized spending money on wedding photos is dumb.
My Wedding Photographer (Score:3, Interesting)
This allowed us to get albums for ourselves and our parents, and some extra prints for the family. He was able to sell more prints and albums to people who wanted them in the short term. We ended up with the negatives, so we can now scan / reprint them ad infinitum.
Sounds like the best of both worlds to me.
Depends where you live. (Score:2)
The photographer isn't going to go out of business because of guests with digital cameras. He took group shots at the ceremony, but my wife and I then went round to his nearby studion for some more shots. My point is that a guest with a nifty digital camera isn't all you need to realy good shots. The studio had proper lights, backdrops and even live doves and this shows in the results.
There is also no way that I would have accepted on CDROM no matter how good the quality. I want my grandchildren to have access to these images. What would you do if your parents gave you a roll of punched tape and said "Here are our wedding photos?" Even if my grandparent's wedding photos were on glass plate negatives, it wouldn't be difficult to rig up a scheme to view them.
What a load of rubbish (Score:2)
And as for using digital rather than film for realy important photos, I'll stick with film for now. The photos of my wedding in March are on film and there is thus a good chance that my grandchildren will be able to figure out a way to look at them. Putting them onto the web [huskydog.org.uk] was no problem as I have a film scsnner. If my parents wedding photos were on punched tape I think that I would struggle to see anything at all.
More photog weirdness (Score:2)
A Fork in the Road (Score:2)
Unfortunately the "backward" side seems to be winning. Look at DVDs - DVD video could have been specified in a neutral video format that would play on any player, anywhere in the world. But the MPAA film studios didn't feel like re-negotiating all of their exclusive regional distribution contracts, so they slapped on the Region Coding system. So we have regressed - there are now MORE barriers to international video distribution than the simple NTSC/PAL dichotomy of the analog world.
And since more barriers always benefit the producer, and the producers have Congress in their pockets, it's going to get worse...
Pro Photographers aren't going away... (Score:2)
If it turns out that due to digital piracy, photographers find themselves unable to charge for prints, then they'll end up providing originals, and charging more up front instead of charging for printing. In the end they'll end up getting the same amount of money, they'll just get it all at once instead of getting it spaced out over time. People will pay it because the service provided is worthwhile.
Reality check (Score:2, Insightful)
Future of photography (Score:2)
Portrait artists didn't go out of business. The business evolved into photographic portraiture. Now the analog business will evolve into the digital one. The skill of capturing the moment will not be dispersed any better through the evolution of technology.
Isn't the point being made moot? (Score:2)
So, in the short term, people get to see the pictures without paying ridiculous reprint fees (yes, that's my opinion of the payment system) and the photographer gets zero business for it.
In the medium run, wouldn't it make more sense for photographers to offer to pricing plans: the traditional one where their services are very cheap and prints are expensive, and a second where the service is very expensive (as it should be for any professional or artist) and the prints are provided on CD for the customer to duplicate?
In the long run, I agree with the article, consumers will demand and get open source photos much in the same way we are currently demanding cheaper music and software. If the market does not respond, the consumers will work around them just as they do now with Bearshare for downloading music and software. Right now, people go along with the photographers' system because they haven't imagined the alternative. All it takes is a Napster to come along and change the way people view a system. Then things start changing.
This is why I quit wedding photography (Score:5, Informative)
As a wedding photographer, if I wasn't selling pictures, what was I selling? Dependability, repeatability, and creativity, along with years of experience learned the hard (and expensive) way, burning film and breaking cameras. Let's take these one at a time.
1. Dependability. I didn't have a special camera I used just for weddings, I had two of them, both top of the line and maintained annually by the manufacturer so that I could be sure that when I told a couple that "I'll be there on your wedding day," they could be damned sure I would be there, with working equipment, ready for action. You don't think this is important? Try it some time. Then there are all of the "special" shots brides (and their mothers,) really, really want. Coming down the aisle with Dad (or Mom or Grandpa: whomever.) The exchange of rings. The first kiss. A long list, actually (typically anywhere from 30-40 special moments on a shot list.) I got them. All of them. Oh, and most ministers/Priests, rabbis, etc. don't permit flash photography during the ceremony, which means I'm shooting in whatever light is available (surprisingly often flourescent. That's why your shots are green. Mine, obviously, weren't.) I got them all, even if I knew -positively knew, beforehand - that no one would be buying them for their albums. No flub-ups, no re-takes: the right shot, first time, every time. Mistakes? Sure: I wouldn't be human if I didn't make one occasionally. But as a professional I'm paid to minimize the mistakes and give my bride and groom the best possible chance of getting the photographs they wanted (and paid for.) If they didn't, I didn't get paid. Dependability? *Every* essential component of my wedding kit was duplicated, in some cases triplicated (is that a word?) Two main cameras, both professional and expensive (Mamiya 645.) The most used lens is the 80mm, so I had two of those, as well as a wide-angle 45mm and 55mm and 150mm and 200mm telephotos. Tripods. Three pro on-camera flashes (Sunpak.) Two dozen batteries ('cause all batteries die when you need them the most.) Filters in assorted sizes for each lens ($25-$50 per filter, my filter pack at one time ran to over 20 of them.) Radio-slave lights and backups for those and batteries and backups for those... backgrounds, stands... it took most of a minivan to get my kit on station. I rarely used even half of it but there were times when the backups got used... and one memorable disaster when by the end of the reception I was down to my last camera backup (a 35mm,) and film. Something about a torrential downpour, gale-force winds, and marble sized hail... But you couldn't tell it by the pictures.
Repeatability: My portfolio reflected what I did. Prospective customers could count on their wedding being done in the same 'style' my portfolio portrayed. It was constantly changing because I was constantly changing, but at any given moment in time a bride and groom could point to their wedding album and my portfolio and say, "I got what I thought I was getting." I used pro films, kept track of my lot numbers (color emulsions vary a little bit by lot, but when you need detail of a white gown next to a black tuxedo you need to know, not guess, how the film will respond.) and used professional processing. When you came back six months later and ordered a few more prints because Aunt Sally was miffed she didn't get an album as good as your mom (and after all, she's been sending you the same $5 for your birthday every year since you were born, you ungrateful little tramp!) the prints you gave her were identical -- not approximately, but absolutely the same -- as the ones she saw in your mom's album.
Creativity. Sure, Uncle Ed can take a picture of you and your new spouse coming down the aisle as well as anybody can. What about the black and white you asked for, because you read somewhere that color prints don't last as long as B&W? How about that shot of you and your spouse lighting the peace candle with your faces glowing in the warm candlelight and that expression of beautific joy on your spouse's face? You got that photo (which you used to headline your album, by the way,) because I knew -- knew, not guessed -- it was coming, saw the image in my mind far enough in advance to have positioned a camera with the appropriate lens on a tripod in the one place in the entire church where everyone else's head would be out of the shot, and set the exposure for ambient lighting because a flash would have ruined the whole thing. How about that double-exposure of you and your new spouse gazing into each others' eyes underneath that beautiful stained glass window, resplendent in all its Technicolor glory? Did you realize that was a double exposure, the window made with a long exposure the morning of the wedding because it faced East and by the time of the wedding the sun would be in the west, muting the colors? Did you know that the window was actually shot on different film precisely because of the exaggerated color that film gives, which is normally the absolutely last thing you want in a wedding photo? No, you did not. You can't tell by looking at the picture.
Someone somewhere is saying about now, "what the hell, I can do that in Photoshop. Take ten minutes. No big deal." You sure can, too. Did you think of that in time to get the photos you needed, or are you just making it up out of the shots you happened to have taken at the wedding? "Oh, look: these go nice together." I thought so. Are you going to make 20 copies because everyone who saw it wanted one, and guarantee each and every one of them for 70 years or your money back? No, what you're going to do is print as many copies as you have ink and paper for and give them away, rationalizing that those printed at the beginning and end of ink cartridges look a little off with the thought that, what the hell do people want for free, anyway? Did you do that 10 times per wedding? Or did you do it once and, pleased with yourself, sit down with a nice cold one?
One thing for sure, and the other half of the reason I quit wedding photography, is that digital is definitely replacing film for that type of event. It isn't ready for the job, but it's doing it all the same. (No, I'm not being spiteful, either. I wasn't ready for my first programming job but I got it anyway. And learned very quickly. Panic quickly. Thoughts of, "School wasn't anything like this," quickly.) Short of extremely expensive digital equipment and even with the best in digital printing, a digital photo in many (not all, but in many) circumstances still can't beat film. Truthfully, today the difference is mostly in the output, but even so 8 to 10 megapixel cameras are far from common and are the minimum required to approach the quality of even 35mm film. They are, often enough, good enough for the purposes to which they will be put, however: magazine and newspaper reproduction, cheap posters that'll be in garage sales in 12 months, that sort of thing. By the way, I'm going to get snooty and elitist here. I've looked at hundreds of digital prints and uncounted prints from film and I have to say that, today, anyone who says that digital output even comes close to a competantly made print from film is blind, stupid, or lying. And I don't give a tinker's damn what you think about it, either. It's a free country, go ahead and be wrong, you have a constitutional right to be an idiot if you want to. You may not be able to tell the difference, my dog may not be able to tell the difference but I can tell the difference and I refuse to tell the emperor what pretty clothes he has on when I damn well and good can see with my own two eyes that he's buck naked as a jaybird on the day he was born. God, that felt good!
The other half of the reason I quit wedding photography? Photography is a commodity: everyone has a camera, or could have, if they half-ways wanted to. Everyone has seen countless pictures in magazines and on fliers and... so everyone questions why should they pay me $2000 to photograph their wedding when they can go to Wal-Mart and buy a perfectly keen camera for $129.95? My answer is -- you probably shouldn't. I'm a photographer because pictures are important to me. They obviously aren't nearly as important to you, so you should have the option of paying less. And you do. And when I got tired of having to justify my price, I stopped doing it. I still get a dozen inquiries a year from couples who've seen my work and want to know what it would cost... but I've sold the equipment (well, most of it
Oddly enough (and to get this back on-topic for the Slashdot crowd,) this is pretty much the same reason why I'm a pointy-headed manager now, instead of typing furiously away at a keyboard as I did for most of the past 20 years. It isn't about the money, it's never been about the money (the Lord has blessed me in that I've always had enough and that I'm not greedy. Don't really want to be rich.) Some things I won't compromise on and quality, of whatever I'm doing, code or photography, is top of the list. Now I earn my living one way and coding and photography, where I can be as picky, as self-rightously immolative as I desire, is for me, a very demanding audience of one. My personal programming projects set on a shelf while I rotted for 20 years, cutting quality to meet artificial and unrealistic deadlines, feature lists compiled by drunken marketing droids who couldn't tell a customer from a toilet seat, and interface designs produced in fevered heat by dyslexic color blind toxic waste snorting reeky farts. My personal photography rotted for 15 while I shot one more couple in heat and, in all honestly, both have improved since I returned to amateurdom. Lesson learned, thanks.
Oh, and a parting piece of free advice for those thinking of taking the vows in the future: the very first couple I photographed as a wedding photographer chose an inexpensive package with the frank excuse that, "Statistically, we only have a 55% chance of still being together five years from now. Why pay more with odds like that?" Now, 12 years later, they're still married. Then there's the other woman, who called a couple of months ago to see if I would photograph her fourth wedding. Yes, I did the first three and no, I won't be doing this one.
Re:photographer vs. artist (Score:5, Informative)
eh? I would recommend you review your law books -- when i paint a portrait I'm certainly not selling the copyright to the sitter. If he wants to print it on the cover of his autobiography, or an art book, the publisher had better call me and write a check. You sell the painting, not the copyright. Frequently artists will even retain the right to borrow the painting for purposes such as exhibition.
I can reprint all of my paintings without anyone's permission (except of course ones for which I have sold reprint rights). The owner of the canvas certainly cannot do it without mine.
Re:photographer vs. artist (Score:2)
2)The sitter owns his image
Your copywrong is nixed.
"Frequently artists will even retain the right to borrow the painting for purposes such as exhibition"
Not if you don't get past my shotgun.
1) No, I'm not. I have done work for hire, but portraiture is not work-for-hire, by the standards of the IRS or the standards of any normal portraiture contract.
2) Everyone owns the right of exploitation of their image, but that doesn't mean they own everything with their image on it. I can reprint a painting in my "works of" book without the sitters' permission (not that I would), but I can't sell it to be used on the cover of Time Magazine.
"Frequently artists will even retain the right to borrow the painting for purposes such as exhibition" Not if you don't get past my shotgun.
It's a term in the contract -- if you don't want it, it isn't necessary, but most people who pay for portraits are honored that their portrait will be recognized as a work of art by the public and exhibited. I don't believe many artists would be interested in exhibiting an image if the owner wasn't willing to have it on exhibit.
Re:photographer vs. artist (Score:2)
And this illustrates one of the things that exists but is being ignored in most paintings, and seems to be a problem with photography.
If you commission a painting/portrait, you are probably familiar with the works of that painter, and probably respect their work as an artist. You may have met them at a gallery that exhibited their work once. You probably have a decent relationship with this person.
You probably don't have an adversarial relationship. The artist may not be a real friend, but I doubt they are someone you would go after with a shotgun. This is a person you chose to deal with because you liked their work.
We seem to have a lot of fun around here hating the evil corporation, and making it into an adversaial relationship. I'm tempted to say they started it, but that sounds so incredibly childish that, well, maybe it fits the topic pretty well after all.
When you're dealing with a person, talk to them and ask questions. When you're dealing with a corporation, you don't usually have that option. This is where a lot of the problems come in. Take advantage of the fact that you are dealing with a person, and talk to them.
Re:photographer vs. artist (Score:2)
I think this hits the nail on the head. my honest first reaction to the story is that i was surprised the guy didn't understand he wouldn't get the negatives or a high-res scan, or didn't ask about them earlier.
in most weddings, you'll literally spend hours with the photographer just discussing what kinds of shots you want, getting engagement photos, getting bridal photos days before the wedding, deciding on a basic package of prints.
Surely at some point, he saw a price sheet and was able to judge whether or not they could provide what he wanted. i don't klnow many creative people who won't be flexible with a customer, but asking after the fact and being disappointed at the price is not a very valid criticism of the business (IMHO)...
Re:Weddings??? (Score:2)
Re:Weddings??? (Score:2)
Re:Weddings??? (Score:2)
Posting an article about marriage on slashdot would be like posting an article about vegetarianism on an NRA board; sure they may be a fraction of 1% which that would apply to, but not significant.
Re:Analog Photography (Score:2, Informative)
As for copyright, if a photographer (like a designer) is seriously worried that another fraudulent professional will steal that image and call it their own--quite frankly clients will find out soon enough whether or not they're a fraud. The cream usually rises to the top in our profession.
Re:all changes are welcome (Score:2)
The reason professional photographers exist and are able to charge what they do, is because that's what it takes to maintain their overhead, and perform their craft. If a cheaper and better alternative crops up, they will either have to migrate or go out of work. I don't think that we're at that point yet - and I don't think that photographers should freak over having people take advantage of their lighting (which is easily solved by staging the shots BEFORE and AFTER the event, and restricting cameras to the photographer and staff only.) If customers don't like these practices, then these photographers will go out of business. If customers don't care, then they'll stay in business.
In this case, the market is doing exactly what it needs to do - cost pressures will change the way professional photographers do business, hopefully to the benefit of all parties. Contrast this to the way the RIAA and the MPAA have reacted - instead of changing, they're using laws to uniformly bludgeon everyone under the sun. Imagine if a law was passed making it illegal to operate cameras within 300 feet of a licensed photographer? Or a law to ban the use of photo-manipulation software by anyone other than professional photographers? Or making it illegal to posess undeveloped photographic paper greater in size than 4x6"?
I prefer market solutions - ie, I'll shoot your party as long as you guarantee purchasing X numbers of 36 x 40" framed photos, or you can just pay me up front and get unlimited duplication rights for friends and family (I still own master copyright for stuff like publication, etc.) If you choose to go with a cheaper photographer, either you get what you pay for (and hopefully that cheap photographer quickly goes out of business), or they're just as good and profitable and I have to adjust my market model to compete. Note, nowhere do I say that copying is ok - only that you should keep an eye on the market and make sure that your business model is still valid. This seems like a common-sense statement, but there seem to be many lawyers and corporate execs who would benefit by having it tattooed on their foreheads.
Re:all changes are welcome (Score:2)
What photographers have to realize is that the vast majority of people do not want art, but to remember the moment.
Case in point, fishing. Before people would have to either brag about the fish (usual) or drag the fish to weighing station to be recorded. Now all you need is the digital camera and you have your picture. After that you can release the fish without additional stress to the fish.
Re:*Some* photographers are getting it. (Score:2)
Digital offers a lot of convenience, but the fact of life is that a 35 SLR film camera with a good lens gives you the equivalent of a 40 megapixel digital camera. Don't forget that 10+ megapixel SLR digital also carries a $6000 price tag. And wedding photographers normally use medium format cameras with 6x7cm negatives - to match the resolution of that large negative with digital you are looking at 200 megapixels.