Subject: Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?
From: SD
Date: Fri, Apr 2, 2004 11:19 AM
Message-id:

Historically, the photographs (the negatives or raw digital images in
today's world) have always been the property of the photographer, not
the
client. We are artists, not technicians, and our work belongs to us.
The
client simply purchases the right to view, publish, or own reproductions
of
our work.

That is just wrong.

No he's plain right. Copyright belongs to the photographer unless there is an
agreement signed that he is doing the assignment as "work for hire". At least
here in the U.S. and w/ U.S. copyright law, I don't know whether India is a
signator of The Byrne Convention which ensures certain copyright law(s) be
respected in whose countries are signators so I can't speak for Indian
copyright law

Let me compare your idea to my work.

Not comparable. If you are an employee then the firm that hires you to do your
work owns the copyright for that work. You are a salaried employee doing "work
for hire" as opposed to free lance work. Wedding photography is "free lance
work" therefore the photographer owns the copyright to the wedding work he does
not the client. You have a regular salary and most likely certain benefits
(medical or otherwise) you are (most likely) a hired employee. Here in the U.S.
a client pays a fee for usage and he is a client not an employer, freelance
work is not considered a salaried employment/work for hire but "free lance" and
as suvh all rights unless otherwise stated go to the photographer whether you
like it or not.

As a
photographer for, let's say my wedding, you are basically on a contract

with me for that time. Whatever you do in that time is owned by me and
you are paid for the work you do.


We are paid for the work that we do _not_ for the copyright. No it is not owned
by you, you pay for rights and specific usage(s) and time but _copyright
remains with the photographer_ unless you have a signed agreement with the
photographer that states otherwise. That's U.S. copyright law. Like it or not,
its that simple.

I got married in India and my parents not only have the negs but also
the master tapes of all the Videos.


See comments above.

However, back when I was doing wedding photography, I did allow my clients
to purchase the negatives from me. In fact, I prefered that they do.
I
charged a hefty fee for the negs, but then I didn't have to put out any
more
time and effort hand holding weapy brides and dealing with grooms trying
to
prove their manhood by "negotiating" with the photographer.

Hehe.. what do photographers do with the negatives anyway?


Keep them on file for reprints, another source of income, or perhaps with a
model release, sell the images commercially, or if no model release is
available and the contract permits it, to use the images for your portfolio
and/or for editorial (non-commercial) sales.

I never sold the negs on my other work. Nor would I. Clients with "SD"'s
attitude were referred elsewhere. Life's too short.

Yeah what you do with your other work is upto you. But as long as you
are being paid by me to do the work, I own the work.

You own nothing here in the U.S., not the copyright or anything else other than
the time and skill and whatever prints you pay for. Copyright always remains
with the photographer unless stated in writing/contract otherwise.
Photographers who saw your attitude and wanted to retain their right would
simply be advised not to work with you. You own nothing, not the film, not the
copyright, we are not your whores, the power of your money ends where copyright
law(s) begins.

Even if it was your film, your developing, etc. - the copyright to any images
created remains with the photographer who created the images.

Like in the
software world, the company owns the work I do in the time they pay for

it.

You are hired as an employee with a salary, half of federal taxes are paid by
the employer (here in the U.S.) and if you are a free lance (nad perhaps evenif
you are an employee) you probably signed some kind of agreement that the code
you create belongs to them as they don't want their source code to belong to
anybody. Photogrpahers, unless they were hired on "work for hire" terms are
defacto considered free lancers with full power/possesion of their own
copyright unless explicitly stated (in writing) otherwise. In India YMMV.

What I do with software I write in my own time/business is upto me.


Not relevant, the photographer in a wedding is a frelance not your employee
_regardless of the fact you are paying him/her money_ to do a job(s). You are
not paying his benefits or half his taxes nor do you have any work for hire
agreement with most wedding photographers (who are freelancers). Now if your
computer company had an inhouse regularly salaried (and benefits/taxes covered
by the company) employee whose job function was to do work for hire weddings
and other types of photography then the copyright would belong to that company.
But outside photographers, wedding or otherwise, unless there is a contractual
agreement stating otherwise between the photographer and the company are
considered "free lancers" and not doing "work for hire", _so in the case of an
outside freelance photographer it is the photographer who owns the copyright_ -
whether you like it or agree with it or not. Period. Exclamation point. End of
story.

I can sell the software (like prints) but I wouldn't sell the source
code (like negatives).

Not like the negatives, see above.

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***