Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?

or just give it to them along with photos?

--










************************************************** **************************
****************************
~ Proverb 28 - 2: When there is moral rot within a nation, its government
topples easily.~

BlackVelvet writes:

or just give it to them along with photos?

I usually provide customers with scans. In some cases, I'm willing to
part with the negatives, if there is no supplementary value to me of the
photos for stock uses. Unlike most photographers, I only charge for the
photography and a one-time ("royalty-free") fee for reproduction rights,
and then the customer can do anything he wants with the photos, so if I
have no reason to want to ever reuse the images, there's no reason not
to give him the negatives, if he wants them. And since scanning takes a
huge amount of time, this is actually a better option for me as well, if
I don't need to keep possession of the negatives.

I do retain the copyright in all cases, but the rights I grant to the
client are so liberal that he can essentially do whatever he wants with
the images, anyway.

This is all for individual clients. For corporate and business clients,
I'm not quite so generous. They pay for the specific images and uses
they want.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

or just give it to them along with photos?

I didn't when I was in business and wouldn't if I were doing it today.
You can make good money on reprints. Plus, quality control is in your
hands.

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

or just give it to them along with photos?


I didn't when I was in business and wouldn't if I were doing it today.
You can make good money on reprints. Plus, quality control is in your
hands.

If I had a photographer take a picture for me, I'd want the negative and
all rights associated with the picture. For example I'd never hire
someone to click my wedding pics/family pics if I didnt have the
negatives. I want those for life, not for the life of the photographers
business who as you say makes good money from reprints. IMHO the
photographer has made his share of the money in the fee for clicking the
picture. Also I would not want my pictures to be displayed anywhere in
the photographers shop or used as stock photos or anything else without
my explcit permission (which I would never give).

As for film this is easy to enforce but digitals is another issue, the
photographer can just make file copies for himself, but I can tell you
I'd be mighty ****ed to see a photo appear somewhere that I was unaware
of and would never recommend that photographer.

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.

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.

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

Walt

"SD" wrote in message
...
If I had a photographer take a picture for me, I'd want the negative and
all rights associated with the picture. For example I'd never hire
someone to click my wedding pics/family pics if I didnt have the
negatives. I want those for life, not for the life of the photographers
business who as you say makes good money from reprints. IMHO the
photographer has made his share of the money in the fee for clicking the
picture. Also I would not want my pictures to be displayed anywhere in
the photographers shop or used as stock photos or anything else without
my explcit permission (which I would never give).

As for film this is easy to enforce but digitals is another issue, the
photographer can just make file copies for himself, but I can tell you
I'd be mighty ****ed to see a photo appear somewhere that I was unaware
of and would never recommend that photographer.

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. Let me compare your idea to my work. 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.

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

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?

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. Like in the
software world, the company owns the work I do in the time they pay for
it. What I do with software I write in my own time/business is upto me.
I can sell the software (like prints) but I wouldn't sell the source
code (like negatives).


Walt

"SD" wrote in message
...

If I had a photographer take a picture for me, I'd want the negative and
all rights associated with the picture. For example I'd never hire
someone to click my wedding pics/family pics if I didnt have the
negatives. I want those for life, not for the life of the photographers
business who as you say makes good money from reprints. IMHO the
photographer has made his share of the money in the fee for clicking the
picture. Also I would not want my pictures to be displayed anywhere in
the photographers shop or used as stock photos or anything else without
my explcit permission (which I would never give).

As for film this is easy to enforce but digitals is another issue, the
photographer can just make file copies for himself, but I can tell you
I'd be mighty ****ed to see a photo appear somewhere that I was unaware
of and would never recommend that photographer.

SD writes:

That is just wrong. Let me compare your idea to my work. 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.

You are mistaken. In the U.S. and many other jurisdictions, you do
_not_ own the photographer's work.

In order to own the copyright in the photographer's work, one of two
situations must exist: (1) the photographer must agree, in advance,
explicitly, and in writing, that the photography constitutes a "work for
hire" and that the original copyright resides with you, the client; or
(2) the photographer must be your regular employee (that is, you pay
FICA, unemployment, insurance, and generally fulfill all the reasonable
and customary requirements of employment) _and_ his photography must be
part of his assigned job responsibility.

In all other cases, the photographer has the copyright. A wedding
photography (and all other commissioned photographers) are not
employees, and they do not generally sign work-for-hire agreements, so
you do not own their work, no matter how much you paid for their
services.

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

I don't know what the law says in India, but in the United States, the
law works as described above.

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

They keep them for the purpose of making reprints and/or providing
evidence of their authorship, generally.

But as long as you are being paid by me to do the work, I
own the work.

Not in the U.S. and most of the developed world.

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

In the software world, you are an employee, and the software you write
is (presumably) written as part of your normal job responsibilities.

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

Some companies try to force you to relinguish this right, although you
should refuse. They don't own software you write in your own time by
default, however.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

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

We keep 'em just to screw people like you.

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. Like in the
software world, the company owns the work I do in the time they pay for
it. What I do with software I write in my own time/business is upto me.
I can sell the software (like prints) but I wouldn't sell the source
code (like negatives).

If you had come into my studio with this attitude, I'd have explained
my position - then suggested you find another photographer.

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. :-) ***

SD,

I disagree.. If I was hired to shoot a wedding, the client would be paying
for my time and the quality prints that he wants. The negatives are never
part of the deal. If you visited a high street portrait photographer for
example, to have some shots done of you and the family you would never get
the negs... The photographer always has the copyright to the images and can
impose clauses that can stop you scanning in and re-printing your own
copies. If someone wanted to have the negs as well then they would have to
pay a price depending on if I could use the images again. If they were good
for my portfolio or for stock then I would charge for them based on what I
felt I could earn for them.

If this is not what you want then I would always suggest buying a $399
camera from your local dealer and getting a member of the family to shoot
them for you. This way you get it all... except the quality and experience.

MM

"SD" wrote in message
...
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. Let me compare your idea to my work. 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.

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

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?

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. Like in the
software world, the company owns the work I do in the time they pay for
it. What I do with software I write in my own time/business is upto me.
I can sell the software (like prints) but I wouldn't sell the source
code (like negatives).


Walt

"SD" wrote in message
...

If I had a photographer take a picture for me, I'd want the negative and
all rights associated with the picture. For example I'd never hire
someone to click my wedding pics/family pics if I didnt have the
negatives. I want those for life, not for the life of the photographers
business who as you say makes good money from reprints. IMHO the
photographer has made his share of the money in the fee for clicking the
picture. Also I would not want my pictures to be displayed anywhere in
the photographers shop or used as stock photos or anything else without
my explcit permission (which I would never give).

As for film this is easy to enforce but digitals is another issue, the
photographer can just make file copies for himself, but I can tell you
I'd be mighty ****ed to see a photo appear somewhere that I was unaware
of and would never recommend that photographer.