If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?
This SD ******/guy is wrong on many points of fact. If you have questions
about copyright then you should consult a lawyer with expertise in thatarea for your jurisdiction. SD writes: |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?
Marc 182 writes:
No such right exists. While the photographer does own copyright to the photos he takes, that does not give him the "right" to use images of customers for commercial purposes. That depends on the contract, the jurisdiction, and jurisprudence. In many jurisdictions, the photographer has an implicit right to include the photos in his portfolio, although he cannot use them for strictly commercial purposes (postcards, advertising sales, etc.). Read the contract carefully, though. Only if the customer (now the model) signs a model release does the photographer get that right, and even then the photographer must now confer something of value in return. The photographer can have you sign a contract that makes you responsible for all model releases. Always read the contract. Use of an image in a portfolio or on the wall of the shop is debatable as being commercial. It's usually not considered commercial per se. After all, photographers do have to be able to show examples of their work, but that isn't necessarily advertising. Selling stock photography of customers without their express permission is a definite no-no. In the U.S. and elsewhere, it's okay, if it's for editorial or informational use. You'd have a right to be. If your image turned up in an ad somewhere, and you never signed a release, you'd have an actionable case. That depends on what sort of contract you signed. Read the contract. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?
SD writes:
This is ridiculous. I paid for taking the photo, so I was the photographers employer ... No. You were the photographer's client. If you were the photographer's employer, you be paying social security and other taxes on his behalf, making employer contributions, providing insurance, providing a place to work and fixing hours of work, and so on. Additionally, he would still own the images unless producing them were part of the actual job in which you employed him. For e.g. if the photographer works for National Geographic and clicks pictures, who owns the copyright - the photographer or National Geographic? If the photographer is an employee of NG, NG owns the copyright. Additionally, if the photographer signs a "work for hire" agreement with NG, NG owns the copyright. Otherwise the copyright belongs to the photographer. What else is it? An example of the photographer's work. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?
Wow I didn;t know.. I have to be really careful from now on.
Mxsmanic wrote: SD writes: This is ridiculous. I paid for taking the photo, so I was the photographers employer ... No. You were the photographer's client. If you were the photographer's employer, you be paying social security and other taxes on his behalf, making employer contributions, providing insurance, providing a place to work and fixing hours of work, and so on. Additionally, he would still own the images unless producing them were part of the actual job in which you employed him. For e.g. if the photographer works for National Geographic and clicks pictures, who owns the copyright - the photographer or National Geographic? If the photographer is an employee of NG, NG owns the copyright. Additionally, if the photographer signs a "work for hire" agreement with NG, NG owns the copyright. Otherwise the copyright belongs to the photographer. What else is it? An example of the photographer's work. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?
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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?
Marc 182 writes:
Copyright law is national and international. The jurisdiction has little to do with it, and the contract doesn't trump the law. The jurisdiction has everything to do with it, since local laws determine what is and is not legal and what can and cannot be done. International law is not important since there is no international government to enforce it. The contract need not "trump" any law. Although different courts can lean in different directions, you sure as hell shouldn't rely on that. Nothing can be relied upon in intellectual-property law. I couldn't grok this sentence because the word "you" isn't defined. Are you referring to the customer who bought the "stock" photos, or the customer who's images you appropriated? The customer who commissioned photos of himself or someone else can be required to obtain model releases if he signs a contract to that effect. The customer who buys stock images can also be so constrained by contract. When I sell images for stock, I stipulate that the buyer is responsible for any required releases. For editorial and informational use, he probably doesn't need them--but if he does, it's up to him to get them. Either way, just because the photog writes something into the contract that doesn't mean that it's enforceable, or even legal. These provisions are completely enforceable. If a photographer sells images without obtaining proper model releases, it's his ass. No. Image rights apply to publication and final use. So just licensing the photographer's rights to an image has nothing to do with releases. If an image is used for a purpose that requires a release without the release, then normally the entity that used the image will be held liable, not the entity that produced the image, unless the latter falsely claimed that it had obtained the necessary releases. When an organization licenses an image presumably for editorial use and then uses it in advertising, for example, the organization is the entity that gets sued, not the photographer. For the photographer to be liable, he would have had to represent that he had obtained all necessary releases, explicitly or (sometimes) implicitly. If he explicitly says that he has _not_ obtained releases, then the organization that licensed them is solely responsible for the releases and any liability arising from their unreleased use. That's how it works in the real world, as a general rule. Like I said, debatable. It usually depends on local jurisprudence. If a customer finds out that he's in your portfolio and objects, it would be prudent (not to mention ethical) to remove his image. Really you should have at least asked politely first. Should a house painter obtain written permission before telling potential customers which houses he has painted in the past? Should an architect obtain written permission before telling potential clients which buildings he has designed? Yes, but that's not stock photography is it? Uh, yes, it is. There's a huge market in stock photography for editorial and informational use, and these uses do NOT require releases (in the U.S.). It has been that way since time immemorial, as every stock photographer knows. That's the news. Stock photography by definition says that the photographer has obtained all releases and rights, and that the customer buying the images is free to use them for any purpose. False. Stock photography simply means licensing of photographer's rights in an image for specific purposes. It says nothing about releases unless that is written into the contracts. Indeed, even in the newer "royalty-free" systems of stock photography, the images you buy are not necessarily released for _any_ use, and you use them at your own risk. The images may be only for informational use, for example, and may not be released for commercial use; if you use them for the latter without a release, you may be directly liable. Read the contract. Never assume that you have any rights that you haven't been explicitly given by photographers or models. No it doesn't. Yes, it does. You don't need a release for certain types of use, in many jurisdictions (including the U.S.). In order for a contract to be formed each party must give something of value to the other, it must be an exchange. If a clause of the contract confers reuse rights to the photographer, something of value must also be transferred to the customer. It could be anything, a free 8x10, a discount on the session cost, even a single buck politely handed over. Whatever it is, it has to be clear and explicit. It can also be the original photo services and/or prints themselves. In other words, nothing _additional_ or _extra_ is required. The photographer is already providing something of value; the contract specifies what the customer provides in return (money, and/or the right to use his image, if applicable). Burying some kind of release in a contract for services the customer is PAYING for will not cut it in a legal challenge. Yes, it will. Indeed, even without payment, it can still work. If you donate a photo to a photo contest, for example, you often grant publication rights in doing so--you may even indemnify the contest organizer against any claims made against him for your lack of releases. ALWAYS READ THE CONTRACT. And attempting to do that is a hallmark of a sleazy photographer. No, it's standard business practice. Traditionally, many stock photographers build their stock inventories from work originally done for specific clients. The client pays less this way. If a client wants exclusive rights, he generally must pay far more to the photographer, because he must compensate the photographer for the loss of revenue in stock sales. It's quite fair, even though unsophisticated clients often don't understand it at first. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Heat absorbing glass or one-size-fits all glass carrier for 23CII negative popping problem | Phil Glaser | In The Darkroom | 2 | June 1st 04 01:47 PM |
B&H has the worst customer service on the planet. | bozak | Advanced Photography | 340 | February 8th 04 06:37 PM |
B&H has the worst customer service on the planet. | Stephen H. Westin | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 10 | February 3rd 04 08:46 PM |
B&H Photo has horrible customer service... | generic eric | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 13 | January 31st 04 09:25 PM |