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.

Marc 182 wrote:

In article ,
says...

SD writes:


If I had a photographer take a picture for me, I'd want the negative and
all rights associated with the picture.

Your expectation is unrealistic unless you are paying a great deal for
the photos. Even then, you generally won't get the copyright itself,
jsut reproduction rights.


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.

Here again, you may have to shop around for a long time.


IMHO the photographer has made his share of the money in the fee for clicking the
picture.

That is often true, which is why I don't try to make money off prints.
The exception is photos that have additional value beyond what they
represent to the original client commissioning them (as stock photos,
for example).


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).

Now I'm beginning to wonder if you can find anyone at all who meets all
your conditions. Few photographers are going to relinquish this right.

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

This is ridiculous. I paid for taking the photo, so I was the
photographers employer, so I own the rights. For e.g. if the
photographer works for National Geographic and clicks pictures, who owns
the copyright - the photographer or National Geographic?

customers for commercial purposes. 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.

Use of an image in a portfolio or on the wall of the shop is debatable
as being commercial.

What else is it?

Selling stock photography of customers without
their express permission is a definite no-no. Photographers have been
badly burned in court on this after being "caught" by their customers.

I would hope so

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.


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.

Marc

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In article ,
says...
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.).

Copyright law is national and international. The jurisdiction has little
to do with it, and the contract doesn't trump the law. Although
different courts can lean in different directions, you sure as hell
shouldn't rely on that.

Read the contract carefully, though.

Stipulate, always good advice.

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.

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? Either way, just because the
photog writes something into the contract that doesn't mean that it's
enforceable, or even legal. If a photographer sells images without
obtaining proper model releases, it's his ass.

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.

Like I said, debatable. 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.

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.

Yes, but that's not stock photography is it? 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.

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.

No it doesn't. 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.

Burying some kind of release in a contract for services the customer is
PAYING for will not cut it in a legal challenge. And attempting to do
that is a hallmark of a sleazy photographer. It's no wonder that the
industry has little respect.

Marc

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.