A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Techniques » Photographing People
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 3rd 04, 08:00 PM
Walt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
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.


Just out of curiosity, are either of you attorneys, or are you both just
speaking from your understanding?

Walt


  #22  
Old April 3rd 04, 10:35 PM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?

Walt writes:

Just out of curiosity, are either of you attorneys, or are you both just
speaking from your understanding?


I am not an attorney, and I speak only from my (significant)
understanding of the issues. Note, however, that a lot of attorneys
seem to understand the topic even less than I do, unless it is their
specialty, so beware.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  #23  
Old April 4th 04, 07:08 AM
Carl Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?

On April 01 2004, SD wrote:
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.


That's not generally how it works. At least not here in the US.

--
Carl Miller

---------
Using: OUI 1.9.2 Pro from
http://www.ouisoft.com


  #25  
Old April 5th 04, 12:34 PM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?

Marc 182 writes:

And author of the online book, "How to be a Sleazy Photographer and get
Away with it, Legally!"


I'm not familiar with it. Do you have a URL?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  #26  
Old April 6th 04, 12:21 AM
Lewis Lang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?

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. :-) ***
  #27  
Old April 6th 04, 12:42 AM
Lewis Lang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?

BIG SNIPS

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.


Where in copyright law or elsewhere in the law does it state that a contract
must be a bilateral agreement in order to be legally enforcable? Isn't a
unilateral contract also enforcable? WHy does something have to be in exchange
for something else. A contract is merely an agreement, that's all, whether
something is exchanged is besides the point - though few people will sign
things without getting something in return, those that would sign a contract
(ie. a modle release) (perhaps a friend or a relative would be more likely to
sign w/o getting somthing in return than a total stranger or a client) have
given their right and permission for their likeness to be used whether there is
something in exchange (valuable consideration) or not. It is till a legal
agreement I beleive the same may apply for a witness, that a witness is not
needed, despite what one may have heard otherwise to make a contract "legal."

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. :-) ***
  #28  
Old April 6th 04, 01:20 AM
Nick Zentena
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?

Lewis Lang wrote:


Where in copyright law or elsewhere in the law does it state that a contract
must be a bilateral agreement in order to be legally enforcable? Isn't a
unilateral contract also enforcable? WHy does something have to be in exchange
for something else. A contract is merely an agreement, that's all, whether
something is exchanged is besides the point - though few people will sign



Part of the legal defination of a contract is that something is exchanged.
You'll see contracts that have $1 going to one party just to prove something
has been exchanged.

things without getting something in return, those that would sign a contract
(ie. a modle release) (perhaps a friend or a relative would be more likely to
sign w/o getting somthing in return than a total stranger or a client) have
given their right and permission for their likeness to be used whether there is
something in exchange (valuable consideration) or not. It is till a legal



Did the model get paid? Did the model get prints? Did the model get to
learn how to be a model?

Nick
  #29  
Old April 6th 04, 04:31 AM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?

Lewis Lang writes:

Isn't a unilateral contract also enforcable?


By definition, a contract is never unilateral, as it is an agreement
between two parties. A license, however, can be unilateral: you can
grant a license to your photo to anyone without requiring anything in
exchange, if you wish.

WHy does something have to be in exchange
for something else. A contract is merely an agreement, that's all, whether
something is exchanged is besides the point ...


All contracts must involve some sort of exchange. One person pays, the
other delivers goods or services, etc.

... those that would sign a contract
(ie. a modle release) (perhaps a friend or a relative would be more likely to
sign w/o getting somthing in return than a total stranger or a client) have
given their right and permission for their likeness to be used whether there is
something in exchange (valuable consideration) or not.


Not quite. It's a contract if the model is paid or compensated in some
way. Otherwise it's not. If a model isn't paid, he or she can rescind
the release at will, within limits (if the model withdraws permission
retroactively, it may be possible to recover the costs of doing so from
him or her). Photographers can avoid this by always providing something
in exchange for a release, such as a print or a scan, or money.

It is till a legal
agreement I beleive the same may apply for a witness, that a witness is not
needed, despite what one may have heard otherwise to make a contract "legal."


A witness is not needed in general, although some jurisdictions require
them for certain types of contracts.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  #30  
Old April 6th 04, 06:00 AM
Marc 182
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Do you guys sell the negative or jpg file to customer?

In article ,
ospam says...
BIG SNIPS

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.


Where in copyright law or elsewhere in the law does it state that a contract
must be a bilateral agreement in order to be legally enforcable?


It's not copyright law, it's contract law.

Isn't a unilateral contract also enforcable?


A unilateral "contract" is not a contract and isn't enforceable because
it doesn't exist.

WHy does something have to be in exchange
for something else.


Because that's the law.

A contract is merely an agreement, that's all, whether
something is exchanged is besides the point - though few people will sign
things without getting something in return, those that would sign a contract
(ie. a modle release) (perhaps a friend or a relative would be more likely to
sign w/o getting somthing in return than a total stranger or a client) have
given their right and permission for their likeness to be used whether there is
something in exchange (valuable consideration) or not.


Simply not true. A mere agreement is not a contract and is generally not
enforceable. There are exceptions for things like if "reliance" on the
agreement can be demonstrated, but that's starting to stray.

It is till a legal
agreement I beleive the same may apply for a witness, that a witness is not
needed, despite what one may have heard otherwise to make a contract "legal."


No witness is required for a contract to be formed, but they come in
darn handy in verbal contracts and other dodgy legal situations.

Mark
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 07:37 PM
B&H has the worst customer service on the planet. Stephen H. Westin Medium Format Photography Equipment 10 February 3rd 04 09:46 PM
B&H Photo has horrible customer service... generic eric Medium Format Photography Equipment 13 January 31st 04 10:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.