we should all work for free

[dEARlEADER]

I get that you're trying to be sarcastic, but what is this in reference to?

Are you asking this sarcastically??

 

[table1349]

Almost European humour

Minus the naked or mostly naked bodies, silly uniforms, excessively loud voices, 10 year behind the times props and prat falls and the obvioulsy more open attitutde about many things.

God I miss living in Germany and european television. Here were to busy with silly stuff like Sex in the City and CSI. There they have gameshows where the contestants strip if they loose, and the thought that if it is life it can be shown on television.

 

[MarcusM]

Are you asking this sarcastically??

Nope - I got the joke, I just didn't think it was funny but that could be because I don't know what he is referring to.

 

[saltface]

I get that you're trying to be sarcastic, but what is this in reference to?

Actually I was being completely serious. It seems they don't catch sarcastic humor at all.

...I dunno. Just ignore me...

 

[mrodgers]

I don't know anything about anything, but I will say that I could be one of those people who would say "why can't I, it's mine" about the whole scanning the photos thing. imho, it seems rediculous for any photo studio or photographer to withhold rights to prints which someone paid money for, which are of themselves, family, or personal events. I'm totally ignorant on how it works but I see lots of peeps discussing it on here. Do photographers or studios really expect people to find them YEARS after the fact? That seems unreasonable if it is the case. When it comes to photos an individual has commissioned I would think the rights to those photos would lie with the person who commissioned them and PAID for them.

Yup, I agree and have stated that in other threads since I've been here.

You go to a photographer and want your picture taken. You pay money and the photographer takes your picture. What do you get for that money? Absolutely nothing. You have just paid someone to allow them to take your photo and that is all.

Now they want you to pay for prints, at 400 times what it actually costs to have them printed. That is judged on the fact that you would probably pay $20 for an 8x10 print and it only cost $2 for the actual print.

It would be like going to a car dealer and paying for a car. But, before you can actually drive it, you have to pay for each of the miles you want to drive before you leave with it.

Somehow all this copyright stuff messed things up. If you pay for a product, you should recieve that product and be able to do anything you want for that product. As it is now, you pay and you recieve nothing. Then if you actually want a product, you pay again.

And is it disclosed to people at the time of purchase that they have no right to do with their prints as they please?

No, not exactly as you state it here. But there will be something that you sign that states the photographer holds exclusive rights to the images.


Oh, and about the wedding photographer stuff that is being discussed.... Whether it is sarcasm or not, screw the photographer. He is charging you an arm and a leg for his wedding photography, I say charge him for the food as well as for being able to listen to the music that you have hired. There he is charging you out the a$$ and he gets free food. "Oh, thank you for making me bankrupt for the start of my marriage, here, have some wonderful food that I've paid for as well..."

 

[dEARlEADER]

Yup, I agree and have stated that in other threads since I've been here.

You go to a photographer and want your picture taken. You pay money and the photographer takes your picture. What do you get for that money? Absolutely nothing. You have just paid someone to allow them to take your photo and that is all.

Now they want you to pay for prints, at 400 times what it actually costs to have them printed. That is judged on the fact that you would probably pay $20 for an 8x10 print and it only cost $2 for the actual print.

It would be like going to a car dealer and paying for a car. But, before you can actually drive it, you have to pay for each of the miles you want to drive before you leave with it.

Somehow all this copyright stuff messed things up. If you pay for a product, you should recieve that product and be able to do anything you want for that product. As it is now, you pay and you recieve nothing. Then if you actually want a product, you pay again.


No, not exactly as you state it here. But there will be something that you sign that states the photographer holds exclusive rights to the images.


Oh, and about the wedding photographer stuff that is being discussed.... Whether it is sarcasm or not, screw the photographer. He is charging you an arm and a leg for his wedding photography, I say charge him for the food as well as for being able to listen to the music that you have hired. There he is charging you out the a$$ and he gets free food. "Oh, thank you for making me bankrupt for the start of my marriage, here, have some wonderful food that I've paid for as well..."

You hit the nail right on the head..... I agree with this post in general... except for the first six paragraphs....:lmao:

 

[tempra]

It would be like going to a car dealer and paying for a car. But, before you can actually drive it, you have to pay for each of the miles you want to drive before you leave with it.

Not quite, you can use it for as long as you want, but you can't legally make a copy of it as it falls under the copyright law

Oh, and about the wedding photographer stuff that is being discussed.... Whether it is sarcasm or not, screw the photographer. He is charging you an arm and a leg for his wedding photography, I say charge him for the food as well as for being able to listen to the music that you have hired. There he is charging you out the a$$ and he gets free food. "Oh, thank you for making me bankrupt for the start of my marriage, here, have some wonderful food that I've paid for as well..."

Paying an arm and a leg for a wedding photog is choice - you don't have to. In fact you don't have to get married - saves a hell of a lot of cash. The choice is yours really.

People pay $5k for a dress that they will wear once, and baulk at half of that price for things they will use forever - I know where I'd put my money - and it wouldn't be in either of them!

 

[tempra]

Now they want you to pay for prints, at 400 times what it actually costs to have them printed. That is judged on the fact that you would probably pay $20 for an 8x10 print and it only cost $2 for the actual print.

...erm, want to borrow a calculator?

 

[(Ghastly) Krueger]

In may case, I got a couple of CDs with full res pictures. I can do whatever I want with them.

It all depends on what both parties agree when signing a contract.

 

[Overread]

People don't understand what they are paying for when they buy prints from photographer.

I wonder who's fault that is?
The customer - well they are ignorant that is a given fact in most cases
The photographer - 2 groups here:
1) Wants to be able to not only get the funds from taking the shot but also from printing the shot - rather than have walmart do it

2) Ignorant of the ignorance of his customers

Personally I think it is the responsibility of the photographer to make sure that the customer knows exactly what they are buying when they ask for a shoot - to do otherwise in my eyes is deceit

 

[MarcusM]

Yup, I agree and have stated that in other threads since I've been here.

You go to a photographer and want your picture taken. You pay money and the photographer takes your picture. What do you get for that money? Absolutely nothing. You have just paid someone to allow them to take your photo and that is all.

Not all the time. It all depends on the photographer/studio. Some have package deals which include the price for sitting and prints that are included. You just need to read the details on the ad, brochure or agreement for the package.

Now they want you to pay for prints, at 400 times what it actually costs to have them printed. That is judged on the fact that you would probably pay $20 for an 8x10 print and it only cost $2 for the actual print.

Oh, and about the wedding photographer stuff that is being discussed.... Whether it is sarcasm or not, screw the photographer. He is charging you an arm and a leg for his wedding photography, I say charge him for the food as well as for being able to listen to the music that you have hired. There he is charging you out the a$$ and he gets free food. "Oh, thank you for making me bankrupt for the start of my marriage, here, have some wonderful food that I've paid for as well..."

Let me just preface this by stating I am not a professional so by no means am I trying to convey that I know what it takes to be a pro - but I have been a photographer for many years and I know what it takes to start working your way up to even thinking about trying to become a pro.

You seem to have absolutely no concept of the actual amount of work that goes into photography. I have seen your continuous rants on the forums about how photographers screw everyone out of their money. If I'm not mistaken, you said you have a p&s camera. Once you move into the realm of SLRs, everything changes. It has taken me years to acquire the limited amount of equipment I currently have - one 4-year old DSLR, two average quality lenses, one external flash, one tripod and other small miscellaneous accessories. Not to mention the countless hours of reading, researching, actual shooting for experience/learning, it has taken me to be able to produce the results I want to be able to produce.

Why do you think there is a markup on prints? Besides, from your own figures $20 is 10 times $2, not 400. How much post processing have you done? It can take a considerable amount of time to fine-tune the photograph depending on the intended outcome.

I guess I don't understand why you would come on to a photography forum and constantly complain about the prices photographers charge. Just don't buy them then. Take your photos with your P&S camera and see how they compare.

 

[Judge Sharpe]

The question of who ownes the rights to a photograph should be settled before the first pixel is - I don't know- exposed? If it were a book that you bought, you have certain rights to copy portions for "fair use." You can use those for your self, for educational purposes, but you can not copy the whole thing and sell it or even give it to a friend. You can read it aloud to your baby, but not on the radio. Music is another problem. You can buy and listen to any record (that shows my age) and make a copy for you own use- you can not use it in a commercial way or share copies recordings. Even the use of a radio broadcast as background music with out a license is "illegal."
So what do you pay for when you pay to have a picture made?
The expertise of the photographer number one- the use of his time talent and equipment number two, the care he takes in producing the image be it from film or digital, number three, and finally the image itself. I feel that once you have paid for the image, it is yours and you are licenced to fair use of it. That does not mean making 100 copies for your friends and family. Or selling the image because Brittney Paris is in there as a guest.
After a time copyrights run out and it is fair game for what ever you want to do.
If the owner of the copyright goes out of business, you should be able to make the copies you need - want- without a problem. If he destroys the image, then in all fairness he should allow you to make the copies needed.
The photographer, wedding or not, should remember that he is a professional, and he should act that way and treat his customers as such. He is after all selling a service and the quickest way to fail is to act like a smuck.
After a few years, how often do you look at that $1000.00 wedding album anyway?
As for shooting at events, you should clear it with who ever is putting on the event, especially if you are expecting to make money from it. You are a licencee of the producer and should follow his rules. Have an understanding up front, like agreeing to sell pictures to him at a discount for the privilege of shooting in his venue. Otherwise you are liable to find your self outside with your camera around you neck and nothing to shoot.
Judge Sharpe

 

[Overread]

copyrights run out

I think copyright (from the moment the shutter is pressed) lasted till death+70 years after. So you will long be dead before your family photo is free grabs (least in the UK that is the law).
Further copywrite is the property of the creator (photographer) until he signs over the rights.

 

[usayit]

Folks.. its simple...

If you want the rights to negatives and or full res originals, you simply find a photographer providing that service and choose them. Be prepared to pay for it though....
* this is similar to purchasing the source code to a software product. It costs some serious capital but the ownership allows complete access and rights.

If you don't want to spend that type of cash, you have to agree to the terms set forth by photographer. Meaning they are selling time and services. Often the time already includes a set of prints and album for the bride and groom. Extra prints are sold extra.
* This is like purchasing a single license to a software application. You have the right to use it for a single computer as per the terms agreed upon. No rights allowed for modification or duplication.

Anything beyond the terms agreed on is considered a violation and duplicates of those photos is considered STEALING... PERIOD NO IF's ANDs or BUTs. If you can't agree to the conditions of the photographer simply move on. If you proceed to duplicate/steal just because you don't agree with the conditions, then you are just plain stupid for signing them and stealing just like any common lowly thief.

it is black and white... I can't even believe this is a debate on a photography forum.


Purchasing negatives and time is exactly what my wife and I did during our wedding. i own the negatives after processing. It was an agreement between the photographer and us. Some photographers will even work in a time expiration in which the originals will be turned over to you after a certain number of years OR if the photographer is closing shop.

 

[dEARlEADER]

ahem.... I stole this thread for some light friday satirical humour...... if you all want to be serious I suggest you skip on over to the beginners section to shred noob's, or find yourself a "photographers rights" thread to chew on.....