Copyright Quetsion

[Marshall21]

I am not avoiding. I wanted to find out what is the copyright law says, if anyone knew.

And also I wanted advice and input of photographers in order to get a sense what is right thing for me to do.

And thank you again for your feedback

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

The right thing to do is just forget about it, and move on.

Next time get a contract which specifically states how you can use the images. YOU have to be honest and forthright with your usage and intentions as well, or you could be the one in trouble

Sounds to me like you might have been scamming the photographer.

 

[bigtwinky]

There are always two sides to a story, good call Bitter.

 

[Marshall21]

By paying upfront in good faith, and stating that I wanted images for my website upfront, and I wanted many images not only 6, is not a scam.

I did not take money from anyone, nor I promised something I could not deliver.

And for my work ethic, I always try to do a good job in anything I do if I agreed to the job, no matter how much I am payed.

I agree there are always two sides of the story. But I was trying to analyze the situation and see what is right and what is wrong.

I do want to do the right thing to all the parties involved.

But you cannot accuse me without being there and rush to conclusion.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Okely dokely.

 

[e.rose]

But you cannot accuse me without being there and rush to conclusion.

I don't think anyone was rushing to any conclusion either way. It was stated that there are two sides to every story and it was stated several times over that we can't tell you what to do without seeing the "contract" or having been there.

And I can't speak for everyone else when I say this, but what *I'M* seeing (especially with your repeated statements of the fact that you're an indie artist) is a musician who expects to pay rent for a single room and then get the whole house.

I wish that my previous account hadn't been accidentally wiped, or I would link you to a thread I started that sounds extremely similar to your situation. But since that's not possible, I'll try to summarize...

One of the people my husband plays with is *also* an indie artist.

A few weeks ago he hired a photographer to shoot a show for him, so that he too, could use the images for his Facebook/Myspace/Possible CD art. Knowing that I am a music photographer as well, the indie artist messaged me with this:

"I am trying to work out prices with [the photographer] for each photo. Just curious- what do you charge per photo/ per hour/ per session? I have nothing to compare too."

I gave him a quick rundown of how I do things that basically came down to "it depends", and then ended my reply with, "If you want to let me know what he's offering you, I can give you my opinion on whether or not it seems like a fair rate, but other than that, I personally, don't really have a *set* rate. Like I said, I give quotes based on the information surrounding the shoot."

His response:

"He said that normally for a shoot like the one he did Friday night, which was basically an hour, he said that he would charge $850.00 however since we're friends, he would charge by the picture and he quoted me at 1-10 pics= $15 each. 10-20 pics= $12 each. 20+ = $10 each. He borrowed the gear from work so it didn't cost him anything. My other professional photographer friend told me that he was way too high at the $850 quote and that the price per pics is too much considering the band only made $100 for the show. My photographer friend has shot me 2 or 3 times before and has given me high-res jpegs on a dvd. Usually he does about 200 pics and charges a flat rate. About $175.00 for an hour of work and all the pics. I think that is reasonable. I am probably going to talk with [the photographer] and see if we can work out a reasonable flat rate. Like I said, he did do a really nice job with the photos. Let me know your opinion."

At this point, I realized that he was trying to short-change the photographer, because he, like you, felt that he was too expensive for "just a couple of shots". He even threw out the fact that he "only made $100 for the show"... like you kept throwing out the fact that you're "just an indie musician".

Here's my response to *that*:

He may not have bought the gear, but processing the photos certainly takes some time. If he shot them in RAW, and I'm assuming he did, he can't just upload the pictures and hand them over. That would be like handing you undeveloped film negatives, which would be useless to you, haha. He would need to, at the very least, do basic processing... and then of course if he decided to get artistic with it, that takes even more time.

Here's my thinking:

He's not charging you the $850, so you shouldn't even worry about that.

His pricing per photo is really honestly not that bad. What you have to do is consider what you're going to be using the photos for. Are you trying to use them for a website? Promotional materials? Album art? What you need to do is figure that out and select photos that compliment the medium that you're buying them for.

Honestly, you're never going to use 200 photos of the band from that night, haha. At best I could see you maybe using 10 to 20, but above that, what are you really going to do with them?

I would say pick out the photos that you really like and as many as you can afford, and then find out if he's going to hang onto the rest so that you can buy more later if you decide that you need them for whatever reason.

On another note... why on *Earth* didn't you guys discuss pricing before hand? Haha...

There honestly shouldn't be any discussion happening at this point, after the shoot has been done. That should have happened before [the photographer] even stepped foot into that bar so that you guys were on the same page and wouldn't have to worry about haggling with each other after the fact.

I *never*. Never ever. Do a shoot for someone - not even family... no matter if I'm offering a discount or not - without a contract. AT THE VERY LEAST, without making sure everyone understands what the pricing and terms of usage is.

The only time I shoot without one is If I shoot a show on my own (like going to a bar or club randomly, to shoot a band that I've probably never met before) for my portfolio. And that's ONLY because I have no obligation to that band. If they want the photos, that's fine, and they can buy them if they so choose to do so, but that is the *only* time I do that.

If someone tries to *hire* me for a shoot and this stuff isn't squared away by the time the shoot is supposed to happen, I won't even pick up my camera until it is.

So lesson learned (on both ends, I'm sure, haha), but again, in my opinion, his "per photo" pricing isn't that bad.

What you also have to understand is that your [photographer friend that you're comparing the one that did your shoot to] isn't charging for just an hour of work, unless he's shooting in JPEG and not doing any processing to them what so ever. It might take him an hour to *shoot*... but there's a lot more behind the scenes work that has to happen, which means more time put in.

You're going to find *a lot* of photographers varying when it comes to shooting bands/musicians. Some kids out there will charge $50.00 for a few hours of shooting, and unlimited high res photos. ...but you're also most likely getting $50 worth of work.

I know some photographers that won't get out of bed for less than $500 and that's just *to shoot*. That's not even including the finished images.

So the photographer's $850 could very well be his total rate which might include the rate he will shoot a show at plus a flat rate for the images.

I'm not saying that's what it *is*, because I don't know for sure, but that would be my guess.

I *do* know that Faded Fortune paid $800 for their promo shoot before Keith was in the band and they got 5 images out of that. 1 group shot and 4 individual band member shots.

I realize that you guys only made $100 that night, but most photographers aren't going to base their rates on what the bands who want to hire them are making.

If you want to buy a new guitar that's priced at $2,000, and you walk into Guitar Center and tell them that you only made $300 for the week, they're not just going to drop the price of the guitar to $300 for you, because that's all you made, know what I mean? So I wouldn't base your judgement on his rates on that.

I bolded the points that I feel apply to your situation as well.

If you're (general you... not YOU, you) not making the big bucks as an indie artist... but you want to hire a photographer that charges big bucks... I guess you better start saving your pennies... or hire some kid for $50 who is going to give you mediocre work, and a headache as far as copyrights and usage goes...

There's a lesson to be learned from your experience, and I hope you take it to heart.

*Anyone* working within the arts, whether it be musician, photographer, dancer, fine artist, is working their ass off to make a living doing something that they love... there's no reason for one to try and short-change the other, just because they're "not making enough yet".

That being said... good luck with your situation, but I agree... I would count your losses and be more mindful the next time you hire a photographer.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

You get what you pay for.

What erose's husband paid would not even cover the shoot in my studio. Not to say that there are not decent and cheaper photogs out there but what you paid is very little...

On the other hand, ever heard of not paying (at least not the full amount) until the job is done and the product delivered? Although it does sound to me like it was except, maybe, for the amount of shooting time.

The studio being in a living room is no surprise. I maintain an actual full time studio space and it costs a lot of money which is why you would pay me a lot more. Clients pay my bills, that's the way the world works, and what you paid would not allow me to keep a studio.

The fact that you're an indie means nothing at all. Com'on, an indie artist is just one who is not making the big bucks yet. Everyone is an indie until they make it

 

[KmH]

I wanted to find out what is the copyright law says, if anyone knew.

You never actually asked a copyright question.

Your profile doesn't indicate where you are on planet Earth.

Like all laws, Copyright law specifics vary by country.

In the US copyright law is Title 17 USC (United States Code) and has it's own web site www.copyright.gov.

Profiting is not required to commit copyright infringement, and applies to music too.

It sounds like you may have a civil case for breach of contract.