Digital Negative Question

[at1212b]

Hello all!

New member here and first time posting

I was wondering if the experts can help me with a question.

I got married late summer and just got my photo dvds from the photographer. One DVD is the edited version.

The second DVD is labelled 'Digital Negatives'. The pictures in there are in jpg format. Question is, should they be in another format (DNG)? The pictures look pretty much the same, except for the ones that are in black and white. I had thought they were supposed to be original photos without any appearance of touch up or editing, as they are meant to be touched up or edited by the user as desired.

Thanks!

 

[Ryan L]

Could have shot in jpg...or maybe he didnt want to give you the raw files. I wont give up my raw files, I dont even like to give images on CD period. But if I do they are usually limited to a print size of 4x6. So the jpg's on the negative CD are probably just unedited jpg's.

 

[at1212b]

Ahh, I got it.

Thanks for the quick reply!

 

[ann]

Interesting that he would use the term "digital negative" as there is a process that uses a digital negative for alternative processes and certainly can be mis-leading.

I for one, thought the question was going to be about how to make a digital negative, or something along those lines. Certainly not your fault as your using the term he used.

 

[MLeeK]

A photographer with any knowledge wouldn't give the raw images out and certainly won't give out the right to edit their work.

 

[creisinger]

A photographer with any knowledge wouldn't give the raw images out and certainly won't give out the right to edit their work.

Hmm, I'd say that would be a matter of contract negotiation. For $250,000 I'd hand over the RAWs of a wedding in a heartbeat. For $5,000? No way.

JPGs are not negatives. They should have been labeled unedited versions but certainly not "digital negatives".

 

[KmH]

Raw files aren't images until they are converted to some other file type, be it JPEG, TIFF, PSD, PNG, or any of the others.

DNG is an open source Raw file type. There are over 100 Raw file types. Nikon uses NEF, Canon uses CR2, etc.

Be careful. From a legal perspective you need written permission (a use license) to edit someone elses copyrighted photographs, so be sure such is included in the contract.

 

[MTVision]

Raw files aren't images until they are converted to some other file type, be it JPEG, TIFF, PSD, PNG, or any of the others.

DNG is an open source Raw file type. There are over 100 Raw file types. Nikon uses NEF, Canon uses CR2, etc.

Be careful. From a legal perspective you need written permission (a use license) to edit someone elses copyrighted photographs, so be sure such is included in the contract.

Doesn't the OP own the copyright? I thought that when you paid for the services and pictures you became the copyright owner - the OP's profile says she is from Canada.

 

[Ryan L]

The question now is did you get a release form to use them anyway?

 

[MTVision]

The question now is did you get a release form to use them anyway?

But in Canada I'm pretty sure the OP owns the copyright anyways so they wouldn't need a release form right?

 

[creisinger]

The question now is did you get a release form to use them anyway?

Please elaborate your statement. I'm not in the wedding photography business but from what I understand the photographer handed out a CD/DVD with pics from the wedding to the couple.

Unless specific contractual agreements have been made, the couple can do anything with those pictures as they please except claiming copyright or pursue commercial gain from the images. Other than that, they can print the pics and hand them out as often as they like.

Sounds like a work for hire situation where the couple is hiring the photographer. Naturally the couple is having the wedding covered by a professional photographer to get photos from it. Also, obviously the photos will be used by the couple for family albums, framed pictures, photo books, t-shirts etc. Those photos will be used for personal use (usually speaking) and not for opening a gift shop selling the shots to the relatives and the open public (of course that would be a no-no).

Having to license the images afterwards additionally for personal use would put me out of business if my clients had to sign that clause. Doesn't make any sense.

What other purpose is there in handing out a CD/DVD then...?

 

[MTVision]

Section 13(2) of the Canadian Copyright Act states that the copyright owner is the one who commissions and pays for the ìengraving, photograph or portrait. In other words, provided a client or buyer commissions the production of a photograph and pays for such a work, the client/buyer automatically holds the copyright on the photograph and/or ìengraving - not the photographer or person who created the ìengraving - unless the buyer and photographer/creator have an agreement to the contrary. The Copyright Act applies this provision to a ìportrait or ìother original created on a commission basis, but doesn't specifically define what types of commissioned illustrations this includes..

The person who paid to have the pictures done is the copyright owner unless the photographer and buyer have an agreement stating otherwise.

 

[Ryan L]

@Megan, I didnt know that about canada. Learn something new everyday.

creisinger, Personally the reason I dont like to give out a CD is I would rather use a quality print lab, that I have calibrated for. I do not want Joe Smo using Walmarts great super printer of crap to be an example of my work. Just because you have the CD, in the US the copyright is still held by the photographer. They "shouldnt" be able to take them anywhere and have them printed without a copyright release, this isnt always the case, but the lab can be sued for damages if they knowingly print without it.

 

[Big Mike]

The question now is did you get a release form to use them anyway?

Please elaborate your statement. I'm not in the wedding photography business but from what I understand the photographer handed out a CD/DVD with pics from the wedding to the couple.

Unless specific contractual agreements have been made, the couple can do anything with those pictures as they please except claiming copyright or pursue commercial gain from the images. Other than that, they can print the pics and hand them out as often as they like.

Sounds like a work for hire situation where the couple is hiring the photographer. Naturally the couple is having the wedding covered by a professional photographer to get photos from it. Also, obviously the photos will be used by the couple for family albums, framed pictures, photo books, t-shirts etc. Those photos will be used for personal use (usually speaking) and not for opening a gift shop selling the shots to the relatives and the open public (of course that would be a no-no).

Having to license the images afterwards additionally for personal use would put me out of business if my clients had to sign that clause. Doesn't make any sense.

What other purpose is there in handing out a CD/DVD then...?

In the US, even if a photographer gives digital files to a client, the client does not have the right to make copies (including prints) of those images (unless stated in a contract).
So what purpose is that? Well, I guess it would be so the could view the images on a computer/TV etc. Maybe it's just for proofing/ordering prints etc.
But realistically, you're right. Most times that a photographer hands over a disc of digital image files...it's so the clients can make their own prints. So in that case, the photographer is allowing them limited copyright privileges. That should be spelled out in a contract. I also include a signed letter that they can show to a lab when they go to make prints.

Megan is correct, that in Canada, the law says that the party that commissions (pays for) the art work, is who owes the copyright...unless stated otherwise in the contract, of course.

So back to the original question about digital negatives. It was probably just loose wording. They may have just included is so that you have color copies of the images that are in B&W etc.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Section 13(2) of the Canadian Copyright Act states that the copyright owner is the one who commissions and pays for the ìengraving, photograph or portrait. In other words, provided a client or buyer commissions the production of a photograph and pays for such a work, the client/buyer automatically holds the copyright on the photograph and/or ìengraving - not the photographer or person who created the ìengraving - unless the buyer and photographer/creator have an agreement to the contrary. The Copyright Act applies this provision to a ìportrait or ìother original created on a commission basis, but doesn't specifically define what types of commissioned illustrations this includes..

The person who paid to have the pictures done is the copyright owner unless the photographer and buyer have an agreement stating otherwise.

You have to look at legal cases though. I am not sure on Canadian Law, but in U.S. Law, there is criteria to determine what is "work for hire" and what is not. Depending on whether the person is an employee, or an independent contractor. A wedding photographer would be the latter. For independent contractors, it must be specified within the contract that this is "work for hire." If it does not, then the contractor retains copyright for all work created. You have to look at what makes someone an "employee" as well. In the US, this has been determined through previous court cases, as I am sure could be found in Canada as well and could help to strengthen or defeat a claim of work for hire.

In the US, a few factors in order to be considered an employer/employee relationship consists of some of the following:



1 Control by the employer over the work (e.g., the employer
may determine how the work is done, has the work done
at the employer’s location, and provides equipment or
other means to create work)

2 Control by employer over the employee (e.g., the employer
controls the employee’s schedule in creating work, has the
right to have the employee perform other assignments,
determines the method of payment, and/or has the right
to hire the employee’s assistants)

3 Status and conduct of employer (e.g., the employer is in
business to produce such works, provides the employee
with benefits, and/or withholds tax from the employee’s
payment


This does not apply to a wedding photographer. They do not have benefits or taxes witheld. THEY determine payment methods not the client. The client has limited control over the photographers creative input, gear, assistants etc. Nor does the client provide any type of gear to complete the job.