Frame-Border on digital photos

[alang399]

Hello everyone, just here to ask for some help if you wouldn't mind. The digital photo files we got from our photographer all have a large black Frame or Border around them that when printing or ordering prints in different sizes requires alot of cropping because the frame doesn't stay proportionate with the varying aspect ratios. In fact, in many cases where the print is going in a physical frame we don't want a black frame on the print showing inside the physical frame itself so we have to crop the entire thing out. This is very time consuming to order prints. I asked our photographer if we could get copies of all our pictures without the frame and they said no, that it contained there digital signature?? Our contract was for full rights to the photos and we had never discussed putting this frame on, they didn't tell us it would be done.
My real question is.... Is it common for professional photographers to supply the photos is such a manner with the frame. Also, does her comment about digital signature make sense?
Thank you all

 

[Josh66]

I don't know how common it is, but I would never do it.

Adding a 'frame' is common for web display, but I would never deliver files that were meant to be printed like that.

The comment about the digital signature makes me think that either the photographer doesn't know anything, or they're hoping you don't. Either way, it's not good.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

edit
Unless by digital signature, they mean their watermark. Which is another thing I would never do - watermark images that were being delivered to a client for printing. If I wanted my name on it, I would print it myself and sign the back of it. I'm sure not everyone does that though...

 

[The_Traveler]

What is the wording of the paragraph in your contract about rights?
and where are you?

 

[KmH]

+1 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑.

If these are retail photos, not commercial photos, it's likely all you get is the right to make prints, and prints only for personal use at that.

Her comment about digital signature makes no sense, because you are cropping that signature away.
There are other ways to add a digital signature to a photograph, or to the image metadata.

 

[alang399]

"Client has full reproduction rights to images and may print them at the photo studio of their choice, with no restrictions."

I am in Wisconsin.

There is also a section that states they will make up to 50 edits to their client preference.

There is nothing in the contract about a digital signature or a water mark, only what she emailed back when i asked if she could remove the frame. And yes, she did call it a Watermark Also.

I know I'm asking the photographers to talk dirt on one of their own, I can understand, but I am going to court in a few days and looking for a best practice in your field that professionals would follow. This is just one item from a long list of issues with her, to be short she ripped off several people last year. I have only received a small portion of photos I had to download and never got them all or any of the product (prints, albums.....) that was all part of the package. She took her website down after she pissed everyone off last year and stopped all communication with many clients she still owes alot to. Long story

Anyway, do most professionals give their clients their digital photos with a large black frame around them knowing the client will be making prints themself and have to deal with the frame?

Thank you

 

[The_Traveler]

Since I am not a lawyer I can't give legal advice but it seems to me that the issue will depend on whether she delivered what she promised to deliver in the contract.

 

[KmH]

Like Lew, I am not a lawyer.
Watermarking images is indeed a common retail photography industry practice.
That does not mean every photographer does it, just that it is common. Particularly by photographers still fairly new to the business of doing retail photography.
Watermarking is intended to serve 2 purposes: 1. Copyright infringement prevention. 2. Advertising

Note that with few exceptions products have graphics that identify the product maker.

For a long time here in the US, federal copyright law required a copyright notice (watermark) be added to photographs to establish copyright ownership.
So historically adding image copyright ownership information to an image was more common than it is today.
US copyright law eliminated the need to add a copyright ownership statement directly to images with the Copyright Act of 1976, but today theft of images from the Internet is rampant. Though a watermark is usually really easy to remove from a digital photo using image editing software, many photographer still use a watermark as advertising/name recognition, and as a deterrent to image theft (infringement).
By the way, removing a watermark by cropping it away or otherwise editing the watermark without the expressed permission of the copyright owner is one indication attorneys use in infringement cases to demonstrate an infringement was 'willful'. Willful infringement allows the court to grant larger statututory damage awards.

I embossed a foil logo onto prints I sold, and I watermarked low resolution digital image files intended for online personal use delivered on a disc.
I also hand signed my fine art prints.