Rights To Photo?

[MarcusM]

That's because the photographer is the one who spent hundreds of hours learning how to take a photo worthy of being enlarged. He also probably charges 3 times as much because he's printing them at a pro photo lab rather than kinko's, that way his pictures look there best when people hang them.

Great points, not to mention, the amount of money invested into professional gear usually over a long span of time (as a couple other people touched on)

It's funny how some people have this attitude like "I can't believe the ridiculous prices photographers charge"... it's almost like they think we just simply buy a camera and press a button. So then why do people come to photographers to get photos taken? Why don't they just take them themselves?

They simply do not understand the financial and time investment that we go through in order to be able to take great photos.

 

[azruial]

Wow guys, way to tear someone down...
I know that it is offensive the way so many people write off photographer's work as worthless when they go to get an enlargement on their own, and I of course find it infuriating as well, but here we have someone who is actually taking the time to find out what his/her rights really are. TinMan is simply ignorant on the subject, and wants to educate himself. Intellectual property rights are a very confusing branch of the law, and anyone who isn't an artist probably doesn't understand those laws as well as we do.

Honestly, thousands of people are at Kinko's the second they get the print without a thought of intellectual property rights even crossing into their air-filled heads. TinMan gets props from me for doing the RIGHT thing here by finding out what his/her rights actually are before doing something illegal and mean. Thank you for coming here to learn, and for not stealing, TinMan.

 

[MX962]

Tinman have you asked him/her if you can just buy a photo CD from the event no prints ? most will offer you this

 

[tinman1412]

I'm ok with all the comments thus far. I think I should have done a better job of rephrasing the question and not make it so ambigous. Azruial, you're right, I am a newbie to this subject matter. My original post was my first on this website, because I took the time to research and luckily found this forum. I respect all professionals (photographers, artist, videographers, etc..) and the work they do. I'm a professional myself.

I honestly do not know why photographers have such a huge markup when it comes to enlargements, frames, etc.. If there was an even balance somewhere it would be a no brainer for me and I would have done the enlargement with my photographer. $300 versus $1000 is a good chunk of money. I've already paid $5000 to my photographer for the wedding day, but sometimes I get the feeling that they're just "milking" us for more money.

Anyway, my photographer is a great guy and if money was a non-factor, we would not have this discussion.

Thanks all

 

[astrostu]

Your latest post still used present tense, so I'll try to summarize:

Factors Influencing a Photographer's Prices

• Experience - just like any other field, you charge more if you have more experience because that usually means the end product will be better.
• Equipment - photography equipment is very expensive, and most photographers have 2 sets of it as backup. For example, a good lens costs over $1000, a professional camera body $2-5k.
• Time - besides the wedding day, a photographer probably spends anywhere from 2-20 minutes per photograph in processing in getting it to look just right, fixing lighting, a stray hair, a wrinkle, etc.
• Cost of any assistants.
• Costs of running a business. This includes gas to get to/from the wedding, utilities at the place of business, insurance, office supplies, and everything else you put on a Schedule C for the IRS.
• Cost of materials - besides equipment, the photographer has to pay for prints. As with any other field, standard mark-up for a sustaining business is around 5x.

Take the last bullet point and add into that everything mentioned above, and you get a price for a photograph that, admittedly, will seem much MUCH higher than what you'd pay to print one yourself.


What Rights YOU (the client) Have

Unless explicitly stated otherwise in the contract, pretty much none. As with any other "art," the artist retains all copyrights and reproduction rights to the photographs. Hence, unless otherwise stated in the contract, legally you cannot duplicate any photographs you are sold by the photographer.

Now-a-days, many younger wedding photographers will allow you to purchase limited rights to the photographs to duplicate yourself as you wish - such as by selling you a CD with the "digital negatives." But again, unless this is stated in the photography contract, you do not have this right (even though, yes, it is "your face," etc., it is still the photographer's art). Most "old-school" wedding photographers will not do this because most of their money is actually made from the ordering of prints by parents, bridesmaids, etc. Hence, they would price their initial package low, under the assumption they would make money on prints. Thus, if your photographer does let you buy rights to duplicate photos, it may not come cheap.

If money's an issue, you can try to strike a deal with the photographer - such as promise to buy x amount of enlargements and get a bulk discount - but really you're bound by the contract. Also, just buy the photos - don't buy the frames, albums, etc., as that you can put together yourself once you have the photographs.

I hope this clarifies things for you, and why photographers resent the idea of people copying their photos. If you're still uncertain, re-read my bulleted list above and just think about the costs, and remember that the photographer has to make a living.

 

[Battou]

Battou,

Do I just ask the photographer to "release" the photo. For just 1 image, what should I expect to pay

I am merely a low level copyright infringment investigater in the private sector. I am not a wedding photographer.

In theroy you could ask, but the odds of having it granted are slim to none, This is something that should have been negotiated pre - contract signing.

If I where a wedding photographer I would concider it, however the price tag would be very high for several reasons. First as compensation, second to thin out prospects to those who believe it to be worth it and can afford it. In short they are going to have to be able to afford any potential processes before they can have the ability to do it them selves, in order to prevent those looking to merely side step the more expencive processes.

Tinman have you asked him/her if you can just buy a photo CD from the event no prints ? most will offer you this

Doing so and printing/enlarging still constitutes a copyright violation with out proper release agreements.

 

[MX962]

I am merely a low level copyright infringment investigater in the private sector. I am not a wedding photographer.

In theroy you could ask, but the odds of having it granted are slim to none, This is something that should have been negotiated pre - contract signing.

If I where a wedding photographer I would concider it, however the price tag would be very high for several reasons. First as compensation, second to thin out prospects to those who believe it to be worth it and can afford it. In short they are going to have to be able to afford any potential processes before they can have the ability to do it them selves, in order to prevent those looking to merely side step the more expencive processes.




Doing so and printing/enlarging still constitutes a copyright violation with out proper release agreements.

Thats why I said "no prints"

 

[Battou]

Thats why I said "no prints"

Your post could easily be misunderstood as "Ordering a CD as opposed to prints" as opposed to "Ordering a CD with the stipulation of not printing from it"

 

[abraxas]

probably would have been easier just to have Kinkos shoot your wedding.

 

[Battou]

probably would have been easier just to have Kinkos shoot your wedding.

:lmao: I'll have to keep that in mind when planning my wedding.

 

[Rhubarb]

I also give props to Tinman for researching the issues (and also for not taking any of the more 'blunt' posts personally). No need to tear the guys limbs off and rip his guts out.

If you don't know about these things, then you don't know and no problem asking imo.

Tinman, even if you had the copyright for the image, a enlargement from the print would be average at best. i.e. it would be crap to most people's standard.

Whilst these things aren't cheap, special photos like this are worth having imo. Perhaps put $100 away each month and purchase it as an anniversary present?

Cheers,
R

 

[Socrates]

Factors Influencing a Photographer's Prices

• Experience - just like any other field, you charge more if you have more experience because that usually means the end product will be better.
• Equipment - photography equipment is very expensive, and most photographers have 2 sets of it as backup. For example, a good lens costs over $1000, a professional camera body $2-5k.
• Time - besides the wedding day, a photographer probably spends anywhere from 2-20 minutes per photograph in processing in getting it to look just right, fixing lighting, a stray hair, a wrinkle, etc.
• Cost of any assistants.
• Costs of running a business. This includes gas to get to/from the wedding, utilities at the place of business, insurance, office supplies, and everything else you put on a Schedule C for the IRS.
• Cost of materials - besides equipment, the photographer has to pay for prints. As with any other field, standard mark-up for a sustaining business is around 5x.

Take the last bullet point and add into that everything mentioned above, and you get a price for a photograph that, admittedly, will seem much MUCH higher than what you'd pay to print one yourself.

I don't dispute that these items are facts but I do not consider them relevant to the discussion. The only relevant fact is the signed contract - the client's provable agreement to abide by certain conditions. If the client hadn't agreed to the conditions, he/she shouldn't have signed the contract. These conditions would apply even if the photographer had zero experience, used a bicycle to get to the wedding, had no "place of business" and took the shots with a disposable Instamatic.

 

[LAW2]

I also give props to Tinman for researching the issues (and also for not taking any of the more 'blunt' posts personally). No need to tear the guys limbs off and rip his guts out.

If you don't know about these things, then you don't know and no problem asking imo.

Tinman, even if you had the copyright for the image, a enlargement from the print would be average at best. i.e. it would be crap to most people's standard.

Whilst these things aren't cheap, special photos like this are worth having imo. Perhaps put $100 away each month and purchase it as an anniversary present?

Cheers,
R

Rhubarb had some nice things to say and for everyone to consider. I really liked his anniversary present idea.

I got into this hobby because I to thought the prices were ridiculous but after turning my hobby into a part time job I have learned there are a lot of costs that non-photographers would never know about, many of those listed by astrostu. Now my prices are close to what I originally thought was too high.

 

[NateS]

I don't dispute that these items are facts but I do not consider them relevant to the discussion. The only relevant fact is the signed contract - the client's provable agreement to abide by certain conditions. If the client hadn't agreed to the conditions, he/she shouldn't have signed the contract. These conditions would apply even if the photographer had zero experience, used a bicycle to get to the wedding, had no "place of business" and took the shots with a disposable Instamatic.

You seriously don't see the relevence of his post in this thread? You obviously missed where the OP said that he couldn't understand why the photographer was charging so much for an enlargement. The "irrelevant" post is the relevant answer to his question explained in detal.

 

[Socrates]

You seriously don't see the relevence of his post in this thread? You obviously missed where the OP said that he couldn't understand why the photographer was charging so much for an enlargement. The "irrelevant" post is the relevant answer to his question explained in detal.

If the OP had not signed a contract, thereby indicating agreement with the conditions, the price wouldn't matter.