Delivered File Format

ImagesByDeMeglioImagesByDeMeglio Registered Users Posts: 39 Big grins
edited February 23, 2009 in Mind Your Own Business
Hello everyone,

So I've booked my first event and my client's client has requested that the delivered files be in RAW format. I'm ok with that but am I making a mistake?

Thank You,

Anthony





www.ibdphotos.com
Anthony J. DeMeglio
IMAGES BY DeMEGLIO
www.ibdphotos.com
Twitter | MySpace

Comments

  • bike21bike21 Registered Users Posts: 836 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2009
    I am still new to the business myself, but that request is throwing up red flags to me! Sounds like they want control/manipulation of YOUR photos. I would be very cautious about this. Only if the price was VERY right - say a commercial rights license with lots of money in it for you.

    I am sure some other established folks will chime in, but I would most likely say a resounding 'no'. Will be interesting to here some other viewpoints.
  • davidweaverdavidweaver Registered Users Posts: 681 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2009
    What does the contract say?

    You do have a contract don't you?

    That info would help those that know about this stuff help you.

    Cheers,
    David
  • SCPSCP Registered Users Posts: 100 Major grins
    edited February 17, 2009
    Raw, JPG, TIF.. they are all able to be manipulated.. Doesn't really matter which format it is in. The only thing not available in sending that format is your signature to the images, to me.. Not a big deal as long as the photos are credited to me somewhere. Half the time I forget to put my siggy on most things anyways. (Thank goodness for Smugmugs back printing)
    Kandie Kingery
    __________________
    Stone Creek Photography
    Equine and Historical Landscape Photographer.
    New Mexico.

    Become a fan of Stone Creek Photography
  • AngeloAngelo Super Moderators Posts: 8,937 moderator
    edited February 17, 2009
    SCP wrote:
    Raw, JPG, TIF.. they are all able to be manipulated.. Doesn't really matter which format it is in...


    ummmmm, No!

    handing over RAW files is the digital equivalent of turning over your film negatives.

    why would anyone ever do this?


    .
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2009
    Angelo wrote:
    ummmmm, No!

    handing over RAW files is the digital equivalent of turning over your film negatives.

    why would anyone ever do this?


    .

    "Work Made For Hire"
    The photographer owns nothing of the work.
    Must be explicitly agreed to ahead of time.
    I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • AngeloAngelo Super Moderators Posts: 8,937 moderator
    edited February 18, 2009
    Icebear wrote:
    "Work Made For Hire"
    The photographer owns nothing of the work.
    Must be explicitly agreed to ahead of time.
    I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.


    I don't believe we have enough information in this thread to make any assumptions but I would argue your assumption is backwards.
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2009
    Angelo wrote:
    I don't believe we have enough information in this thread to make any assumptions but I would argue your assumption is backwards.

    Right, Angelo. I wasn't making any assumptions about the OP's question, but was responding to yours about why one might give up his/her RAW files. IF she had agreed to work for hire, then the person paying for the work would own the work, right?

    I've never done work for hire, but given the right financial incentive, would consider it.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • AngeloAngelo Super Moderators Posts: 8,937 moderator
    edited February 19, 2009
    Icebear wrote:
    ...IF she had agreed to work for hire, then the person paying for the work would own the work, right?

    No, not necessarily. THAT was my point.

    Just being hired to photograph something or someone does not constitute the right to ownership of the negatives, or in this case the RAW files by the client.

    You seem to be presenting the case that it's automatically assumed
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited February 19, 2009
    Ok Angelo, you're beginning to irritate :D or maybe you're just being an agent provocateur in your role as moderator.

    Really, I'm not assuming anything about the situation situation described here. If this was "work made for hire" (which it clearly is NOT, given the description by the OP) then the photographer would NOT own the rights to the work, but those rights would vest in the person comissioning the work. I quote here from the ASMP website, stickied in this sub-forum:

    "
    Defining “work for hire”

    Signing away your rights

    . . . . If you are not an employee, but have signed a purchase order before beginning an assignment, you should read the fine print on the purchase order to determine if you have signed away any of your rights. Avoid signing purchase orders if you don’t know what you are signing. If you have questions, contact an attorney to help you answer them.
    Although people use the term work for hire freely, it has a specific legal definition. According to Section 101 of the copyright law (excerpted below), a “work made for hire” is:
    1. A work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or
    2. A work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, if the parties involved expressly agree in writing (and sign the agreement) that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.
    "

    All I'm sayin' is THAT'S why someone would give up her RAW/negatives - 'cause they'd agreed IN ADVANCE to do so. I never said that was what had happened in this instance. Clearly a photographer who does any such thing should be appropriately compensated.

    I ain't arguing with you Angelo. I think we agree fundamentally on this issue, but maybe I'm just being too parsimonious with my words and not 'splaining myself well. Anyway, I'm done.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • AngeloAngelo Super Moderators Posts: 8,937 moderator
    edited February 19, 2009
    Icebear wrote:
    Ok Angelo, you're beginning to irritate :D or maybe you're just being an agent provocateur in your role as moderator.

    Really, I'm not assuming anything about the situation situation described here. If this was "work made for hire" (which it clearly is NOT, given the description by the OP) then the photographer would NOT own the rights to the work, but those rights would vest in the person comissioning the work. I quote here from the ASMP website, stickied in this sub-forum:

    "
    Defining “work for hire”

    Signing away your rights

    . . . . If you are not an employee, but have signed a purchase order before beginning an assignment, you should read the fine print on the purchase order to determine if you have signed away any of your rights. Avoid signing purchase orders if you don’t know what you are signing. If you have questions, contact an attorney to help you answer them.
    Although people use the term work for hire freely, it has a specific legal definition. According to Section 101 of the copyright law (excerpted below), a “work made for hire” is:
    1. A work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or
    2. A work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, if the parties involved expressly agree in writing (and sign the agreement) that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.
    "

    All I'm sayin' is THAT'S why someone would give up her RAW/negatives - 'cause they'd agreed IN ADVANCE to do so. I never said that was what had happened in this instance. Clearly a photographer who does any such thing should be appropriately compensated.

    I ain't arguing with you Angelo. I think we agree fundamentally on this issue, but maybe I'm just being too parsimonious with my words and not 'splaining myself well. Anyway, I'm done.

    lol3.giflol3.giflol3.gifrolleyes1.giflol3.giflol3.giflol3.gif


    Oh I love starting my day with a good laugh! YES, you had "'some 'slainpin' to do Ricky" iloveyou.gif

    We are in agreement and your most recent illustration outlines my point fairly perfectly... ONE NEVER FORFEITS OWNERSHIP/COPYRIGHT EXCEPT THROUGH EXPRESS SPECIFICATION.

    "Work for hire" really only has blanket relevance in a workplace environment where the research, development, conduct and production of a salaried employee is the legal property of the employer if such employee's time, workplace environment, raw materials and the conceptual demand is controlled by the employer.

    In a "contracted" project, all matters relative to completion and delivery of the finished product are to be defined in a written contract.


    .
  • xrisxris Registered Users Posts: 546 Major grins
    edited February 19, 2009
    ... And why on Earth would a vendor "sign a purchase order" anyway? The purchaser does that.headscratch.gif

    By my understanding Angelo is 150% correct. I think you may have to brush up your understanding of the term 'employee' Icebear.
    thumb.gif
    X www.thepicturetaker.ca
  • ImagesByDeMeglioImagesByDeMeglio Registered Users Posts: 39 Big grins
    edited February 19, 2009
    Thank you to everyone who has responded.

    As I am just getting things started,this welcomed opportunity came all of a sudden from a client/ friend of mine from the production company I work with.

    His client has demanded RAW file format for the photos I will be taking of an event based on what they received from last year's photographer.

    I'm honestly ok with it because my name is automatically added to the XMP file along with the camera model and serial number. I am not giving away any copyrights and my client has stated that in his contract to the end client.

    I currently do not have my written contract for event photography completed but will (with in the next several hours!).

    Another thing I am contemplating is simply exporting the RAW format out of Light Room which would allow me to add a small copyright watermark onto every image.

    On a "work for hire" note, which is an issue I am sort of having with my employer, all though I am a full time employee, my job scope does not include photography nor do they provide me with the equipment (except for a lens rental one time) and they think they own copyrights to my photos. As far as I'm concerned the jokes on them.

    Cheers!

    Anthony
    Anthony J. DeMeglio
    IMAGES BY DeMEGLIO
    www.ibdphotos.com
    Twitter | MySpace
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited February 19, 2009
    xris wrote:
    ... And why on Earth would a vendor "sign a purchase order" anyway? The purchaser does that.headscratch.gif

    By my understanding Angelo is 150% correct. I think you may have to brush up your understanding of the term 'employee' Icebear.
    thumb.gif

    If you'll go into the sticky and look up the ASMP article on "Work Made For Hire" you'll see that where (in my quote) I had the ellipses ( . . . ) indicating that I'd excerpted some of the original, they dealt ad nauseum with the meaning of "employee." I chose not to include that because it was obviously not pertinent to the discussion. The portion I quoted dealt specifically with non-employee situations.

    So if Angelo, who we know gives 110% effort, is 150% correct, has his head exploded yet?eek7.gif
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited February 19, 2009
    On a "work for hire" note, which is an issue I am sort of having with my employer, all though I am a full time employee, my job scope does not include photography nor do they provide me with the equipment (except for a lens rental one time) and they think they own copyrights to my photos. As far as I'm concerned the jokes on them.
    Anthony

    I think there have been prior threads on this issue. I'm too lazy to look them up. I'll just make three points:

    1. It ain't worth pissing-off your employer.
    2. Unless you have a written job description that does not have an "other duties as assigned" clause, the joke's not on them. If you have no written job description, the joke's not on them.
    3. The joke's almost NEVER on your employer.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • AngeloAngelo Super Moderators Posts: 8,937 moderator
    edited February 19, 2009
    Thank you to everyone who has responded.

    As I am just getting things started,this welcomed opportunity came all of a sudden from a client/ friend of mine from the production company I work with.

    His client has demanded RAW file format for the photos I will be taking of an event based on what they received from last year's photographer.

    I'm honestly ok with it because my name is automatically added to the XMP file along with the camera model and serial number. I am not giving away any copyrights and my client has stated that in his contract to the end client.

    be safe and register your copyright before handing them over

    I currently do not have my written contract for event photography completed but will (with in the next several hours!).

    Another thing I am contemplating is simply exporting the RAW format out of Light Room which would allow me to add a small copyright watermark onto every image.

    be sure you're keeping your original RAW files

    On a "work for hire" note, which is an issue I am sort of having with my employer, all though I am a full time employee, my job scope does not include photography nor do they provide me with the equipment (except for a lens rental one time) and they think they own copyrights to my photos. As far as I'm concerned the jokes on them.

    no argument on the equipment point but this is otherwise a possible slippery slope. absent a specified work contract / job description this could cause you trouble. California is an "at will" employment state.



    Cheers!

    Anthony

    .
  • xrisxris Registered Users Posts: 546 Major grins
    edited February 20, 2009
    Bottom Line?
    Can we revisit this RAW issue so I can get a better grip on it?

    I come from many years of film work and, in that mind set, the general rule was 'keep the original' -- if at all possible.

    Thing is, there was always ONLY ONE camera original -- be it a negative or a transparency. Screw up the original, there are no more. What's more, the folks with possession the original had a preferred position should there be a disagreement regarding use/copyright.

    Now, though, it seems you can have as many 'originals' as you wish simply by copying the RAW file. With the added bonus that meta data is native to most RAW formats, so there's a greater possibility of the copyright information moving with the image.

    So, other than for issues of post-processing control (in which it can be argued that the corrected and saved image is 'the original') I can't really see the problem with providing RAW files to clients that request them.
    thumb.gif
    X www.thepicturetaker.ca
  • Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited February 20, 2009
    I just came out of a project with the Pagoda publishing and CityScape book company......in an email I had asked them what file format they wanted or accepted and in the reply which was over 3 pages in length it stated they accepted .raw,.tif and .jpg.....but no matter which file format was delivered to them all files had to have the copyright embedded in the exif with the copyright and full contact info for the copyright owner.

    I chose jpg as all my current library is either raw or jpg......if they had come to me stating we only accept raw ...... I would have declined to submit my work to their project...........with or without embeded copyright info.


    If you do give up raw files re-name the ones you burn to a disk as copy and then your original file name (copy-XXX-XXXX-XXXXX).....that way their is no dispute down the road that you gave them copies and also on that disks label either place your copyright holder.........in my experienceif you are doing this while on the job......they hold the rights the work, but most will credit you with javing done the work.........
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • xrisxris Registered Users Posts: 546 Major grins
    edited February 20, 2009
    Art Scott wrote:
    ...if they had come to me stating we only accept raw ...... I would have declined to submit my work to their project...........with or without embeded copyright info...
    Great info Art. But why would you refuse to provide RAW? Is it for business reasons, or creative? (colour correction, etc.)
    thumb.gif
    X www.thepicturetaker.ca
  • Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited February 20, 2009
    xris wrote:
    Great info Art. But why would you refuse to provide RAW? Is it for business reasons, or creative? (colour correction, etc.)
    thumb.gif

    I never gave up my original transparencies (neg or slide) to anyone
    (well I did twice.....once to an out of state client and never saw them again and the same with a client that was also a friend [the so called frnd has suince left the state for fear of his nads) and never saw my Bo Diddley collection again...shot on 2 1/4 Fuji 50 slide film......had plans for theose to submit to Magnum and Black Star agencies)......so burned twice.......made a resolution to NEVER let go of an origianl work again.

    ....a copy yes....but never my original......if I renumbered/named with "copy" then I might...but with the ability to do color correction and other processing on the jpgs then that is all they should need.......I was willing to change the colour space for the publisher to CMYK from Adobe/PRO RGB......but was told not to worry.
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • ImagesByDeMeglioImagesByDeMeglio Registered Users Posts: 39 Big grins
    edited February 23, 2009
    Art Scott wrote:
    ...

    If you do give up raw files re-name the ones you burn to a disk as copy and then your original file name (copy-XXX-XXXX-XXXXX).....that way their is no dispute down the road that you gave them copies and also on that disks label either place your copyright holder.........in my experienceif you are doing this while on the job......they hold the rights the work, but most will credit you with javing done the work.........

    Art, that's a brilliant idea. Honestly, being that this is just some candid shots that I'll probably never look at again, I'm not too worried about it. However, it's the principal behind it and I don't want to start any bad habits.

    Thank you.
    Anthony J. DeMeglio
    IMAGES BY DeMEGLIO
    www.ibdphotos.com
    Twitter | MySpace
Sign In or Register to comment.