You Own The Negatives
darryl
Registered Users Posts: 997 Major grins
Hi all...
My wife took my 2-year old to Kiddie Kandids at the nearby Babies-R-Us today. The photog got some great posed shots, everyone was pleased.
Last time we went to Kiddie Kandids they offered her a CD of the 5 images for $20 or something if she bought a minimum of $30 in prints. The CD included a release for printing the images at Costco, etc.
We actually didn't buy the CD until later, for a whopping $60. But I felt it was worth it, since we got the "rights to reproduce."
After today's shoot, the photog informed my wife that Kiddie Kandids had changed their policy. You could still get the CD for a reduced rate w/ minimum print purchase, but gone was the copyright release.
BAH! What's the point? I suppose I should be happy I have their "permission" to print photos on my own printer, but uh, lame.
I understand that in the age of digital, it's a difficult position for pro photogs to be in, releasing original files, or even medium-sized preview photos w/o watermarks. (And yes, I read the thread here: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=25502 re: file pricing.)
Just wondering what y'alls thought was on this topic. I'd be happy to pay for a reasonably-priced copyright release, but it really sucks to not have that option anymore.
Also annoying is that this would prevent us from creating our own year-by-year timeline/collage of our son's early years, because some of the photos would be ok to reproduce, and others would not. Phooey!
--Darryl
My wife took my 2-year old to Kiddie Kandids at the nearby Babies-R-Us today. The photog got some great posed shots, everyone was pleased.
Last time we went to Kiddie Kandids they offered her a CD of the 5 images for $20 or something if she bought a minimum of $30 in prints. The CD included a release for printing the images at Costco, etc.
We actually didn't buy the CD until later, for a whopping $60. But I felt it was worth it, since we got the "rights to reproduce."
After today's shoot, the photog informed my wife that Kiddie Kandids had changed their policy. You could still get the CD for a reduced rate w/ minimum print purchase, but gone was the copyright release.
BAH! What's the point? I suppose I should be happy I have their "permission" to print photos on my own printer, but uh, lame.
I understand that in the age of digital, it's a difficult position for pro photogs to be in, releasing original files, or even medium-sized preview photos w/o watermarks. (And yes, I read the thread here: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=25502 re: file pricing.)
Just wondering what y'alls thought was on this topic. I'd be happy to pay for a reasonably-priced copyright release, but it really sucks to not have that option anymore.
Also annoying is that this would prevent us from creating our own year-by-year timeline/collage of our son's early years, because some of the photos would be ok to reproduce, and others would not. Phooey!
--Darryl
0
Comments
Another option if you can't find someone to deliver what you want is to roll up your sleeves and do it yourself.
I believe printing rights will become more prevalent as time goes on.
But one correction. You don't own the negatives, you are talking about having the right to print or reproduce them. The photographer, the creator of the photo, is the legal owner of them.
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
Unless you live in New Zealand, where the right goes by default to the 'commissioner' of the work, if they 'pay or agree to pay' the photographer... no, really, it's true. They don't actually HAVE to pay to own the copyright. I believe Canadian law is equally messed up also.
R
Seatoun, Wellington New Zealand
http://www.catto.co.nz
Interesting. The U.S. copyright law refers to this as a work-for-hire. It is not a 'default.' In fact, depending on jurisdiction, one must be extremely clear via contract that the creative work done is on a work-for-hire basis. I believe in some states that this clarity must exist before work begins or it is not work-for-hire, regardless of contract language.
There are some very complex legal issues surrounding copyright. I honestly do not understand them all, nor have I studied them all. I highly doubt most photographers know anything more than enough to get them in trouble! But then, it is probably rare that a professional whose been around the block hasn't gotten some good advice/rules of thumb, which are often enough to function.
I digress... ack! too much law, not enough photos.
Disclaimers:
1) I am not a lawyer. I am a law student.
2) Nothing in this post should be construed as legal advice or relied upon in any way.*
*Basically, ignore everything I say and we'll be cool.
... come along.
My smaller business has to be flexible. Some clients negotiate for CD's or DVD's of copyrighted images. Some clients want prints, and some clients both or some combo. I never sell my copyright if it's mine to have. I sell usage of CD's and DVD's. Its rather complex at times which is why I try to stay in commercial work and not portrait stuff.
There are tons of talented "starving" photographers out there capable of great sittings that you could work with to get what you need. Remember though, selling digital format images is expensive and expect to pay the price for that kind of usage if you don't want to do it yourself. I usually negotiate sitting charges to include a CD or DVD of keepers formatted for 8x10 prints. Something like $100 an hour for the sit and 1 disc, and $20 for each additional CD/DVD special editing, etc....
The cool thing that is happening at 1 hour photo printers is most of them are finally looking at copyright information. I have had clients call me for releases on stuff they shouldn't be doing. It cracks me up. Its like the old days of film where a proof stamp meant a lot to labs.
Phoenix, AZ
Canon Bodies
Canon and Zeiss Lenses
Cool for you. Not for cheapskates like me (and hey, I was willing to pay Kiddie Kandids, but they changed their agreement!). :-}
Anyways, let's see -- everybody from Target to my local Kinkos posts the copyright notices, and I think I even saw a Kinkos employee refusing to reprint a copyrighted photo.
However, places like Costco have such high volume, I don't see how it's possible they'd be able to monitor such stuff.
Oh, and what copyright information are you talking about? The watermark in the corner that anybody with a copy of MS Paint can reasonably blur/smudge/or just plain crop out?
Or the README.TXT on the CD that didn't get copied to the CF or SD card that I brought to Costco/Target/Longs?
I don't mean to be a wag -- I really wonder from a technological point of view what pros can do. I suppose watermarking is one way to go, but unless I decide to submit my photo to American Baby, would the occasion ever come up where you can get into my parents' family room and take the photo of their grandson out of the frame, scan and then check it to see if I've violated our agreement?
The point being, if a reasonably high-resolution copy (or scan) of the photo gets out there, how can you really expect to prevent consumers from going to a store to print their own copies for personal use?
DRM? :-}
--Darryl
[Also, not that I and Joe Snapshooter are studio pros by a long shot, but I do believe that with the decreasing cost of quality equipment (Rebels, D50s, et al), it's getting a little harder for photo processors to decide "Hrm, this looks like a studio shot vs. this dad/mom got a really nice photo of his kid against his white futon."]
SmugMug Technical Account Manager
Travel = good. Woo, shooting!
nickwphoto
All print labs are supposed to look at copyright info and ask for a release or proof you are the copyright holder. As a member of PPA I can tell you PPA has it's members audit print labs on a yearly basis. And those labs that do not ask for this information do get a headache about it afterwards. Those labs that do ask for the information and stick to following copyright policies get more business from us and good press. So labs are taking notice and are sticking to the copyrights.
With film you had to buy the negatives to reprint on your own IF THE PHOTOGRAPHER WOULD SELL THEM TO YOU. With digital it is still the same, you can only reprint if the photographer gives you the rights to. Labs are only going to get more strict about this in the future.
Photographers need to be able to feed their families too after all. I mean come on would you work for free?
Find a photographer that is willing to work with you, or deal with what this companies policies.
www.zxstudios.com
http://creativedragonstudios.smugmug.com
I have personally had work copied even with copyrights.....mine are like a handwritten signature on pic, a.txt and also I use an HP LIGHTSCRIBE dvd/cd re-writer and all LIGHTSCRIBE disks for my "Pro" work....and right on the face of the disk in big ARIAL BLACK BOLD letters is my copyright notice.....and and still the work got printed....and the processor tried to tell me they did not have time to check and read all info on the face of the disk.....I even made a disk that the name of each pic was COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL DO NOT COPY-photo #_ _ _ _ and still it was copied.....
I do not have an attorney, but I did ask the owner/manager to allow me to call the DA's office while picking up the copyrighted photos....funny how their attitude changed, when I decided to change my way of handling this matter from a civil action to a criminal action with no monetary output from my pocket.......
When burning disks I name the disk copyrighted material #_ _ _ _ and on the face of the disk is also a copyright notice, on the disk is a .txt copy right notice and also the photo folder is named copyrighted photos do not copy without written permission of ARTHUR SCOTT- Phone number.....then when you open the folder the first file is a copyright notice in ms word, the 2nd is a jpg of the same file, then the pics with signature.
I have also started downsizing what I give out as digital proofs as a 4 X 6 at no more than 72dpi..so that at 100% magnification it looks ok, not great..just okay....they might beable to get decent wallets or maybe a 4x6 print but that 5x7 will be terribly pixalated.
Will it stop thievery....NO.....but if I need to go to court the evidence will speak for itself.
I provide a written authorization along with the CD of images so my customer can make prints anywhere without the hassle of having to call me. They just show the document to the print lab when they make the order, and the whole process flows like warm creamery buttery over a nice piece of toast ;-)
I make myself available of course for large or specialized prints that they may have trouble obtaining at their local walmart. But for the little stuff, it's nice when they feel they can make a few 4x6 prints for gramma without having to jump through any hoops I may put their way.
The times be a changin' and I think pro's are going to have to open up a little and give customers a little freedom. Customers will buy what they want if you offer it to them. Forcing them to buy what they don't want will only keep working for a little while more.
It's nice at the end of the day when your customers are not considered criminals too. Having a hostile attitude toward them doesn't really help in the long run ;-)
tick tock tick tock
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
Exactly. And that all depends on the photographer or studio you get your photos done at. And knowing you Shay your customers have paid for rights to print the photos (even if it was something included in the package price and not a specific add on). The idea isn't that the customers are criminals just that they need to understand that this is how alot of photographers pay their bills and buy food. Reprint rights shouldn't be free but they shouldn't be withheld either.
www.zxstudios.com
http://creativedragonstudios.smugmug.com
So what is the point of selling them the CD at all? (This is the same thing I asked myself re: the Kiddie Kandids CD I paid for.)
For home prints?
--Darryl
So what do you do when its gone beyond considering them as criminals to them admitting to it? Live with it? Move on to a different set of clients? :shrug
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
There are digital photo frames that will take those cd's and do a slide show in the frame on a table or wall, for using as a background on your computer, for use in a website gallery for family possibly, so you can set it as a background on your computer at work. There are tons of digital personal uses.
Personally I think Kiddie Kandids is being rediculous with that policy change. All of my clients have the option to purchase the digital file with printing rights if they should choose to.
www.zxstudios.com
http://creativedragonstudios.smugmug.com
By giving you a cd with no copyright release they are basically allowing you to use the images for personal use such as putting them on your computer, printing at home, as a screen saver, etc and the ability to archive the files in an efficient way digitially. With the release you were able to print at other business'.
Maybe they realized that they are in business to make money and allowing people to get unlimited prints at other business' was taking away from their printing business and by changing the policy they could make more money.
Yeah I can understand the frustration from your point of view, but it could be that they have invested a significant amount of money into printing equipment, etc and need to recoup that cost with a return.
They might not have thought things completely through before originally giving the copyright release. If they had maybe they would still be doing it.
The problem here is the value of the product has dissapeared. So there needs to be a way to add value back to the product. Think of radio. People don't pay to listen to the radio. It's value is $0. You are a satellite radio company that wants customers to pay for radio. What do you do?
We know from that example, that adding value to something can be done. You just have to rethink the business model you use in light of the existing environment. Problem is, many photographers struggling with their business model are having trouble because they are using a model that was designed in the 19th and 20th centuries. It's time for some to modernize that business plan ;-)
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
Would some of you that do provide your customers with print release forms share an example of what you include on the form? I've just recently created a new fill in the blanks print release but because there are so few examples out there and various labs differ regarding their requirements I'm not sure if I'm including enough info or possibly going way overboard on this one.
I've been including bussiness name, etc.,etc, who is entitled to use the release form, the photo file numbers & description fo the photo or photo session (For example: So & so's engagement photo session. Capture date. File #'s).
Thanks,
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
my words, my "pro"pictures, my "fun" pictures, my videos.
I'm sure it depends on the Costco, but mine checks.
It happened to me. I have a copyright release on file at my local Costco. They wouldn't print some baseball team and individual shots that I created until I proved I was the photographer. I was pleased that they noticed, both from the perspective that they viewed the work to be good enough to be pro
First off, I shoot mostly video but I think that is similar in relation to this topic. If you are still shooting film or negatives your original work product still has value because if the client wants the best quality reproductions, they must come to you to get the original materials. With video that was the case with analog tape etc., where duplication would degrade the final quality and getting the best result depended on getting the earliest copy possible. A copy of a copy of a copy would be all it would take to render materials almost useless when used for professional uses.
However, with digital, barring the posting of small low quality images and using watermarks, doesn't pose those problems. Once a client has the full size images, either on a disc or by obtaining them online etc., they can get almost flawless copies. They can even take prints then scan them and make their own copies at will.
So, as I have learned from dealing with people copying my videos and trading them among themselves, I have to charge and get all my profit up front. With a couple of acceptions, I am not in the business, anymore, of selling duplications or copies of my videos. I am in the production business where the client pays me for my services to photograph or record their event.
Most of what I do is sports video. I tape games for a local high school that uses the tapes for their coaches to evaluate player performance. I have had some interest from parents for copies to use for recruitment videos to send to colleges. However, I found, when one parent actually said it to my face, that parents are borrowing the tapes from the coaches and with the high quality of home DVD recorders, dubbing the copies and trading them among themselves. Last year, I didn't get a single order for a reproduction of a game.
Like I was saying though, that doesn't bother me much as I get paid fairly well, up front, by the school. The sale of copies of these tapes would have been nice but I didn't go into this with that expectation anymore. I even have friends who have ceased keeping the tapes after the games. One friend, once the coach has been given his copy, he copies a single DVD of the game and recycles or disposes of the original game tapes. DVDs take less space than all the tapes. There is no value in the original game tapes anymore. It just costs him more money on space to store them. Being that he has no earnings from that effort, ....
What gets me though is the principle behind this but I don't know what to do about it. Here, the parents that I deal with are well off. They live in million dollar homes and drive $50,000 SUVs and Luxury Cars. Yet, they won't pay me $15 for a simple dub of the game.
In addition to the theft of copies as I describe above, there have been parents, in the past, who asked me to go and tape a game for them. They call me up and ask if I will tape their childs game. Their kids team looses and they dissappear. I get stuck sitting there with thousands of dollars invested in equipment and up to $20 invested in tapes of a game that are now worthless because there is nobody willing to pay me for them. I could have sold them to the other team except that the other team had their own person there taping the game.
So, whether the clients like it or not, things have changed. Now, I charge for my services up front. I am a reasonable person and it hurts me to have to charge a parent $100 to tape a simple soccer game. So, taking that into consideration, I try to find ways to make it more worthwhile. One thing that I do when shooting a set of family pictures or video is that I charge for the services involved but then include a basic package with it. That might be a credit for a set of prints of their choice or copies of DVDs etc. For example with the sports video, I might give the parent 4 copies of the game on DVD. They have the choice that they can keep them for their family or sell the extra copies. Or, the client can get 3 other parents, for example, to join in with and pay me the front money. If I don't have the money before the game, I don't show up. That is the unfortunate truth. Unless it is a local game where there is no real investment in time or effort to show up first. I am not going to travel out of town though, about an hour in evening traffic, to not get paid. In any case, no photos or videos without payment first.
Another project that I do is a video yearbook for a preschool. I do that along with taping of their holiday show and their end of year graduation. I go out throughout the year and tape the Kindergarteners in their daily routine. Then, I edit it all together in a 45 minute tape. I do that on spec because I have a reputation for the final product and know I will sell copies. However, this is something that involves PREORDER of tapes. I only make the copies that are ordered and with the lead time, (the entire school year) where parents see me taping the children or hear about the neat stuff that I have captured.... the anticipation builds. I put out order forms about a month before the end of school to take orders. I wait till after graduation to deliver the tapes so that I can include that on the same disc/tape. As for the holiday show, I take orders at the performance. The quality of my equipment and my stature at the event is what sells a lot of tapes. People know that they are going to get something better than they are taping themselves. Also, it allows them to relax and enjoy the performance themselves. Due to the simplicity of taping and editing that show, I charge a nominal fee per tape and take all the orders in the following week after the show. I then deliver all the tapes at once, about 2 weeks after, right before Christmas. That way, anticipation and interest builds and I get all the money up front. Occasionally I will get one or two orders later but usually, after the first week of January, and after all the innitial copies were delivered, I never hear another request from anyone.
One of the things that I have noticed these days, at least with some of the less formal types of jobs, people want pictures on DVD or CD so that they can use them for email or on their computers. They can then use those to play on some TVs with slideshow features or they can use images as wallpaper or screen savers on their computers. Sometimes, they may want them so that they can insert a picture into an email and send it to family and friends. I have friends who shoot a lot of hockey photos frequently get requests for images by parents who want to use it as the desktop on their work computer.
Perhaps, taking these situations into consideration, a photographer could preserve some of their value, for reprints etc., by not putting the full size images on those discs or online. For example, why put a 6 or 8 or 10 megapixel image on a disc when 3 megapixels or less will suffice. Considering, for example, that a 1024x768 copy will suffice or exceed the needs for most computer monitors and email uses. I can put a 640 x 480 image in most webposts like this,
and it will be more than adequate to suffice. However, considering that it is highly compressed .jpg and that it is limited in size, there is little value for anyone that wants to reuse it.
Otherwise, the only use I can think of for the CDs or DVDs would be for self printing and avoiding the expense of going back to the photographer. Unlike my video work that I mentioned in an earlier post which I can't avoid but giving full quality copies to a client, I think Still photographers still have some ability to protect their work by limiting the quality of what is put on a CD or DVD or Online. That is the only way, that I can see, to preserve the value of the original materials.
I notice with a lot of people also, that they don't even care for best quality. I have known people who have taken high quality photos of sports to find them used by booster clubs in ad books. They take the tiny thumbnails off line and use them in published books. By the time the thumbnail is increased to 320x240 it looks like crap. Or, as was mentioned earlier, people have been known to have photos, in frames, on their desks at work with the word PROOF watermarked accross the face. I guess it is another example of the low expectations or demands of a lot of consumer level clients.