copyrighting pics before I give them away?

saltydog · February 9, 2008

Hello everybody,

Okay, I have about zero business sense and need an opinion. I shot a bunch of pics at a gourmet store - the guys wanted to save themselves $15,000 for having a professional crew come in and do it, so I was asked and agreed to do it for MUCH less. The understanding was that I have no lighting equipment or knowledge of studio photography, just to "shoot something". The job, with tons of different light sources and glare, was pretty much a nightmare, but the owners liked the pics nevertheless.

I have zero interest in the pics personally or otherwise and for the most part, they meet the bare minimum of my standards only through extensive post processing by me. I guess a few came out allright and could be used for stock photography, but I am currently not involved in that. Since they were only meant for the store's website, I provided the owners with low res copies but now they also want high-res burned onto CD before I get paid.

Should I copyright those pics before I hand them over? And how does one actually go about that? Should I/can I charge them more if they get the copyright? I am not a professional photographer and as I said worked without any professional lighting equipment. I did it mostly for the experience and if I consider the time I spent on the pics including pp, my current rate works out to about $25 per hour. I doubt that they will market the pics elsewhere, but still - it feels strange to hand over 100+ of my pics with no idea what will become of them.

Any thoughts? Thanks,
Jana

MJRPHOTO · February 9, 2008

saltydog wrote:

Hello everybody,

Okay, I have about zero business sense and need an opinion. I shot a bunch of pics at a gourmet store - the guys wanted to save themselves $15,000 for having a professional crew come in and do it, so I was asked and agreed to do it for MUCH less. The understanding was that I have no lighting equipment or knowledge of studio photography, just to "shoot something". The job, with tons of different light sources and glare, was pretty much a nightmare, but the owners liked the pics nevertheless.

I have zero interest in the pics personally or otherwise and for the most part, they meet the bare minimum of my standards only through extensive post processing by me. I guess a few came out allright and could be used for stock photography, but I am currently not involved in that. Since they were only meant for the store's website, I provided the owners with low res copies but now they also want high-res burned onto CD before I get paid.

Should I copyright those pics before I hand them over? And how does one actually go about that? Should I/can I charge them more if they get the copyright? I am not a professional photographer and as I said worked without any professional lighting equipment. I did it mostly for the experience and if I consider the time I spent on the pics including pp, my current rate works out to about $25 per hour. I doubt that they will market the pics elsewhere, but still - it feels strange to hand over 100+ of my pics with no idea what will become of them.

Any thoughts? Thanks,
Jana

So let me get this straight. You go out and lowball the professional and steel the job from them. Now you come here to ask the professionals what you should do about the photo's.

Next time maybe you should ask the professionals there opinion on how to get the right price for the job.

Andy · February 9, 2008

Mike's got a point, although delivered a bit harshly

I think the OP just doesn't know & understand, Mike...

OK so, first of all, you ALWAYS have your copyright - they are your photos. What you are referring to is licensing the images for particular usage. So, for example, you can write a license that allows the store owner to use the images for their website, but nothing else. Or really anything you want to define.

Google for Dan Heller's business photography site, get some knowledge and learn a bit. Get the book, "Pricing Photography" (it's in our book reviews section too, link in the DGrin navbar).

exploderpilot · February 9, 2008

It's a little known fact that your photos are already copyrighted when you take them. I spoke to a friend who happens to work in this very area, and he told me this, but that if someone wants to take your photos and exploit them, there really isn't a whole lot you can do. The world is a big place, so is the internet, and you will probably never know it happened. It comes down to whether or not you are happy with the money you made. If you did it for the experience, mission accomplished right? Take whatever money you made, buy some new equipment, and smile. Don't worry about those photos!

saltydog · February 9, 2008

MJRPHOTO wrote:

So let me get this straight. You go out and lowball the professional and steel the job from them. Now you come here to ask the professionals what you should do about the photo's.

Next time maybe you should ask the professionals there opinion on how to get the right price for the job.

Uh okay, this really pisses me off a bit - how did I lowball the professionals??? I am not a professional, they didn't want a professional, and agreed beforehand to less than professional pics, that's the whole premise. Maybe I should explain this in a little more detail:

My husband is a manager at the store. The owners, after hearing the "professional price quote", ordered one of the computer kids who works there to take the pics instead, - for free, as part of his job, thinking he's tech savvy enough. The computer kid, who also works in my husband's department, told him under no circumstances does he want to do this, because he's - duh - not a photographer and knows nothing about it. My husband saw an opportunity for me and brought me into the game. I too, declined because I don't have the technical knowledge or equipment. Then they offered me a certain Dollar amount to just go ahead and give it a try. I tried, with less than glamorous results and they obviously can't tell the difference.

So what, am I supposed to charge a professional rate and scam them? That's not in my nature. Should I have declined? Then they just would have made someone in store to take the pics for free. As a total amateur, I saw an opportunity to get some experience and actually get paid, and I took it!

Pilot, Andy, thanks for your info. And yes, licensing is probably the term I was looking for - I just want these pics to be used for Website purposes.

Greetings,
Jana

Sam · February 9, 2008

Hi Jena,

Lets see if I have the salient facts: You don't know nothing bout parachuting, but ya just jumped out of the plane, and now have a few questions on your way down, is this about the gist of it?

OK, let me ask: what kind of a chute are you wearing? Didn't know what kind to buy so you don't have one at the moment. I see. Hummmm Well then how fast can you flap your arms? Not very fast. Well then prepare for a hard, abrupt stop.

What I am trying to say is the time to ask these questions is before, not after.

Now that your in the air, and I have read your second post, lets see if we can get you on the ground in one piece.

I understand both mjrphoto's comments, and your own reasoning for taking on the project at the low pricing.

The whole low balling issue is a discussion for another time.

You have basically done a job without a contract, or a clear understanding by both parties what the terms of the contact would be.

You husband is the manager at the store.

You in sticky situation.

At this point, in mid air, is what I would do: Go ahead, and give them the high res files you have already processed. I don't believe you need to process every one of the shots you took. Just pick out the best that represent what they asked for. You don't need to tell them the total number of exposures you made.

Smile. thank them for the opportunity, etc.

Hopefully they are happy with the delivered goods, and your husband is still in good standing with his employer. (Very important)

I expect you have learned something here, and if asked to perform additional work like this will understand you may need help, or rent equipment, and you will have a better idea of the amount of work needed.

Sam

exploderpilot · February 9, 2008

Well, saltydog, welcome to the world of "art". A lot of photographers consider themselves artists, noone else can do what they do, yada yada yada. Sometimes you are gonna run into mister 10 bucks for a 4x6, and he's gonna be pissed because you did for 100 bucks, what he feels he should have gotten 1000 for. Just chalk it all up to human nature. It's great that you got some experience, and now it's up to you to build on that experience by putting the lessons learned from it into action the next time an opportunity arises. And another thing. You will never be able to gain experience and savvy by not putting yourself into situations you aren't totally prepared for. Take on challenges, and get in over your head. It will help you become a strong swimmer, and probably a pretty good photographer too.....

saltydog · February 9, 2008

Okay , maybe I am naive, but I think you guys are blowing this a bit out of proportion. Everybody's happy, my husbands' standing is certainly not in question because of the photographs I took, and I can't believe I am the first person in the world of photography who simply went out and provided pics where maybe a professional could have been involved.

My question was just about the copyright, remember? Maybe I expressed myself wrong, but it is really less about the money and more about retaining the rights to my pics. I think Andy and Pilot have already answered that question sufficiently.

But, to stick with Sam's analogy - I never parachuted 'cause I knew it I don't know how. So I threw down a home made ladder instead, hence didn't ask for a parachuter's salary either. Came down a bit wobbly, but nobody seemed to care. Now they want my ladder and I don't want to give it away completely, because after all I put a bit of effort into making it.

Hope I explained myself well enough! Greetings, and thanks for the help!
Jana

saltydog · February 9, 2008

exploderpilot wrote:

Well, saltydog, welcome to the world of "art". A lot of photographers consider themselves artists, noone else can do what they do, yada yada yada. Sometimes you are gonna run into mister 10 bucks for a 4x6, and he's gonna be pissed because you did for 100 bucks, what he feels he should have gotten 1000 for. Just chalk it all up to human nature. It's great that you got some experience, and now it's up to you to build on that experience by putting the lessons learned from it into action the next time an opportunity arises. And another thing. You will never be able to gain experience and savvy by not putting yourself into situations you aren't totally prepared for. Take on challenges, and get in over your head. It will help you become a strong swimmer, and probably a pretty good photographer too.....

Thanks for your support, Pilot! Our posts "crossed in the mail"

. I totally and 100% agree with what you said. Thanks again,
J.

Art Scott · February 9, 2008

saltydog wrote:

Hello everybody,

Okay, I have about zero business sense and need an opinion. I shot a bunch of pics at a gourmet store - the guys wanted to save themselves $15,000 for having a professional crew come in and do it, so I was asked and agreed to do it for MUCH less. The understanding was that I have no lighting equipment or knowledge of studio photography, just to "shoot something". The job, with tons of different light sources and glare, was pretty much a nightmare, but the owners liked the pics nevertheless.

I have zero interest in the pics personally or otherwise and for the most part, they meet the bare minimum of my standards only through extensive post processing by me. I guess a few came out allright and could be used for stock photography, but I am currently not involved in that. Since they were only meant for the store's website, I provided the owners with low res copies but now they also want high-res burned onto CD before I get paid.

Should I copyright those pics before I hand them over? And how does one actually go about that? Should I/can I charge them more if they get the copyright? I am not a professional photographer and as I said worked without any professional lighting equipment. I did it mostly for the experience and if I consider the time I spent on the pics including pp, my current rate works out to about $25 per hour. I doubt that they will market the pics elsewhere, but still - it feels strange to hand over 100+ of my pics with no idea what will become of them.

Any thoughts? Thanks,
Jana

What processing software do you use? If it is photoshop there is an action from RUSSELL BROWN DOT COM.....that will allow you to place your signature (copy right ) on an image in landscape or portrait mode.....i do believe it is either for PSCS2 or PSCS3 not sure......but at any rate I would not let go of those hi-rez files without a signature attached in plain sight........also if your cd/dvd burner has lightscribe ability then print a copy right on that disk in plain sight.....if you have to use a peal and stick label, then also print a copytight on that lable......also make a word or word pad doc named COPYRIGHT TERMS AND CONDITIONS.....with your copyright terms and conditions on the inside....by doing this you have copyrights everywhere that can be easily seen by anyone asked to duplicate, print or use in any way and if the person doing the palcing of the photos onto the web, in a print ad or so on is the least bit knowledgeable about copyright, then they should contact you for final permission..........

A couple of things.......make sure your contact info is with the copyright info (phone and email) that is on the disk label and inside the copyright terms and conditions......also in your t/c olace in there that the original agreement was for webonly low rez usage and that for any other usage they must obtain your consent and you may want to add pay extra for the privalage ................

HTH

Icebear · February 10, 2008

You own the copyright unless you expressly gave it away. Read this about "work made for hire." I copied it from here.

"A fundamental copyright principle is that copyright ownership originally belongs to the creator -- the person who fixes the work in tangible form. Generally, the person who clicks the camera shutter owns the initial copyright in the resulting photograph.
The major exception is if the photograph is a “work made for hire,” which can happen in two ways. First, if the person shooting the photograph is working within the scope of employment -- for example a newspaper’s employed staff photographer – the work will be a “work made for hire” owned by the corporation.
Second, a work may be a “work made for hire” if the photographer and the person ordering the work expressly agree in writing that that the photograph is a “work made for hire.” "

Note that by law, an agreement between a non-employee photographer and a person ordering the work must be in writing. You had no such agreement as I understand it. This was NOT work made for hire. Do what Art suggests and imbed your copyright info on each full res image, and write them a note that they have a non-exclusive license to the images for their own use.

raptorcaptor · February 11, 2008

I'm going to play devil's advocate!:D How many of you "professional" photographer's hired a professional web designer to put your sites together.
Or did you pay a friend or relative to help you out?

It seems to me that it is human nature to get the lowest price for any service. Even when you know better. Usually when a company hires an unexperienced person for job, they end up hiring a professional in the end.
If they cannot tell the difference then you probably don't want to work for them in anycase.

I don't think you should blame anyone for being hungry for work!

exploderpilot · February 12, 2008

well said.

saltydog · February 12, 2008

Yes, well said Raptorcaptor. And, the most interesting aspect here is that I got a glimpse into the business and its sneakiness.

What I mean by that is that the web designers for the site were not only the ones who proposed the $15,000 photography job but also the people who basically walked me through the job. At first I mistook this for kindness, until I learned that they were the same company. In afterthought I believe they tried to "throw me under the bus", so to speak. I am sure they thought that whatever I might produce would be deemed unacceptable by the owners and they would get the job anyway.

But surprise, the owners, being normal people and not design and/or photography experts, liked it well enough, and I would assume that their client base will too. I can't really imagine them losing a customer because the webshot of pre-cut veggies shows glare. Whether they'd have significantly more customers because of a really well lit, food styled moist and juicy photograph I cannot say, but I doubt it.

Therefore in return, I easily could throw this back in mjrphotos' face and accuse him of ripping of clients by overselling/overpricing something the customer doesn't need. But, I won't

, I am happy with the money I made and glad that they accepted what I have done with the shots.

MJRPHOTO · February 12, 2008

saltydog wrote:

Yes, well said Raptorcaptor. And, the most interesting aspect here is that I got a glimpse into the business and its sneakiness.

What I mean by that is that the web designers for the site were not only the ones who proposed the $15,000 photography job but also the people who basically walked me through the job. At first I mistook this for kindness, until I learned that they were the same company. In afterthought I believe they tried to "throw me under the bus", so to speak. I am sure they thought that whatever I might produce would be deemed unacceptable by the owners and they would get the job anyway.

But surprise, the owners, being normal people and not design and/or photography experts, liked it well enough, and I would assume that their client base will too. I can't really imagine them losing a customer because the webshot of pre-cut veggies shows glare. Whether they'd have significantly more customers because of a really well lit, food styled moist and juicy photograph I cannot say, but I doubt it.

Therefore in return, I easily could throw this back in mjrphotos' face and accuse him of ripping of clients by overselling/overpricing something the customer doesn't need. But, I won't , I am happy with the money I made and glad that they accepted what I have done with the shots.

I really hope you don't try to make a living at this and pay the bills with it. You perspective would change quickly. I stand by what I said in the first post. I respect the kid who works for them that would not do the job.

Icebear · February 12, 2008

Seems to me that Saltydog saw an opportunity to apply her knowledge of photography and perform a service for which she was paid a modest fee. What's the problem?

The kid who told his employer "NO thanks" realized he did not have the ability to do the work and wisely declined. What's the problem?

Saltydog did a job that was apparently adequate for the consumer. An experienced pro would have done a better job - for a lot more money. Consumer didn't care. What's the problem?

Good for you Saltydog. Learn from it. Be better next time. Charge more if you're worth it. Don't charge more if you're not, 'cause you'll not get another call.

raptorcaptor · February 12, 2008

I suspect in this case that the pros knew they were overkill for this particular client, and encouraged Saltydog to take it. I don't think they were setting you up for failure. I'm sure that they saw your website, and figured you were competent and more suited for this one.

Sam · February 12, 2008

I have been following this, and wonder if it's possible to see the photography? The galleries seem to be locked.

Sam

saltydog · February 12, 2008

Icebear and raptorcaptor, thanks!!!

JimM · February 13, 2008

Seems to me that the business owner believes (based on your verbal contract) that they would have unlimited use of the pics. I don't think it would be right/fair at this point to tell them they can't have/use the high-res images. This should have been discussed prior to accepting the job and the situation gets very sticky since your husband is the manager and I have a feeling his job there is worth more to your family than any value you personally think the photos are worth.

My advice, give them the images and thank them for the oppt. If any are any good, at least they help build a portfolio.

raptorcaptor · February 13, 2008

JimM wrote:

Seems to me that the business owner believes (based on your verbal contract) that they would have unlimited use of the pics. I don't think it would be right/fair at this point to tell them they can't have/use the high-res images. This should have been discussed prior to accepting the job and the situation gets very sticky since your husband is the manager and I have a feeling his job there is worth more to your family than any value you personally think the photos are worth.

My advice, give them the images and thank them for the oppt. If any are any good, at least they help build a portfolio.

Sound advice!

StevenV · February 13, 2008

JimM wrote:

My advice, give them the images and thank them for the oppt. If any are any good, at least they help build a portfolio.

you might, in a tactful way, point out that you own the copyright and that you are granting them an (unlimited) licenses for the use of your images. that way they won't just expect that they own these pictures. And, if they want you to come back and you choose to negotiate different contract/licensing agreement, you've set the expectation correctly.

Icebear · February 13, 2008

A non-exclusive, unlimited right for their own use. They can't prohibit your use, nor can they sell or give away the images for someone elses use.

SloYerRoll · February 13, 2008

saltydog wrote:

I can't really imagine them losing a customer because the webshot of pre-cut veggies shows glare. Whether they'd have significantly more customers because of a really well lit, food styled moist and juicy photograph I cannot say, but I doubt it.

They may not loose a customer. But they may not gain a customer in the same respect.
Regardless, they got what they paid for.

So are you going to show us some of these controversial shots?

exploderpilot · February 13, 2008

And mjrphoto, I realized that the only way to make a living purely by shooting photos was to build a name for myself, and way overprice the service, so I do it as a hobby. Because i'm sorry, but my karma, and my integrity are far more important to me than money. But hey, that's just me ya know?

Sam · February 14, 2008

SloYerRoll wrote:

They may not loose a customer. But they may not gain a customer in the same respect.
Regardless, they got what they paid for.

So are you going to show us some of these controversial shots?

Hi SloYerRoll,

So far your the only one who picked up on this. That has to be the (insert derogatory word, or words here) I have have read with regard to photographs, and advertising.

If all customers believed this, pro photography, and graphic arts, would all come to an end.

You, we WANT to encourage the highest quality work possible, not the lowest, or OK work for the money.

All business strive to portray their company, and products in the best most attractive way possible. High quality Photographs are a part of this.

NOTE: I believe it's OK to say while on a scale of 1-10 the images are only a 6, but with the very limited budget of the client, and my experience level this quality met their needs.

But I have learned a few things that I can apply to the next shoot, because 6 is not an acceptably long term quality standard for me.

Sam

saltydog · February 14, 2008

Sam wrote:

You, we WANT to encourage the highest quality work possible, not the lowest, or OK work for the money.

All business strive to portray their company, and products in the best most attractive way possible. High quality Photographs are a part of this.

NOTE: I believe it's OK to say while on a scale of 1-10 the images are only a 6, but with the very limited budget of the client, and my experience level this quality met their needs.

But I have learned a few things that I can apply to the next shoot, because 6 is not an acceptably long term quality standard for me.
Sam

I actually happen to agree with you there 100%. As for the first two paragraphs, that is exactly why I initially declined the job.

It was only when I heard that one of the computer kids was made to take them for free that I agreed to give it a try, because at least I got an okay amount of money paid for it and didn't think I'd do any worse than somebody with no photo experience whatsoever.

I think your last two sentences state pretty much how I presented it in my original post, and yes - it was a good experience, yet one that I wouldn't want to repeat.

I don't really see the point of posting pics here, since the pics are not controversial themselves, they've been accepted without so much of a question by the owners and web designers alike. And as I said, I am not proud of them myself and am a better editor in this case than I was able to be a photographer under those circumstances. Pointless to critique them now, and I can see lots of flaws in them myself, without wanting to stir up this discussion any further.

Okay, I'll hesitantly post a few below because I would like to show you guys what I felt up against. I won't leave them here for long, because reading comments like "mjrphoto"'s, I don't want to worry that someone figures out the store and starts badmouthing the pics or me.

Please, keep in mind the following:
1.) I do not own any lighting equipment, light meter, reflectors or anything of this sort. When you check my website, you'll see that I am into a completely different kind of photography, not a professional, and I hate nothing more than when people don't get that and ask me to shoot their wedding or kids' portrait. Not that I have anything against that kind of photography, it's just not my area.

2.) There were no especially set-up tables or displays for me, I had to shoot during store hours with whatever was laid out for the customers, who just loved to push their cart right into my tripod. I shot mostly from 7-11a.m. on a Friday, when things were somewhat quiet and everything was set up for the weekend.

3.) When accompanied by people from the ad agency, I had at the most! 5 minutes to set up tripod, compose from various angles and take multiple bracketed exposures for any given motive. They'd peek into the tiny display of my N70 and motioned me on, "good enough".

4.) The store has every lightsource available in action, from window light to tungsten and differently colored neon - setting a custom white balance was futile. During post processing, I stared at pics so long that I lost all feeling for what was red and what was green or what was light and what was dark. I simply tried my best to even things out a bit, and the ad people agreed to do additional cropping and pp. For the money I got, I was unwilling to spend too much time on this.

Edit: Images removed

SloYerRoll · February 14, 2008

saltydog wrote:

I won't leave them here for long, because reading comments like ...

Don't worry about comments.
Sometimes ppl come across wrong, and others don't have any couth. This doesn't mean they are going to find out where the store is and set up shop...:D

Well I can see what you were up against. Allot of challenges regarding light. Quite a few of them could have been solved w/ less lights on and a tripod w/ long exposure. But I'm not here to critique.

You opened up a veritable pandora's box of comments w/ this one.

At the end of the day though. You learned many valuable lessons regarding shooting and the business behind.

Thanks for sharing some of your shots.

saltydog · February 14, 2008

SloYerRoll wrote:

Well I can see what you were up against. Allot of challenges regarding light. Quite a few of them could have been solved w/ less lights on and a tripod w/ long exposure. But I'm not here to critique.

You opened up a veritable pandora's box of comments w/ this one.

Well, that's the other reason I won't leave these up here for long - I know the pandora's box will open. But now I am curious what you mean by "less lights on & long exposure" (I did use a tripod). I purposely bracketed starting at - 2EV and shot in RAW, which roughly gives me another comfortable -1 to -2. Then I sandwiched shots in PS; but those bright neons, especially with long exposure, seem unbeatable. Turning off lights alltogether to even out lighting unfortunately was not an option (way too dark, plus customers in the store). Was that what you meant, or is there a trick I don't know about yet?

Thanks,
J.

SloYerRoll · February 14, 2008

No real trick. If I didn't have any lighting gear. I'd definately wait till the store was closed.

Most stores have banks of lights on different switches. This is so no circuits are overloaded. Just find the light bank (for lack of better terms). Turn them off. Set up your camera on your tripod. Set the camera up for a delay shot so you don't have to worry about camera shake (poor man's cable release).
Set aperture to desired DOF, then ss to as long as you need to get the shot.

There are other nuances of getting a shot like this sharp. But I've already come to close to crossing the line in regards to this being MYOB and not the technique forum.

So post in technique if you want to know more. (Not to mention there are more that know allot more than I that can help you)

Sam · February 14, 2008

Jena,

Thanks for posting the photos. After all the back, and forth, me included, I just wanted to see what the customer accepted, and thought was acceptable.

Believe it or not my intent is NOT to deride you in any way.

The additional information was very helpful. Thanks

They limited what you could do by forcing you to shoot during normal hours with customers walking by, and no ability to turn any of the lights on or off, or reposition anything, or have an assistant hold bounce, diffusion, or blocking material.

I think under the circumstances you did very well. You earned your money.

Sam

copyrighting pics before I give them away?

Comments