- Joined
- Aug 14, 2004
- Messages
- 4,031
- Format
- Multi Format
don sigl said:The limits of copyright are controlled by contractual agreement between the photographer and the client. I'm not sure where you have done your commercial work, but I worked with fortune 500 companies for years and the contracts I signed with them gave them quite a bit of control over the use of the images I made for them. I don't have many of those original chromes in my files, but I doubt I would have been doing any work commercially if I went into negotiations dictating complete ownership of the images.
There is no question that a photographer should have rights and compensation. But in my opinion, if you are getting paid to document an event for a retail customer, you should be compensated (which I'm sure you are) and negotiate rights for image use. Holding the images for no other purpose than to elicit additional revenue from retail customers and then destroying the images when you can't get any, in my opinion, exceeds the bounds of ethiucal behavior.
In theory, the use of the images are limited if there are no model releases. I as a consumer I would not agree to such a contract where the photographer retains all rights to the images that contain my likeness without being significantly compensated. The idea that I would actually pay someone to give him such carte blanc is beyond my comprehension. In reality, the only worth (not including limited promotional purposes) the images have to the photographer are additional print purchases by the cunstomer. This is very limited worth for such a restrictive contract.
Petzi said:Quite a pile but not one that you couldn't store on some shelf?
Petzi said:You can do what you want. I normally hand negatives made at weddings over to my clients when the job is done. You could do so if you think it burdens you to store negatives. I think it is a pity to dump them. They are the most authentic representation of a historic event.
Dave Parker said:That is fine, I don't have a problem with what you do, and I hope you don't care what I do, .....
...for the most part, what I do, don't affect you or any other photographer at all, just me and my clients. I have been doing it the same way, in which was taught to me many years ago, at the school and workshops I attended, my model works for me, thats all there really is to it..
don sigl said:Too bad you're probably not the guy who shot my parents wedding (1955). I'd love to have those negatives.
Petzi said:It is interesting how you say you don't care about what anybody else does, and how you expect everybody else not to care about what you do; but despite all of that indifference you say you have, you still bother hitting a key and posting a message in this forum.
don sigl said:I'm sure this will stir up a lot of hate mail, but personally, I don't think any of you should keep any of the negatives, period. The idea that you should be the keepers of someones personal archives is well... ludicrous. The fact that you maintain them for future profit is... more realistic.
It is my opinion that this retail trend where people are repeatedly charged for access to their images is ethically wrong. I'm sure all of you would vehemently disagree, but I don't consider most wedding or standard portrait work stock photo material. How you feel you have a right to treat them as such is beyond me.
don sigl said:I'm sure this will stir up a lot of hate mail, but personally, I don't think any of you should keep any of the negatives, period. The idea that you should be the keepers of someones personal archives is well... ludicrous. The fact that you maintain them for future profit is... more realistic.
joeyk49 said:Married 24 years... our wedding photographer was a friend of the family who shot nice medium format photos that I was very happy with...
One 16x20 portrait (which I'm sure he farmed out) has since started to fade from UV exposure. I've been contemplating contacting him in order to have another print done. It would be a huge disappointment to find out he dumped our negs, without offering us the chance to acquire them...
Lets think about being decent folks...not just business acquaintances...
joeyk49 said:Lets think about being decent folks...not just business acquaintances...
tim atherton said:nor would they expect you to still be carrying the cost
Petzi said:Oh yeah, that cost of filing some negs on a shelf... We have to be aware of that...
Petzi said:Oh yeah, that cost of filing some negs on a shelf... We have to be aware of that...
Dave Parker said:I, I don't see what the problem is, some of you guys seem to have a really emotional attachment because you have taken pictures...working as a photographer, it is nothing more than a product, and
Dave
GraemeMitchell said:The negs/image rights are the photographers, period. What they do with them is up to the photog, but for a fellow photographer to argue it's ethically wrong to retain absolute control over negs and incorporate them into their business models, troubles me DEEPLY. This goes for commercial, wedding, whatever, doesn't matter.
It's your work. Prints can be the wedding parties "family archive" not the negatives, and in the case of commercial clients the usage rights they purchase are the usage rights they get until the renegotiate terms. There are no terms for an ethical arguement here. It's just business. You create something and you sell it.
This is a very un-APUG like conversation, and most people are stubborn as mules when it comes to this stuff, but it's good to talk about anyway. Ultimately each persons biz model is different, and it's never smart to tell another person what to do with their business or their love life, so all of the above is imho.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?