Image copyright

[blansky]

Hi Blanksy

That would be reproduction and illegal if you provided then with a suitable reproduction caveat.
Watermarks are good like large reproduction or copying verboten.

Yeah, I don't give/sell any of it.

But there are photographers who actually give people the entire files. Put it all on a CD, delete the card and walk away.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I've only been asked to sell my copyright twice. Once was to a news organization, for use on their website. I didn't sell the copyright, but did lease the image for 12 months with limitations. It could only be used for the single purpose, and they had to visibly show my copyright with the image. The other was a publishing company which wanted to use a few of my images. The offer was good money, and I had no problem with them making posters, but I didn't want them to do t-shirts, calendars, coasters, etc, which they refused to remove from the contract. They also wouldn't agree to renegotiation if there was to be a second edition printed. I turned them down.
However, if someone wants to offer me Lik-like money, I'm all ears...

That is what I would do.

 

[removed account4]

Yeah, I don't give/sell any of it.

But there are photographers who actually give people the entire files. Put it all on a CD, delete the card and walk away.

i know photographers that do this ..
photograph don't even make prints for the client
don't even resize, no editing/cropping, nothing ..
drop the whole card onto a CD burn it and deliver it all ..

==
when i worked for a newspaper it was common to have the paper claim ownership + copyright of
every image exposed whether it was digital or on film ... they gave "royalty" payments for
a handful of reproductions seeing the photographer actually owned the copyright, and after that the image became a "file photo" and
they owned it completely. when an old roommate was living in east berlin when the wall came down
he was working for AFP and it was commonplace for the same thing to happen. he sold copyright of every image
once he delivered product .. eventually he won some sort of case where the AFP didnt' grant him ownership but
allowed for his by-line to appear with the image when someone browsed their files ... the paper i worked for did not do that for me ...
selling copyright as a photographer for hire is a bone of contention for me, i don't like that i was forced to do it ...
one year i took a skyline view of the local capital. it was from a place no one had ever done a modern skyline view from ..
after it was published they threw me a bone and gave me a little extra money ( read $50 instead of $40 ) and then they
sold usage rights of the photograph to the city who put it on billboards, bus shelters, buses &c, and made wheelbarrows of cash from it..
and eventually a bunch of posers figured out where i took it, and now it is the place everyone shoots the skyline from ...
when i show my portfolio sometimes i have that view prominent in the book, and i make sure perspective clients know it was my view
that was harvested and was used nonstop for IDK 10 years ...
it stinks having to sell copyright ...

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Hmm......if anyone ever buys any of my photos I'll need to remember all this.

 

[RobC]

Yeah, I don't give/sell any of it.

But there are photographers who actually give people the entire files. Put it all on a CD, delete the card and walk away.

The problem is that many people wanting wedding/portrait photos don't or can't pay for quality printing and album mounted prints and these photographers aren't interested in doing the work to produce them anyway.The client thinks they are getting a good deal.

I think that as a portrait/wedding photographer you are working under commission to produce work exclusively for a specific client. That gives the client additional rights to the work you produce especially as that work is very personal to the client. My view is that in this scenario the photographer should retain the copyright but undertake not to use the work for financial gain and not sell or license that work to anyone else. The only caveat being that the photographer can use the work for their own self promotion in their portfolio and/or a limited number of images in their website for this purpose.

But then you get the situation where you have a celebrity client who is selling their wedding photos to Hello or whichever magazine. But in that case the magazine will usually be providing the photographer and if not you can charge accordingly.

 

[removed account4]

hi rob c

you forgot and the problem is the person doing the wedding or mitzvah ( or whatever they advertised on CL ) for 200-300$ and giving all files to the client.

 

[SuzanneR]

i know photographers that do this ..
photograph don't even make prints for the client
don't even resize, no editing/cropping, nothing ..
drop the whole card onto a CD burn it and deliver it all ..

==
when i worked for a newspaper it was common to have the paper claim ownership + copyright of
every image exposed whether it was digital or on film ... they gave "royalty" payments for
a handful of reproductions seeing the photographer actually owned the copyright, and after that the image became a "file photo" and
they owned it completely. when an old roommate was living in east berlin when the wall came down
he was working for AFP and it was commonplace for the same thing to happen. he sold copyright of every image
once he delivered product .. eventually he won some sort of case where the AFP didnt' grant him ownership but
allowed for his by-line to appear with the image when someone browsed their files ... the paper i worked for did not do that for me ...
selling copyright as a photographer for hire is a bone of contention for me, i don't like that i was forced to do it ...
one year i took a skyline view of the local capital. it was from a place no one had ever done a modern skyline view from ..
after it was published they threw me a bone and gave me a little extra money ( read $50 instead of $40 ) and then they
sold usage rights of the photograph to the city who put it on billboards, bus shelters, buses &c, and made wheelbarrows of cash from it..
and eventually a bunch of posers figured out where i took it, and now it is the place everyone shoots the skyline from ...
when i show my portfolio sometimes i have that view prominent in the book, and i make sure perspective clients know it was my view
that was harvested and was used nonstop for IDK 10 years ...
it stinks having to sell copyright ...

So frustrating when magazines, newspapers and wire services grab so many rights for freelance work. It's wrong. It's one thing if you are on staff, paid a salary and benefits, but not when you are stringing. Ugh.

 

[RobC]

people get what they pay for. Yes I know it's driving prices down which is not good for the real working photographers but its the reality of today.

However, if you are providing a quality service there are always people willing to pay for that and they're probably the clients you want anyway. You just have to market yourself properly so that you get the right clients and you put off the people wanting their wedding photography done for $300.

 

[removed account4]

So frustrating when magazines, newspapers and wire services grab so many rights for freelance work. It's wrong. It's one thing if you are on staff, paid a salary and benefits, but not when you are stringing. Ugh.

yeah, its a catch 22 ... you want the work, the access, the exposure, but you give everything up.
my old roommate had to go to court ( or so he told me, maybe it was asmp on his behalf, IDK it was a long time ago )
to get them to just put his name on the photograph so people knew it was him ...

i think a lot of those days are over ( at least for small newspapers & some magazines) because some have
stopped hiring photographers altogether ... when they have a reporter on-site giving the interview they take a few
point/shoot portraits ... since they are staff they have no rights to the images anyways ...

 

[SuzanneR]

yeah, its a catch 22 ... you want the work, the access, the exposure, but you give everything up.
my old roommate had to go to court ( or so he told me, maybe it was asmp on his behalf, IDK it was a long time ago )
to get them to just put his name on the photograph so people knew it was him ...

i think a lot of those days are over ( at least for small newspapers & some magazines) because some have
stopped hiring photographers altogether ... when they have a reporter on-site giving the interview they take a few
point/shoot portraits ... since they are staff they have no rights to the images anyways ...

Bingo! Such a shame, there are really no more papers using photography really well anymore... though I have to say, I like the NYT's Lens Blog, but I don't think they pay people for that content, though I think they're pretty good about crediting the photographer, even if they use a wire service pic in the "Pictures of the Day" posts. Though I suppose the subscription fees to the wire service cover that use like it would in the paper, so maybe some of that content is paid for.

 

[blansky]

I have a friend who works for a stock photographer who licenses his work to major corporations for advertising and marketing purposes. Actually a lot of lifestyle stuff for drug companies.

My friend uses a company that monitors the usage that the corporations uses the work for and reports that back to him.

He sues these major corporations all the time for violating the licensing. They don't really care, they try to screw him all the time.

And after he sues them they still continue to do business like nothing happened. A few weeks ago he won a 2 year battle with a $300,000. judgement. They had to pay his legal fees.

So you can have all your ducks in a row legally, licensing wise, and they will still try to screw you over.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

The stock photography business is very tough to make money. One photographer I worked for as an assistant said of all the work that done in cataloging labeling, he averages less than 50¢ per image per year. He sells outtakes from assignment photography. With assignment photography, bidding for usage is a lost battle. Let say all things being equal, the photographer that hands over the rights will win the bid over the bid that has one time use. When I shot assignment photography, some clients tell me that they've paid for all the expenses to create the shot so they feel nickeled and dimed when they have to negotiate future use. A lot of photographer just releases the rights to the client.

 

[removed account4]

I have a friend who works for a stock photographer who licenses his work to major corporations for advertising and marketing purposes. Actually a lot of lifestyle stuff for drug companies.

My friend uses a company that monitors the usage that the corporations uses the work for and reports that back to him.

He sues these major corporations all the time for violating the licensing. They don't really care, they try to screw him all the time.

And after he sues them they still continue to do business like nothing happened. A few weeks ago he won a 2 year battle with a $300,000. judgement. They had to pay his legal fees.

So you can have all your ducks in a row legally, licensing wise, and they will still try to screw you over.

the bad eggs i have worked for seemed to have lawyers helping them be vague so they weren't responsible for anything ...