Wedding Photography and Moral Implications of 'Licences'

[John Hendry]

How many couples are going to return to the photographer time and time again for extra prints from their wedding day, thgus earning the photographer additional income. ?
This notion is clearly a throw back to the days when it was only possible to get prints from the photographer, the days before Max Spielman had even been born.

I get a lot of reorders, had £1000+ so how much to you give away the right to your images?:bang:

Work out an average and charge that?

All the best

 

[Arthur Bitter]

Perhaps I meant, how many re orders after the initial hand over. For instance, will the couple be back every 2 or 3 months for several years after to order more prints ? I suspect the answer is no in which case, why not sell the full copyright at a reasonable fee , say one year after the wedding date ?

 

[Phil V]

Perhaps I meant, how many re orders after the initial hand over. For instance, will the couple be back every 2 or 3 months for several years after to order more prints ? I suspect the answer is no in which case, why not sell the full copyright at a reasonable fee , say one year after the wedding date ?

Can we for clarity refer to printing licences, we all need to understand that there's many reasons we retain copyright, and it has nothing to do with allowing people to print their own photo's.:bang:

 

[asphotographymk]

Can we for clarity refer to printing licences, we all need to understand that there's many reasons we retain copyright, and it has nothing to do with allowing people to print their own photo's.:bang:

No matter how many times we go over this some people will just never get it :bang::bang::bang::bonk::bonk::bonk:

You sound like my worst nightmare, if I cropped an image and you sent me one and told me to use that I'd be deleting you from my facebook page for being a control freak.

you aren't listening to what the customer wants at all, you are telling them what they need and assuming you know better

Well then you would not be my client in the first place as this would have all been clear before the job and you wouldnt book me. Thats fine with me go to someone else.

The fact is if you educate and explain everything to your client before hand and have a clear and fair contract then these problems should not arise anyway.

Customer service and giving your customer everything they demand are very different things. You dont buy a painting and then start cutting it up into smaller bits so why should a photograph be any different.

 

[joescrivens]

Customer service and giving your customer everything they demand are very different things. You dont buy a painting and then start cutting it up into smaller bits so why should a photograph be any different.

because it is a photograph and not a painting, that's the whole point. It's a completely different medium. It's also not a one off and it can be duplicated as needed

 

[asphotographymk]

because it is a photograph and not a painting, that's the whole point. It's a completely different medium. It's also not a one off and it can be duplicated as needed

It may be a one off. That depends on the agreement you have with the photographer.

 

[realspeed]

Getting away from the copyright arguement slightly , it boils down to buyer beware. For an example, if you buy a second hand car you check it out first to see if its road legal- the person selling has the right to sell it as or on behalf of the owner - its mechanically and bodily sound- it doesn't have an Hp debt on it -it has an MOT etc etc.

So a couple getting married have a duty to themselves to check out a wedding photographer, or any other photographer for that matter, to see if they are up to taking wedding photos. They obviously would either go on reputation or a well established photographic business. They run a risk by asking a friend to do the wedding photos without seeing samples of his/her work first.

Its no good crying over spilled milk afterwards, as per the car example I gave, they should check out every possible angle of what could go wrong and by going to a professional experienced wedding photographer he/she would be able to point out things the BG may have missed. In this case it sounds as if they wanted the cheapest way of getting their wedding photos and now wishing they hadn't.

In our line of business we don't accept any booking unless the client views our animal boarding establishment first, that way they get to know what to expect

Realspeed

 

[joescrivens]

It may be a one off. That depends on the agreement you have with the photographer.

you misunderstand.

A digital photograph can be replicated exactly because it is a file that can be copied as many times as needed. It is not a one off.

A painting cannot, you could not paint two identical pieces, it's impossible.

You can do whatever you want to a photograph yet retain an exact copy of the photograph. If you edited a painting you cannot undo what you have done. They are two different mediums and cannot be compared.

 

[Byker28i]

you misunderstand.

A digital photograph can be replicated exactly because it is a file that can be copied as many times as needed. It is not a one off.

A painting cannot, you could not paint two identical pieces, it's impossible.

You can do whatever you want to a photograph yet retain an exact copy of the photograph. If you edited a painting you cannot undo what you have done. They are two different mediums and cannot be compared.

Sorry Joe you are wrong. There's been many famous forgers of paintings which have taken in the experts, so it appears, with some skills, it's easy to paint two identical pieces.
Obvious names that stand out are Tom keating, John Myatt etc

 

[gingerjon]

A painting cannot, you could not paint two identical pieces, it's impossible.

The career of Andy Warhol proves otherwise.

 

[asphotographymk]

It is also very easy to sell print copies of a painting.... Something you can only do with agreed rights from the artist.

 

[joescrivens]

Sorry Joe you are wrong. There's been many famous forgers of paintings which have taken in the experts, so it appears, with some skills, it's easy to paint two identical pieces.
Obvious names that stand out are Tom keating, John Myatt etc

no i am not wrong oh mortal enemy of mine

whilst to the human eye it might look identical, it is in fact not.

It would be literally impossible to mix paint and get the exact strokes to be identical in every way like a pixel could be. Thats just simple physics!

 

[joescrivens]

It is also very easy to sell print copies of a painting.... Something you can only do with agreed rights from the artist.

you were talking about a painting, not a print copy of a painting thats something else entirely

 

[asphotographymk]

you were talking about a painting, not a print copy of a painting thats something else entirely

Nope i said you wouldn't split the painting up. I did not state what method of reproduction would be used. There are several as said above.

 

[gingerjon]

It would be literally impossible to mix paint and get the exact strokes to be identical in every way like a pixel could be. Thats just simple physics!

I've got an infinite number of monkeys here with an infinite number of paint pots and we're just getting started on proving you wrong.

 

[joescrivens]

Nope i said you wouldn't split the painting up. I did not state what method of reproduction would be used. There are several as said above.

a print copy of a painting is not a painting. It is a print.

this is getting stupidly pedantic now. Let's keep talking about photographs and not things that aren't photographs.

 

[joescrivens]

I've got an infinite number of monkeys here with an infinite number of paint pots and we're just getting started on proving you wrong.

i look forward to the results!! make sure the monkeys are wearing bibs, getting paint out of fur is a nightmare, also if you do prove me wrong you will make my mortal enemy list!

 

[asphotographymk]

a print copy of a painting is not a painting. It is a print.

this is getting stupidly pedantic now. Let's keep talking about photographs and not things that aren't photographs.

It is still a reproduction of the painting what ever medium is used to reproduce it. That is like saying a canvas is not a copy of a photo becasue its not a print

 

[joescrivens]

It is still a reproduction of the painting what ever medium is used to reproduce it. That is like saying a canvas is not a copy of a photo becasue its not a print

no it would be like saying a canvas is not a digital photograph - which it isn't. It's a print of a photograph

lets just stop being pedantic though it's beginning to get ridiculous and completely off topic, now we're talking about definitions instead of the actual discussion topic.

pretty please, with a cherry on top?

 

[big soft moose]

In short, I would want to OWN those pictures. What right does anyone have to hold copyright to MY wedding day?

So basically you'd want the copyright transfered to you rather than the usual licence to print

with some togs that could be arranged, for a price - but it would be a much higher price than a standard wedding package

and the reality is that most people dont care enough to pay the extra

If I say i'd cover wedding x for £800 , and provide a disc of photos with a licence to print , and with web ready low res files for another £200 most brides would be happy with that and see no reason to pay say another £500 for full copyright transfer (especially as once i've transfered copyright to you, I can't then legally sell prints so it will be up to you to sort out the 5 extra prints for great aunt maude etc)

 

[joescrivens]

So basically you'd want the copyright transfered to you rather than the usual licence to print

with some togs that could be arranged, for a price - but it would be a much higher price than a standard wedding package

and the reality is that most people dont care enough to pay the extra

If I say i'd cover wedding x for £800 , and provide a disc of photos with a licence to print , and with web ready low res files for another £200 most brides would be happy with that and see no reason to pay say another £500 for full copyright transfer (especially as once i've transfered copyright to you, I can't then legally sell prints so it will be up to you to sort out the 5 extra prints for great aunt maude etc)

what exactly am i allowed to do different when i own your copyright for the extra £500 rather than the license to print?

 

[Nikon_Nick]

you misunderstand.

A digital photograph can be replicated exactly because it is a file that can be copied as many times as needed. It is not a one off.

A painting cannot, you could not paint two identical pieces, it's impossible.

You can do whatever you want to a photograph yet retain an exact copy of the photograph. If you edited a painting you cannot undo what you have done. They are two different mediums and cannot be compared.

The digital file itself may not be a one off (because you can copy as many times as you like), but the Wedding day, and the skill and knowledge that a good photographer will bring to the table in order to capture that one off moment for you WILL, in my opinion be worth the money

 

[big soft moose]

what exactly am i allowed to do different when i own your copyright for the extra £500 rather than the license to print?

basically not a lot which is why most brides dont give a toss - but was what UG said (s)he wanted

the only real difference is that if the copyright is transfered the client can then assign it elsewhere, give permissions on it, sell pictures etc - none of which is likely , though it does cover the situation refered to on the other thread where the client wants a third party to reedit the photos or reproduce a slideshow to include other images etc

also once copyright is transfered the tog cant sell prints etc , wheras a licence to print isnt exclusive, and is usually 'for own use'

 

[joescrivens]

basically not a lot which is why most brides dont give a toss - but was what UG said (s)he wanted

the only real difference is that if the copyright is transfered the client can then assign it elsewhere, give permissions on it, sell pictures etc - none of which is likely , though it does cover the situation refered to on the other thread where the client wants a third party to reedit the photos or reproduce a slideshow to include other images etc

also once copyright is transfered the tog cant sell prints etc , wheras a licence to print isnt exclusive, and is usually 'for own use'

So without it, can I make my own sideshows, crop the pics, change them to black and White etc?

 

[Alastair]

So without it, can I make my own sideshows, crop the pics, change them to black and White etc?

If you have a license to create derivative works..

Reading the Flickr Help pages on creative commons licensing would help anyone that's unsure on licensing.. and you need to understand what you want to do in order to know what you need. Buying the copyright is overkill, if what you really want is a noncommercial license to reproduce or create derivative works.

 

[big soft moose]

So without it, can I make my own sideshows, crop the pics, change them to black and White etc?

that would depend on the licence - personaly I dont give much of a monkeys if the client does decide to play with the files (Though I cant remember an incidence of hearing of anyone doing it) so my licence would be for 'personal use' (ie they can do whatever they want with them for their own ammusement but they cant use them comercially, or give permission to third parties) - but other togs might feel differently and some licences might be more restrictively worded.

anyway this is all OT , my point was that if UG wants to own the photos of his/her wedding and have total control over them including the right to get third parties to work on them etc s/he would have to buy the copyright and that would cost.

 

[joescrivens]

that would depend on the licence - personaly I dont give much of a monkeys if the client does decide to play with the files (Though I cant remember an incidence of hearing of anyone doing it) so my licence would be for 'personal use' (ie they can do whatever they want with them for their own ammusement but they cant use them comercially, or give permission to third parties) - but other togs might feel differently and some licences might be more restrictively worded.

anyway this is all OT , my point was that if UG wants to own the photos of his/her wedding and have total control over them including the right to get third parties to work on them etc s/he would have to buy the copyright and that would cost.

Well, a license that allows total personal use like you suggest is what I think the Market wants, generally nobody wants to sell their own images but they do want total personal control. If people are giving that then they are moving with the times, if not then the customer is going to do t anyway regardless and you'll be left behind as a business

 

[asphotographymk]

Well, a license that allows total personal use like you suggest is what I think the Market wants, generally nobody wants to sell their own images but they do want total personal control. If people are giving that then they are moving with the times, if not then the customer is going to do t anyway regardless and you'll be left behind as a business

From my experience what the market wants is a license to make prints and share there images on social media nothing more. I have actually never had a client that was not happy with this.

 

[big soft moose]

From my experience what the market wants is a license to make prints and share there images on social media nothing more. I have actually never had a client that was not happy with this.

yep - we all think of photoediting as being as natural as breathing because that's what we do - but the chances of joe public wanting to photoshop their wedding shots are pretty minimal, we've just got photoshop at work and none of the rest of the team have a clue what to do with it

The only instance I can think of is a girl four or so years ago who asked if it was okay to use 12 of the shots ben and I had taken for her on a templated calendar for freinds and family - although that wasn't technically covered by the licence we said yep , no problem.

 

[fyonn]

I must admit, I'm with the OP. if I'm paying a photographer to take pictures for me, then I'm paying him to take pictures *for me*, i.e. I have commissioned the work, they are my pictures and I feel that I should hold ownership over them. You may not agree with me and that's fine, but it's highly likely I won't use you. (this may not faze you of course)

When I got married and hired a wedding tog I explained early on that I wanted ownership over the photographs and this was agreed quickly and easily as an alternative to a formal album. shortly after the wedding I got 2 DVD's, one with jpegs, one with raw's. I used these pictures to create my own album using apple aperture's album creation function. Were the resultant albums as impressive as those shown me by the tog? of course not, but the thing is, the albums my wife and I designed after the wedding were what we actually wanted, of a size and shape that were storable (as opposed to the massive steel-bound number we were being shown) and cheap enough that we could print off one each for the parents too. I could do all this because I owned the pictures and didn't have to worry. I also got to easily put my pics up on Facebook for friends and family to see.

could I have edited the pictures to make them look awful, of course I could but so what? I can (in theory) buy a rolls-royce and paint it pink with leopard skin highlights and there's nothing rolls royce can or should do about it. Abercrombie and Fitch are now trying to pay the stars of Jersey Shore not to wear their clothing as it doesn't fit their "aspirational brand image", should they have kept some form of control over who they feel is okay to wear their clothing so as not to damage their reputation?

I would also think that a photographer should not be relying on me for their marketing, but have their own marketing material that they can use to wow customers. they may even have gained my permission to use photo's they have taken on my behalf in their portfolio to show potential customers and that would be fine.

don't get me wrong, I'm not down on the photographers art. I have a lot of respect for the work that goes into producing a great photo and even more respect for a tog who can make great photo's happen more often than not, but I have long had issues with how copyright works and this is one of those areas. if someone has commissioned and paid for a piece of art, then I don't see why they should not own the copyright over it as well unless otherwise agreed. more importantly, I think it's what the "average" person expects to happen, and I suspect they get surprised and disappointed at the lack of ownership all the time, esp with wedding photo's where you can't imagine why anyone else would want to own them...

David

PS. and yes, if I was wealthy enough to be hiring McNally to be taking pics for me, I'd be tell him that I expect my money to be buying ownership of the pictures as well, and as a commercial photographer, I would imagine that he's sold the rights to his photographs more times that he can count, probably to be edited in ways he wouldn't approve of by pimply faced youths at magazines, but them's the breaks.

 

[joescrivens]

From my experience what the market wants is a license to make prints and share there images on social media nothing more. I have actually never had a client that was not happy with this.

I've been to 4 weddings this year. Each one of them has sent thank you cards for the gifts and all of them used a photo from their wedding on the gift card.

People are doing more and more things like this, it's just that you don't get to hear about it. You can either try and stop it and fail or as alistair says, monopolise on it and see it as a new revenue.

Why not create a part of your website that allows them to create their giftcard through you?

I've also seen lots of people make calendars using wedding photos with the likes of iphoto. There are options for the creative mind to make more money here

 

[asphotographymk]

I've been to 4 weddings this year. Each one of them has sent thank you cards for the gifts and all of them used a photo from their wedding on the gift card.

People are doing more and more things like this, it's just that you don't get to hear about it. You can either try and stop it and fail or as alistair says, monopolise on it and see it as a new revenue.

Why not create a part of your website that allows them to create their giftcard through you?

I've also seen lots of people make calendars using wedding photos with the likes of iphoto. There are options for the creative mind to make more money here

There is nothing stopping people from creating a gift card.... They get a license to print then they can do this. I will of course encourage them to buy my own thank you cards that i already offer. Again making things like cards, calendars so on would all be included in a basic license or i sell them which for me is the aim.

Most photographers will already sell the products you list.

 

[big soft moose]

if someone has commissioned and paid for a piece of art, then I don't see why they should not own the copyright over it as well unless otherwise agreed. more importantly, I think it's what the "average" person expects to happen, .

it might be what 'average person expects' but it isnt how UK copyright law stands - as i said earlier if a client wants the copyright thats arrangeable but at a price - and most people wont bother if a licence to print, or licence for personal use meets there own needs

 

[joescrivens]

There is nothing stopping people from creating a gift card.... They get a license to print then they can do this. I will of course encourage them to buy my own thank you cards that i already offer. Again making things like cards, calendars so on would all be included in a basic license or i sell them which for me is the aim.

A license to print is just that - you can print your photo's

A license to make a card or calendar needs a license to make derivative works

doesn't it?

and if you give people all this freedom then why on earth do you stop them cropping a photo for facebook and instead send them your own cropped version? If you are happy for them to change the photos however they wish for a card or a calendar why not so to make a simple crop for a facebook profile?

Most photographers will already sell the products you list.

really, can you link me to some photographers sites that allow me to do this then, where i can create the card online, pick templates, add my text etc and the same with calendars. I've not seen any myself, and I notice you don't have this.

 

[Richard King]

I must admit, I'm with the OP. if I'm paying a photographer to take pictures for me, then I'm paying him to take pictures *for me*, i.e. I have commissioned the work, they are my pictures and I feel that I should hold ownership over them. You may not agree with me and that's fine, but it's highly likely I won't use you. (this may not faze you of course)

I can see why you would think that, but in the normal professional wedding photographer / client scenario, this isnt practicable, nor does it make any commercial sense

For fairness, I am answering this post with the view of a professional wedding photographer dealing with a regular client, NOT SPECIFICALLY YOU

When I got married and hired a wedding tog I explained early on that I wanted ownership over the photographs and this was agreed quickly and easily as an alternative to a formal album. shortly after the wedding I got 2 DVD's, one with jpegs, one with raw's. I used these pictures to create my own album using apple aperture's album creation function. Were the resultant albums as impressive as those shown me by the tog? of course not, but the thing is, the albums my wife and I designed after the wedding were what we actually wanted, of a size and shape that were storable (as opposed to the massive steel-bound number we were being shown) and cheap enough that we could print off one each for the parents too. I could do all this because I owned the pictures and didn't have to worry.

For me as a professional wedding photographer, the RAW file is "unfinished work". In the old days of film, I would push a shot or under expose or over expose a shot for a specific reason or as part of a creative process. Exactly the same applies now. Details such as colour profiling from the x-rite passport test shot, colour matching across a range of shots etc.. are going to be pretty impossible for the general public, and most photographers

I produce my clients finished images, suitable for printing, and suitable for web usage. I have a specifically decorated editing suite, with specific lighting, and colour calibrated work-flow from camera to final file, or camera to printer. Many professionals dont go to these lengths, so I doubt any of my paying customers will either

Secondly, part of my "look" is also in the way I process the RAW file. I said earlier the RAW file was "unfinished work" most wedding photographers feel this

Now, I have taken on-board your sentiments, as they reflect the majority of the B&G's I meet, and that's why I supply edited JPEGS or TIFF's (specifically profiled and sharpened for printing) and a second set of edited JPEGS specifically shrunk and sharpened for screen... And unlike many photographers, my clients get the whole set, with a limited licence

What they dont get is the duplicated shots (purposefully taken to eliminate blinks) and the shots with a technical issue (i.e. flash did not fire)

I also got to easily put my pics up on Facebook for friends and family to see.

At this point the photographer is trusting you to:
1. make a good job of the edits (see my point above about editing/pp style being a deliberate part of the style of the photographer)
2. properly attribute who did the edits and who shot the photographs. If the average customer makes a hash of the edits, the photographer looks like he/she produces poor work. That's commercial suicide

could I have edited the pictures to make them look awful, of course I could but so what? I can (in theory) buy a rolls-royce and paint it pink with leopard skin highlights and there's nothing rolls royce can or should do about it. Abercrombie and Fitch are now trying to pay the stars of Jersey Shore not to wear their clothing as it doesn't fit their "aspirational brand image", should they have kept some form of control over who they feel is okay to wear their clothing so as not to damage their reputation?

Your analogy with the rolls-royce is a good one that defeats your argument in one. The reason you said rolls-royce is because it is synonymous with quality and class. the reason this is so, is because they have made high end high quality cars for a very long time, and have earn't people respect. They do this because they do not release kits for customers to make themselves. They have exacting quality control. Anyone seeing your rolls-royce would immediately think "what a plonker, that fella spoilt a decent car". They would not think "rolls royce quality control fell over that day, the company is xxxx"

Same applies to professional photographers. When you loose control over not just the final product, but the interim steps in leading up to the finished product too, you are leaving yourself wide open to people thinking that your work is poor

I would also think that a photographer should not be relying on me for their marketing, but have their own marketing material that they can use to wow customers. they may even have gained my permission to use photo's they have taken on my behalf in their portfolio to show potential customers and that would be fine.

Again this is a very commercially ignorant point

1. For couples to appreciate my style and choose me they need to see previous work. How can I do this under your way of thinking?
2. If every couple says no, the photographer is stuffed
3. where do you suggest we get "our own marketing material from"

The wedding industry is fickle, dresses go out of fashion "just like that" good wedding photographers need a broad and fresh portfolio. Many people say "you need to see full albums and full galleries from complete weddings" to do this, we need to show our previous customers work

don't get me wrong, I'm not down on the photographers art. I have a lot of respect for the work that goes into producing a great photo and even more respect for a tog who can make great photo's happen more often than not, but I have long had issues with how copyright works and this is one of those areas. if someone has commissioned and paid for a piece of art, then I don't see why they should not own the copyright over it as well unless otherwise agreed.

It is not practical, and this is why:

- I have on-site and off-site backup. If you have the copyright, that disappears, and TBH - that is more valuable to the client than "copyright"
- I would need your permission to do anything with the images, which may also include other professional third parties
- I may have "breached a copyright by accidentally including an artwork", dealing with this becomes impossible once the RAW files are handed over, yet "as the photographer" I could still be liable for how you use the images
- My source of marketing images would stop dead in its tracks
- I would be at the whims of brides and grooms regarding my usages of the images that I shot. I might invest £1000 in albums, and then find the permission withdrawn
- As the copyright holder, you can do what you want with the images, and miss-represent my skill, and that's commercial suicide for me
- I would not be able to sell re-prints, instead you would be dealing with them, and it is unlikely you have the infrastructure to do this easily

more importantly, I think it's what the "average" person expects to happen, and I suspect they get surprised and disappointed at the lack of ownership all the time, esp with wedding photo's where you can't imagine why anyone else would want to own them...

-You dont own windows - it is licenced to you
-You dont own the copyright to the DVD you just brought either,so you cant distribbute it
-You dont own the copyright to the music you brought - so you cant distribute it
-If you are a musician doing a cover, you still need to recognise the song-writer, and then if you use a sample you still need to pay the original artist

All this copyright business is there for a reason

 

[asphotographymk]

A license to print is just that - you can print your photo's

A license to make a card or calendar needs a license to make derivative works

doesn't it?

A license for print and web which is what most photogrpahers provide is just that print and web. No medium is limited what is limited is the usage terms for example commercial gain.
I dont see these products as "derivative works" i see them as print products. Maybe others will disagree but i allow this for my clients and encourage them to use mine.

really, can you link me to some photographers sites that allow me to do this then, where i can create the card online, pick templates, add my text etc and the same with calendars. I've not seen any myself, and I notice you don't have this.

Yes really. But no i am sure not many have this as a feature on there website. Most will provide a professional design service which is proofed to the client and the client makes changes as they wish. The result is that the client gets a product that looks how they want but with a higher level if service than tacky DIY sites offer. This again in my experience (almost 50 weddings a year) is exactly what clients want when buying products such as as thank you cards. This again gives the photographer a little creative control over the look of there images but still gives the client the final look they want, this means both client and photographer are happy.

 

[joescrivens]

- As the copyright holder, you can do what you want with the images, and miss-represent my skill, and that's commercial suicide for me

I can see nearly all of what you said richard apart from this part.

I just think people have paranoia that this is going to happen, but in the real world as Phil V stated it's not going to happen.

But you're right it's not copyright that people need it's:

the ability to print as many photos to whatever size
the ability to give as many copies to whomever they want for personal use
the ability to showcase online wherever they want, like facebook and twitter
to make derivative works like gift cards and calendars for personal use
Make slideshows and include in youtube home movies they make

and lastly

to be able to edit the pic for these purposes (99% are only going to crop, put a border or turn to black and white)

if they can do all of these things, and they do them anyway you just never hear about it, then to them they consider that they own the pics, and everyones happy.

 

[joescrivens]

A license for print and web which is what most photogrpahers provide is just that print and web. No medium is limited what is limited is the usage terms for example commercial gain.

so phil V is incorrect then when he said you need a license to make derivative works in order to create your own calendar, mug, tshirt, or whatever for personal use?

Yes really. But no i am sure not many have this as a feature on there website. Most will provide a professional design service which is proofed to the client and the client makes changes as they wish. The result is that the client gets a product that looks how they want but with a higher level if service than tacky DIY sites offer. This again in my experience (almost 50 weddings a year) is exactly what clients want when buying products such as as thank you cards. This again gives the photographer a little creative control over the look of there images but still gives the client the final look they want, this means both client and photographer are happy.

Well then it's not a yes it's a no, I wasn't talking about you as the photographer selling me your gift cards, I'm talking about a part of your website where people can do this themselves like in iPhoto, which is what I originally said in post 71. You still get creative control because you can provide a selection of templates to choose from.

It's only a tacky DIY site if you design it that way, if you design a professional tool then that's what it would be.

 

[asphotographymk]

so phil V is incorrect then when he said you need a license to make derivative works in order to create your own calendar, mug, tshirt, or whatever for personal use?

A calendar with the print on is not derivative work , to be derivative work it must be distinguishable from the work upon which it is derived. In the case of using an image in a calendar unless the image is somewhat modified then this is a print not derivative work. Just like supplying a print for a magazine of course there is other material around the print but the image is still original not derivative. This is as always of course a gray area as with many parts of photography.

If the print was limited to simply photographic paper this would also mean you could not make a canvas ?

Well then it's not a yes it's a no, I wasn't talking about you as the photographer selling me your gift cards, I'm talking about a part of your website where people can do this themselves like in iPhoto, which is what I originally said in post 71. You still get creative control because you can provide a selection of templates to choose from.

THis is simply making something more complicated than it needs to be. Why fix something if its not broken. Yes for some people an online facility would be a good idea but that does not mean that without one you cant sell products and give the client a product they are happy with. And it certainty does not mean that a client needs to own copyright.

 

[joescrivens]

THis is simply making something more complicated than it needs to be. Why fix something if its not broken. Yes for some people an online facility would be a good idea but that does not mean that without one you cant sell products and give the client a product they are happy with. And it certainty does not mean that a client needs to own copyright.

I agree that they dont need to own copyright for this as I said above in response to richard. But this is just one example of how you can be creative and go forward with the way the world is moving rather than digging your heels in. It doesn't have to be greeting cards - what about a facebook profile tool which has some creative controls to edit, or an iphone background image maker, how about some tool to make an animated gif slidewhow that brides can have as their avatar on their parenting forum etc etc. The point is people are doing this anyway and you are not making money from it and don't ever hear about it, so why not cash in?

Going back to your control over the cropping on facebook what happens in this scenario:

person uploads pic to facebook as their profile
facebook gives them the option to crop
they crop it
you see it and send them your own cropped version of the photo and ask them to replace it

firstly - why? Is it because they have cropped it differently to how you would like?

If so, what if they say, no I don't like that crop, i like this crop.

What do you do next?