Wedding Photography and Moral Implications of 'Licences'

[Urban Grimshaw]

Before I start, I should mention that I don't shoot weddings. Never have done. So I know very little about the legalities, rules, or whatever else.

I'm constantly fascinated about the views expressed on the forum however. Sometimes reading with genuine intrigue, and other times disgust.

Now I have a basic understanding of copyright and all the rest of it. And many a time I can fully understand the reason of the law. But sometimes...

For example. There's a thread in the Business section. The OP is asking if he can legally re-process some of the images sold by another photographer, as he has been asked by the Bride who isn't happy with the quality.

The thing is. If I got married. And I had a photographer there. I would want him (or her) there for the day. I would not want him standing over me for the rest of my days in order to ensure that I don't infringe copyright in one way or another.

In short, I would want to OWN those pictures. What right does anyone have to hold copyright to MY wedding day? I wouldn't want those pictures displayed for marketing purposes on someone's website, and I wouldn't want to see one of them stuck to a billboard as I walk into town. They belong in a photo album, at home, for those involved.

It's appreciated that people have businesses to run. And if you give an inch, your clients will take a mile. I experience it all the time. And for that reason I'm open minded on the subject. But I'm astounded by some of the things I read.

I'm hoping that there are some moral thoughts out there, with people willing to turn a blind eye to someone editing your pictures, or respect any reasonable requests from the happy couple without getting into any quibbles about infringements of licencing laws.

I just wondered peoples views?

 

[PsiFox]

waits for it!

 

[chip]

We 'ask' our clients if they agree to images from their wedding/portrait being used for display/advertising/competition and website inc Blog and Facebook page.

Most are happy, but those who tick 'No' would never be used. legally we probably could, but morally we would not.

If we do provide a disc to a client, the only restriction is that the images may not be used commercially or sold to any 3rd party. If they wanted to buy the copyright outright, I would have no problem but the fee would put most people off.

 

[Moos3h]

I personally agree, and believe it's largely tied to an outmoded pricing scheme whereby the photographer would make a large amount of their income from printing costs.

Personally-speaking (and I DO shoot weddings) it's not something I'm keen on offering. In my opinion, once paid for, the shots are the property of the bride and groom and I couldn't care less what they do with them - even if they want to run them through a nasty set of Photoshop actions and upload them to Facebook - it's their right and I don't consider it a reflection on my business, precisely why I never watermark anything I give out.

I don't expect many to agree with me, but that's how I do business and ALL of the couples I have spoken to have been relieved that they don't have to fork out for inflated printing costs on top of what I'm charging them. In my opinion in the digital age it simply isn't relevant.

Cheers,
James

 

[Urban Grimshaw]

There's some morals out there then

I know the topic will probably cause a bit of tension, but I'm genuinely curious of the all round opinion, and reasons why.

 

[DannyDMR]

I personally agree, and believe it's largely tied to an outmoded pricing scheme whereby the photographer would make a large amount of their income from printing costs.

Personally-speaking (and I DO shoot weddings) it's not something I'm keen on offering. In my opinion, once paid for, the shots are the property of the bride and groom and I couldn't care less what they do with them - even if they want to run them through a nasty set of Photoshop actions and upload them to Facebook - it's their right and I don't consider it a reflection on my business, precisely why I never watermark anything I give out.

I don't expect many to agree with me, but that's how I do business and ALL of the couples I have spoken to have been relieved that they don't have to fork out for inflated printing costs on top of what I'm charging them. In my opinion in the digital age it simply isn't relevant.

Cheers,
James

So it wouldn't bother you if the bride or groom Photoshop your images making them look terrible and plastering them all over facebook so there 700 friends can see and ask who was your photographer and they say your name! you don't see that as a bad reflection on your business? Cause i would

 

[admirable]

Legally, a wedding tog must seek permission to display the clients images on the www for portfolio purposes.

 

[Phil V]

Before I start, I should mention that I don't shoot weddings. Never have done. So I know very little about the legalities, rules, or whatever else.

I'm constantly fascinated about the views expressed on the forum however. Sometimes reading with genuine intrigue, and other times disgust.

Now I have a basic understanding of copyright and all the rest of it. And many a time I can fully understand the reason of the law. But sometimes...

I hope we can clear this up for you, it's neither disgusting or complicated.

For example. There's a thread in the Business section. The OP is asking if he can legally re-process some of the images sold by another photographer, as he has been asked by the Bride who isn't happy with the quality.

This issue is between the Bride and the original photographer - as has been the advice on that thread, It's quite simply that the customer isn't happy with the work supplied by the photographer, or thinks that they can in some way save some money by hiring someone else to do a job which is possibly covered by a pre-existing contract.

If the bride is genuinely unhappy with the photographers work or album design skills, I'm sure they'll come to some agreement. If the bride is just after a cheap album, she should have hired a photographer that fit her budget.

The thing is. If I got married. And I had a photographer there. I would want him (or her) there for the day. I would not want him standing over me for the rest of my days in order to ensure that I don't infringe copyright in one way or another.

He / she wouldn't want to, the licence should give you the freedom to enjoy your photographs without any guilt - however there has to be terms to protect the photographer....

In short, I would want to OWN those pictures. What right does anyone have to hold copyright to MY wedding day? I wouldn't want those pictures displayed for marketing purposes on someone's website, and I wouldn't want to see one of them stuck to a billboard as I walk into town. They belong in a photo album, at home, for those involved.

Presumably, you'll have found your photographer by searching the internet, or even from a referral, but you'll have checked out the quality of their work before parting with your money. Clearly in order for you to be free to do that, the photographer has to be free to display someone else's wedding images. There'll be much more negotiation goes into a billboard advert than a photographer using your image because they hold the copyright, they'd need your permission and you'd maybe even be compensated.

Unfortunately our reputation is hung on all the work we produce, so if one of my brides makes an arse of reprocessing my work and then produces a photobook at Max Spielman and shows it to people, when they ask who took the pictures, what does that do for my reputation? That's why we retain copyright and hope never to have to enforce it.

It's appreciated that people have businesses to run. And if you give an inch, your clients will take a mile. I experience it all the time. And for that reason I'm open minded on the subject. But I'm astounded by some of the things I read.

So we don't give an inch, we carefully agree with them what an inch is and hopefully everyone gets what they need.

I'm hoping that there are some moral thoughts out there, with people willing to turn a blind eye to someone editing your pictures, or respect any reasonable requests from the happy couple without getting into any quibbles about infringements of licencing laws.

You won't find many content providers, whether art, music, film or photography who can afford to turn a blind eye to copyright infringement. Reasonable means that they can print as many copies of my photo's as they see fit, as large as they want. But a handing over of rights enables them to sell on my work, why would I want to do that? What other than the right of sale would they have to gain from me 'turning a blind eye'?
If I buy a CD tomorrow, I can't mix it up a bit with my own guitar licks and then sell it to someone else to use in an advert, the music isn't mine, I've simply bought a disc and the right to be able to listen to it as many times as I like.

Hopefully if you've bought a picture from me, it won't require any editing, but if you chose to airbrush out your ex-brother in law and put it on your mantelpiece, I honestly won't really mind, though I would prefer you to ask me to do it.

 

[boyfalldown]

In short, I would want to OWN those pictures. What right does anyone have to hold copyright to MY wedding day? I wouldn't want those pictures displayed for marketing purposes on someone's website, and I wouldn't want to see one of them stuck to a billboard as I walk into town. They belong in a photo album, at home, for those involved.

I just wondered peoples views?

The licence given with most wedding photographs allows you to enjoy them and use them as much as I can reasonably envisage you'd ever want too. The reason I maintain copyright is so the use of them stays reasonable, for example to stop someone else passing them off as their own work.

Even without holding the copyright you're protected from them being stuck on a billboard or anything else by the copyright act. You have a right to privacy for private commissions which a wedding certainly is (Section 85 before I get shot down by someone), so I'll always ask if I can use photos for my site, but always get 2 or 3 people say no each year. I just respect their wishes

 

[cjevans]

How many couples even have photoshop? I think he concern over reprocessing is a bit of an exaggeration. People want the digital file to print or put on FB, how many pictures that you see taken by non-photographers have anything done to them. Maybe a bit of instagram or a convert to BW but little else. In the case the OP refers to the processing must be really bad to warrant looking elsewhere and I think is a rare case.

I understand the law is there to protect but to people outside the photographic community it seems weird to not own the rights to your own pictures, which you are hiring the person to take. I put me right off when I went to a wedding fare and found out a cd would cost me an extra £500. I admit that I was totally uneducated at the time in how the business worked-this was about 3 years before I owned an SLR and started to appreciate why a photographer is worth what they are.

I think more and more people are building the cost of the cd into the price they charge as the digital copy is almost expected now anyway but it will take more education of the public before they recognise photography as a difficult artform as they think the iPhone snap is just as good(and sometimes better!)

Sadly the reference to music is weak as people ignore musical copyright ALL the time, how many photographers even break it with their slideshow creations and DVDs etc. Not saying it's right but I have had the conversation with hundreds of people-mainly 11-18 year olds ( I teach religion and often use it as a modern day example of stealing in reference to morality so if anything I'm underestimating the number). I don't think I've ever heard a kid say they even considered copying music to be wrong in any way. "Digital, not hurting anyone, companies are big and make big profits, I paid for the cd-it's mine to do what I want with" are the standard answers. I think photography is the same, there are many threads I've seen here with people showing their work stolen on Facebook with watermarks all over it.

All this brings us back to the start-it's a rule to protect, and sadly the need to protect IS there. Same goes for people who worry about Facebook selling their image-the copyright conditions are there to protect Facebook-they dont want an ad to run or a capture to appear on TV with an image someone created only to have lawyers knocking on the door looking for millions. It'd be business suicide.

The morality is pretty simple-if you want to own all the images in full then agree it upfront and pay for it if part of the agreement. To take what someone else has done without consent is theft and to reproduce without consent is wrong also. If you want proof start photocopying £20 notes...?

(sorry for the rant-quite got into it!)

 

[fracster]

On second thoughts, better not........................

 

[CT]

Well the simple fact is that as the law stands, copyright remains with the photographer unless he sells or otherwise agrees to part with copyright to the customer- it doesn't have anything to do with morals, scruples or the world as you'd like it to be. :shrug:

I find the moral accusation aimed at photographers rather amusing - I've lost track of how many times I've been asked to remove watermarks from wedding proofs or asked to otherwise edit another photographers work - you just can't do it without his or her express permission, and no reputable photographer or processing house would do it.

 

[CarolineS]

I don't think I've ever heard a kid say they even considered copying music to be wrong in any way. "Digital, not hurting anyone, companies are big and make big profits, I paid for the cd-it's mine to do what I want with" are the standard answers.

Hopefully you explain to them why it's not theirs and that it is WRONG?

Caroline

 

[asphotographymk]

I find the moral accusation aimed at photographers rather amusing -

Me to. What a joke.

It is not a moral issue that photographers hold there copyright and it just happens that the law agrees with that. I also give a very loose and fair usage with all of my packages but always own the copyright to "my image" and my art work. If my customers dont like that then they dont book me and that is fine.

Most people that want "full copyright" do not really understand what that means.

 

[cjevans]

Hopefully you explain to them why it's not theirs and that it is WRONG?

Caroline

I do, but I don't think they go home and delete all the songs from their iPod/hard drive

 

[Richard King]

Some real world examples (that I have had to deal with) where the photographer needs to be in control, and also have a decent contract

- Accidental inclusion of artworks
- Mother of bridesmaid demands all images of daughter are deleted (bridesmaid being in every other bridal shot
- You supply an image of a car to a car person, who a year later becomes the sole car person at a venue, who then use the image, the venue only using one photographer, the image appearing to be that photographers work
- Groom sets up as wedding photographer and uses all of my shots (except the ones with them in)
- Bride posts my images (without attribution) mixed in with the guest images on Hitched

 

[gingerjon]

I'm open minded on the subject.

Really? Because it sounds like you've already come to the conclusion that photographers only hold onto their copyright or put together fair usage licences because they're immoral scoundrels with nowt better to do.

A comparison would be for you to put something up on here and allow anybody to download it. They can they do what they like with it and post it anywhere else on the internet with your name still attached to it. Now, some people will improve it, some people will do nothing with it but some people might utterly screw it up. And any of them might use the image in a way that you would not approve of and is definitely not of benefit to you or a reflection of your actual work.

 

[joescrivens]

I work in the education industry and they have their own version of this kind of problem happening right now. I see a very common problem with that industry as with this and that it doesn't fit yet within the world we currently live in. The world has moved on faster than these industries have been able to keep up.

In the education publishing world it's about DRM - digital rights management. A publisher creates an image of a carbon dioxide molecule and the customer buys it (usually a teacher) the publisher wants this image protected and locked down so the teacher can't edit, adapt and change it for similar reasons to the above, but also other reasons.

The teacher wants to break that molecule up into two individual carbon molecules and an oxygen molecule so that it is more useful to them to teach with. The publisher can't handle this and doesn't allow it - result is that the teacher does it anyway and breaks their copyright agreement.

In this digital age people want control over the photo's they bought - they don't want to have to keep coming back to the same person to get prints - they want to send it to aunt flo who lives in Australia on facebook and twitter pic it to their uni friends in milton keynes. They want to use it for the thank you cards.

We live in an age now where digital consumption of these files is the majority of what happens to them. We used to just put them in an album and bring them out once a year on our anniversary, but now we want to put them as our profile pic, use them as a slideshow on youtube, have them in digital frames etc etc

The customers wants are very different now and the industry hasn't figured out how to get round it. Very much like with all these publishers who are doing everything they can to lock down their content when the customer needs it opened up. We tell the publishers that they need to catch up and "get over it" when it comes to DRM quite frankly or they'll be left behind. I think the same is coming true of the photography industry also.

 

[Alastair]

So it wouldn't bother you if the bride or groom Photoshop your images making them look terrible and plastering them all over facebook so there 700 friends can see and ask who was your photographer and they say your name! you don't see that as a bad reflection on your business? Cause i would

Regardless of the copyright details..

This type of example is typical of a photographer who has completely failed to understand the requirements of the client.

The business of image-taking has drastically changed in recent years, and you can either stick to your guns, lament the passing of the old ways and wheel out the same old product.. or you can listen to your market, identify what they want and be amongst those that provide it.

Any photographer that complains about the images they've taken being chopped to share on Facebook is simply missing the whole social media bandwagon.. if I was you, I wouldn't be throwing the dummy out the pram about facebook.. I'd be doing some re-evaluation of my product lint to figure out how I could be so short-sighted not to provide the facebook compatible product as standard and price accordingly. It's obviously a critical component of the client's requirements - so why haven't you realised this?

 

[asphotographymk]

Regardless of the copyright details..

This type of example is typical of a photographer who has completely failed to understand the requirements of the client.

The business of image-taking has drastically changed in recent years, and you can either stick to your guns, lament the passing of the old ways and wheel out the same old product.. or you can listen to your market, identify what they want and be amongst those that provide it.

Any photographer that complains about the images they've taken being chopped to share on Facebook is simply missing the whole social media bandwagon.. if I was you, I wouldn't be throwing the dummy out the pram about facebook.. I'd be doing some re-evaluation of my product lint to figure out how I could be so short-sighted not to provide the facebook compatible product as standard and price accordingly. It's obviously a critical component of the client's requirements - so why haven't you realised this?

I think your missing the point. The point is not to miss benefits of social media it is to use them in a controlled way. Providing facebook ready images and letting your clients edit the image however they like are 2 different things. Clients can also upload any image to facebook they do not need to edit or modify them to do this.

 

[joescrivens]

I think your missing the point. The point is not to miss benefits of social media it is to use them in a controlled way. Providing facebook ready images and letting your clients edit the image however they like are 2 different things. Clients can also upload any image to facebook they do not need to edit or modify them to do this.

actually I think you are missing the point - in bold. The customer doesn't want to be controlled - see my post above, they want the freedom to use the pics how they like, otherwise they are just going to do it anyway and break your copyright agreement.

 

[CT]

I don't think any photographer objects to a couple putting their images on Facebook or elsewhere for online viewing - it's alteration or misrepresentation of the images which is a very real concern. The fact is that people are taking gross liberties with images these days - I found some of my images on two foreign web sites being offered for sale as stock images. I certainly never sent them the images or received one penny for any sales they may have made, but I'll never know and that simply can't be right.

 

[asphotographymk]

actually I think you are missing the point - in bold. The customer doesn't want to be controlled - see my post above, they want the freedom to use the pics how they like, otherwise they are just going to do it anyway and break your copyright agreement.

The customer may want to use the images how they want but thats not going to happen. If you have the right communication with your client and explain things to them in the right way you will be able to keep your client happy , give them the usage that they need rather than what they think they need and still maintain control of your images.

Its not hard to make your client feel like they are getting a great amount of usage without losing controll over the aspects that you want.

With the correct communication they will not break the agreement as they will not need to. They will not need to edit the images becasue you have already provided edits they are happy with, They will not need to crop the images becasue you have already provided facebook ready lower res files maybe even with your watermark on to improve your social media presence - they will not need.

The point is that you can (or should be able to) keep a happy client without giving up that control.

 

[Alastair]

I think your missing the point. The point is not to miss benefits of social media it is to use them in a controlled way. Providing facebook ready images and letting your clients edit the image however they like are 2 different things. Clients can also upload any image to facebook they do not need to edit or modify them to do this.

But complaining here is missing the point.. Why are your clients wanting to make edits? In what way are they editting the image? Could you be doing this for them? If the client is not sharing the images as supplied by you and only sharing the images they've editted themselves.. then maybe there's something wrong with the images as supplied?

And on the positive side.. the client is engaging with your product, there's plenty of corporations spend millions trying to achieve this.. why not provide them with the tools to do it in a way you would be happy with?

Facebook is a form of digital scrapbooking and you're fighting a losing battle if you want the modern client to conform to the old ideal of the printed album, wrapped in tissue paper, kept in the sideboard and only coming out on rare occasions, high days and holy days.

This isn't a threat, it's an opportunity that hasn't yet got a satisfactory solution.. but once one appears there will be money to be made.. I suspect it will probably involve some sort of "play" area on your website where the client is provided with basic tools, very similar to the Picnic set-up on Flickr. Giving some sort of balance between your quality control as the photographer and the creative input of the client (for those clients that want it).

 

[joescrivens]

I don't think any photographer objects to a couple putting their images on Facebook or elsewhere for online viewing - it's alteration or misrepresentation of the images which is a very real concern. The fact is that people are taking gross liberties with images these days - I found some of my images on two foreign web sites being offered for sale as stock images. I certainly never sent them the images or received one penny for any sales they may have made, but I'll never know and that simply can't be right.

there's two different points in your post. The stealing of images for sale that they never owned, nobody can disagree that's wrong.

But people taking gross liberties with images when they paid for them from their wedding day and they are in them - is about them not thinking what they are doing is taking liberty, it's what the customer expects they can do with them and wants to do with them.

Back n the 90's when Dr Martin boots were really popular people used to paint them however they wanted, it became a bit of a thing people did. You didn't hear about Dr Martin banning this because they were ruining their handywork. The customer was doing what they wanted with the product - it certainly didn't destroy the dr martin brand because some people painted them really garishly

 

[joescrivens]

The customer may want to use the images how they want but thats not going to happen. If you have the right communication with your client and explain things to them in the right way you will be able to keep your client happy , give them the usage that they need rather than what they think they need and still maintain control of your images.

Its not hard to make your client feel like they are getting a great amount of usage without losing controll over the aspects that you want.

With the correct communication they will not break the agreement as they will not need to. They will not need to edit the images becasue you have already provided edits they are happy with, They will not need to crop the images becasue you have already provided facebook ready lower res files maybe even with your watermark on to improve your social media presence - they will not need.

The point is that you can (or should be able to) keep a happy client without giving up that control.

I don't disagree with this post. If you give the customer what they want then they won't break your agreement, but that's what this thread is about. Are you giving the customer what they want? You might be, but others aren't.

And they may still want to crop and edit the image - when you upload a pic to facebook as your profile the first thing it does is ask you to crop - the way you have cropped it may not be the way they want it, so they may adjust to fit their profile size - they should be allowed to do this.

 

[CT]

there's two different points in your post. The stealing of images for sale that they never owned, nobody can disagree that's wrong.

But people taking gross liberties with images when they paid for them from their wedding day and they are in them - is about them not thinking what they are doing is taking liberty, it's what the customer expects they can do with them and wants to do with them.

Back n the 90's when Dr Martin boots were really popular people used to paint them however they wanted, it became a bit of a thing people did. You didn't hear about Dr Martin banning this because they were ruining their handywork. The customer was doing what they wanted with the product - it certainly didn't destroy the dr martin brand because some people painted them really garishly

So according to your logic then Joe if you got Joe McNally to do your wedding shots, you'd expect him to be happy with any photoshpping you did on images which are out there representing his work?

 

[joescrivens]

So according to your logic then Joe if you got Joe McNally to do your wedding shots, you'd expect him to be happy with any photoshpping you did on images which are out there representing his work?

I don't expect him to be happy about it, but I'd expect him to move with the times and realise that times have changed and the customer's wants and needs are different.

I think it's a myth that people will spend time ruining a photographers shots, putting them on facebook and then everyone asks who it was and their reputation is ruined.

For a start most people would just doing simple crops to fit into frames or moulds they have for whatever they are using, and they might greyscale some of them too. Anyone who is doing anything more like "selective color" etc is likely wanting everyone to know they did it anyway cos they'll be proud of their photoshop skills.

I just don't see the theory playing out in the real world that a person edits a photographers pics and it ruins his/her reputation.

 

[asphotographymk]

I don't disagree with this post. If you give the customer what they want then they won't break your agreement, but that's what this thread is about. Are you giving the customer what they want? You might be, but others aren't.

What a customer thinks they want and what they actually need are often 2 different things. Do i give all my custom3ers everything they want... I am sure i dont. But with great communication and a little bit of education i will finish with a happy customer.

As for a crop, if i see a client has cropped an image on facebook (and i am connected with almost all of my clients who have facebook) then i will simply send them a file to them dimensions and ask them to use that file. The client will always thank me for my help as that is how i "sell it" that i am helping them not the other way around.

 

[CT]

Well anyone who earns their living solely from photography is working for their money -you don't see many of them driving Lambos and Ferraris either. It doesn't bother me that much any more, but I can certainly sympathise with with full time pros who have to put up with everyone else telling them how they should be running their business.

 

[Alastair]

So according to your logic then Joe if you got Joe McNally to do your wedding shots, you'd expect him to be happy with any photoshpping you did on images which are out there representing his work?

If I was paying Joe McNally or Joe McBloggs, I wouldn't be happy unless he gave me the product I wanted, had agreed in advance and paid for.

Complaining about photoshopping by the client is symptomatic of the photographer failing to deliver what is wanted by the client.. it's not the client misunderstanding licensing. The expectation of the client base is changing, and the business model needs to adapt.

 

[John Hendry]

Its all about getting a good price for the job in the first place then you do not need to worry so much about what is happening to your images, after there out there.

Its interesting to say you want this this and this as long as you pay good money for it.

All the best

 

[CT]

If I was paying Joe McNally or Joe McBloggs, I wouldn't be happy unless he gave me the product I wanted, had agreed in advance and paid for'

Complaining about photoshopping by the client is symptomatic of the photographer failing to deliver what is wanted by the client.. it's not the client misunderstanding licensing. The expectation of the client base is changing, and the business model needs to adapt.

Just a bit too glib Alastair. We see enough dodgy edits here on TP from people who think they're improving the image. Whether it be Joe McNally or Joe Bloggs you can't or shouldn't expect them to accept those sort of alterations to work which represents them and their livelihood.

 

[joescrivens]

Just a bit too glib Alastair. We see enough dodgy edits here on TP from people who think they're improving the image. Whether it be Joe McNally or Joe Bloggs you can't or shouldn't expect them to accept those sort of alterations to work which represents them and their livelihood.

Does anyone have or know a single person that this has happened to? I certainly dont and haven't heard of any. Once the photographer has done his job and handed the product over I think he/she should move onto the next job, their website has the representation of their work that 99% of people will look to before booking them.

It would be like Apple controlling what covers people put on their phones in case they put a really garish one on it and it puts people off the product who see it. "Thats a really horrible phone, who makes that?", "Apple", "ewww, I'm buying an android phone"

 

[joescrivens]

What a customer thinks they want and what they actually need are often 2 different things. Do i give all my custom3ers everything they want... I am sure i dont. But with great communication and a little bit of education i will finish with a happy customer.

As for a crop, if i see a client has cropped an image on facebook (and i am connected with almost all of my clients who have facebook) then i will simply send them a file to them dimensions and ask them to use that file. The client will always thank me for my help as that is how i "sell it" that i am helping them not the other way around.

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

 

[Alastair]

Just a bit too glib Alastair. We see enough dodgy edits here on TP from people who think they're improving the image. Whether it be Joe McNally or Joe Bloggs you can't or shouldn't expect them to accept those sort of alterations to work which represents them and their livelihood.

You're totally missing the point CT.

Why is the client doing the editting?

They're either dissatisfied with the product supplied, or they are wanting to engage with the creative process.


If there's a mismatch between client want and client need, then again this is a problem of the photographer not providing the client with sufficient information from the offset. *All* of these "problems" are opportunities for a competing photographer to provide your clients with a better service.


This thread on the Business section is lot more up-beat about the changing marketplace than many of the comments made here by the pros. Posts #2, #7 and #10 in particular emphasise the opportunites that are there to be grabbed.

 

[CT]

I don't think it's me that's missing the point at all.

All of my commercial weddings were done on film. The only digital weddings I do are family or friends. In the film days I supplied my customers with prints. If they wanted to copy the images they had two choices - either scan the prints or photograph the print to produce a negative. Both are time consuming procedures and most people wouldn't have the requisite equipment anyway.

There's no argument that digital has turned the photographic world upside down. There can be very few homes now that don't possess a computer of some sort, so the customer gets the images on a CD, whacks it into the CD drive and he's instantly free to do what he likes with the images, regardless of any ability or basic photographic judgement. Does he even know what colour space he needs to be working in and his his PC or laptop anywhere near calibrated?

It's a real problem for working pros who take pride in the work they deliver. If the customer isn't happy the time to discuss it as at the point of delivery of the images. It's wonderful if the customer is an editing genius who improves the images, but in the real world that's rarely, if ever, the case.

Of course some wedding photographers can be a bit 'precious' about their work but the fact remains that they have very real cause for concerns these days about their work being manipulated and misrepresented.

 

[Phil V]

I think there's a little pedantry in this thread where one camp is arguing that photographers definitely need to change their business model and one is arguing that they're educating their clients to make sure they get what they want.

As can be seen in the other thread, the reality of the situation lies somewhere in the middle. When we hand our customers a disc of images it contains a folder called 'facebook' (I know - whacky imagination) containing facebook sized images. This isn't costing us in lost sales, they don't need to 'steal' anything and everyone's happy.

The reality of a customer 'ruining' pictures and wrecking our reputation - there's more hours put into internet discussion of this happening than was ever spent dealing with it. Generally it's not going to happen, and I believe that if it did, the particular photographer would deal with it on a case-by-case basis. If it's cropped and badly spot coloured, I think most viewers would understand that the client had done it. Especially if they could also see our original work further down the page. There's no need for them to badly desaturate my photo's because I'll have already done a better job in my B&W conversion.

The OP had made some fairly sweeping generalisations which are clearly miles wide of the actual customer / photographer relationship and I think that reading the whole thread it's obvious what the actual truth is. Only real stick-in-the-mud photographers are failing to adapt to the digital age, and they will eventually pay with their businesses, for the rest of us - onwards and upwards.

In all businesses we must listen to our customers, failing to do so will end in failure. But we must also challenge their perceptions as necessary, if a wedding customer asks me for 'copyright' of my images, I'll ask why they feel they need it. Depending on their reply they'll either be paying me for copyright, happily taking my 'print licence' for free or not appearing on my website as is their choice. There'll be no argument, and I won't be dictating terms as it seems some people want to see it.

 

[joescrivens]

The reality of a customer 'ruining' pictures and wrecking our reputation - there's more hours put into internet discussion of this happening than was ever spent dealing with it. Generally it's not going to happen, and I believe that if it did, the particular photographer would deal with it on a case-by-case basis. If it's cropped and badly spot coloured, I think most viewers would understand that the client had done it. Especially if they could also see our original work further down the page. There's no need for them to badly desaturate my photo's because I'll have already done a better job in my B&W conversion.

exactly!

 

[Arthur Bitter]

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.