Wedding Photography and Moral Implications of 'Licences'

[Alastair]

*btw I think the first attribution of derivative works was Alistair, I haven't checked his understanding, I'm not apportioning blame for the misrepresentation of the term.

There you go, getting all derivative on the spelling of my name..

I was using derivative works to refer people to readily available guidelines on CC licensing, which if read might have cleared up the connfusion between copyright and license. In this context I would use derivtaive works to refer to the client subseqently dropping the original image through a Warhol-effect filter, etc.. and generally mullering the image in the way that was being suggested, but that noone has subsequently identified as having happened..

However, I rather lost the plot with this thread quite a while ago.


I did though stop and click on the links of several of the pro's contributing to the thread, and however hard I tried I could not find a copy of anyones terms and conditions on their website. So I do hope that these are being presented to the prospective clients in plain English and in time for them to make an educated decision on the basis of what they specify.


Which left me wondering something else, which if it will confuse this thread even further can be safely ignored.. .. what arrangements have any of the pro's made for disposing of the RAW/hi-res files or negatives? does anyone have a written policy on how long they will be retained? or what will happen to them in the event that the photography business ceases trading for whatever reason? - in particular, on the unexpected death of a sole trader photographer.

 

[asphotographymk]

I did though stop and click on the links of several of the pro's contributing to the thread, and however hard I tried I could not find a copy of anyones terms and conditions on their website. So I do hope that these are being presented to the prospective clients in plain English and in time for them to make an educated decision on the basis of what they specify.

There is a link to mine on my site but all that covers is 2. Usage. A.S Photography may provide you with a limited usage license.
Images may only be used in conjunction with the terms of this license.

Any more detail would be very silly as the terms will be different for each shoot based on the specific agreement which would be in the contract and then the usage agreement with the disk. So it is clearly explained at several stages. Also i make a point of explaining each point of the contract in person.

 

[Richard King]

I did though stop and click on the links of several of the pro's contributing to the thread, and however hard I tried I could not find a copy of anyones terms and conditions on their website. So I do hope that these are being presented to the prospective clients in plain English and in time for them to make an educated decision on the basis of what they specify.

It's all in the contract, and its all explained clearly. I also discuss it properly with a client before booking

I used to have a page on my site extensively explaining this subject, it had 10 real hits in 2 years, so I dropped it when the site was re-done

This is an interesting issue, and is open to a lot of miss-interpretation, which is why I deal with it in the couples contract

It doesn't help when many wedding photographers openly state "I give copyright" or "I share copyright" or use "the word copyright" when they mean "licence to print"... No wonder the public always want "copyright", when very few members of the public (and a lot of photographers by the look of it) understand what it actually means

I have "terms and conditions" at the point of sale for a re-print, but they are not needed on my main site, as I don't directly sell anything from it. All sales are negotiated and the T&C's are dealt with in my contract

 

[Arthur Bitter]

'what will happen to them in the event that the photography business ceases trading for whatever reason? - in particular, on the unexpected death of a sole trader photographer.'...

I'll be dead and quite frankly and won't give a toss . In what job or occupation does the person laying on their death bed think.... ' I wish I'd spent longer at work ? "

 

[asphotographymk]

'what will happen to them in the event that the photography business ceases trading for whatever reason? - in particular, on the unexpected death of a sole trader photographer.'...

I'll be dead and quite frankly and won't give a toss . In what job or occupation does the person laying on their death bed think.... ' I wish I'd spent longer at work ? "

A porn star? lol
Being serious this goes for any small business. If a business ceases trading for any reason this can lead to some issues.

 

[Arthur Bitter]

Indeed it can but how many other sole traders sit worrying and planning in order to make sure their customers are catered for should they suddenly cease breathing.?

 

[Richard King]

'what will happen to them in the event that the photography business ceases trading for whatever reason? - in particular, on the unexpected death of a sole trader photographer.'...

I'll be dead and quite frankly and won't give a toss . In what job or occupation does the person laying on their death bed think.... ' I wish I'd spent longer at work ? "

http://www.lr.mdx.ac.uk/copyright/index.htm might help

as might reading this very useful guide: http://www.businessandpatents.org/content/files/Copyright-photography-BAPIS.pdf

Essentially, the copyright can be passed on in a will, just like any other asset

 

[Richard King]

Indeed it can but how many other sole traders sit worrying and planning in order to make sure their customers are catered for should they suddenly cease breathing.?

What's the worst that could happen?

In my case I have on-site and off-site backup, and the only thing that's really in danger is work in progress (i.e. not a RAW file, and not a finished file)

My files could be passed to any other photographer, by whoever manages my estate - for editing / completion of a album order etc. I have a document with my will relating to this. The paperwork system in my office is clear enough for anyone to be able to walk in and find their way round current WIP and orders, and my computer systems are organised enough for any other photographer to pick up the ball

My relatives know my computer passwords, and some of them occasionally work in my office, so additionally know the score

I don't sit there worrying about it, I thought about it and dealt with it years ago

 

[Arthur Bitter]

It is commendable that you have put so much effort in to the welfare of your clients. I'm afraid that I have been shafted by so many clients over the years, I'll be sitting up there... or more likely down there, laughing my dangly bits off at them as they run round trying to sort out the mess.

 

[Alastair]

Indeed it can but how many other sole traders sit worrying and planning in order to make sure their customers are catered for should they suddenly cease breathing.?

Only the good ones.

 

[freefall]

I'm not even going to bother reading this whole thread as I have my views on it and will not budge.

BRIDE: "We are considering booking you for our wedding. Have you done many weddings before?"
PHOTOGRAPHER: "Yes, literally hundreds of thousands. I'm one of the world's best according to (X, Y, Z)"
BRIDE: "Excellent! Can I see some work please?"
PHOTOGRAPHER: "Sorry I'm afraid you can't"
BRIDE: "errrr... why not?"
PHOTOGRAPHER: "Because all the other Big, Bad, Brides won't let me."

How much is JSA nowadays?

Don't meant to cause offence but I don't beat around the bush!

 

[fyonn]

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

I think things are changing. I think they weren't practical and are becoming mores over time

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.

which is why I'm more than happy to get the jpegs, but having the raws too lets me play with them if I want to, like a magazine sub-editing the work of a journalist. I might like what you've done but it doesn't mean I don't want to make some changes to fit it into something I'm doing, and why is that a bad thing?

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

and again we come to the phrase "the photographer is trusting you"...

1) how often is the client likely to edit an image to make it truly awful? on the off chance that they occasionally do how much would it really matter?
2) honest question, can the photographer not maintain moral rights even after they have given up copyright?

I think this concern over clients "ruining" their work amounts to being very precious over their creative work when really it's the clients work.

I think there's a key difference here between taking photographs for yourself as art and then looking to sell them, and being commissioned to take photographs by a client. in the former case the arguments about creativity and attribution and someone ruining your work I can understand being far more pressing in your mind. in the latter case though, you're doing a job. yes, there's creativity in there but you're being paid to do something specific (take pics of a wedding, say) and the focus really isn't on you, the artist, but on the subject (the bride and groom). yes a better photographer should make the subject look better but then that's why they came to you and not the next photographer down the street.

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"

yes, and I think that a well taken photo will withstand a fair amount of editing and still look like a well taken photo unless the person is trying to spoil it and they've little reason to do that. also, when you drive a rolls down the street everyone knows who made it. when people see my wedding shots there's no attribution at all, nor should there be unless someone asks who took them.

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"

1) they still can see your previous work. in the same way that your currently licence pictures to your clients, they could effectively licence them back to you for your portfolio. I would have little problem with my wedding tog using our pictures to show other couples as an example of his work (as long as he'd asked us), though I'd rather we not appear on a giant billboard. still, I imagine that would be a separate and paid for arrangement.
2) firstly, is that likely to happen? I imagine some couples might be very secretive and for perfectly good reasons but most I would think are likely to be happy to let you use their pictures as example folio material. if lots of couples say no then make it financially attractive for them, offer them a few quid off to allow it.

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"

how long do your keep images backed up? I recently had some studio pictures taken of our baby daughter and the company told us that they delete their pictures a year after the last image is ordered. so it's not a life long commitment. I bought the copyright and I have them on my laptop and backed up on my raid array and on the DVD they came on.

besides, if I own the images and I lose them, that's my fault, not yours.

- I would need your permission to do anything with the images, which may also include other professional third parties

well, if I need you to do anything then permission is kind of implicit and if you want something stronger than that then it's easily done

- 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

well, how do you deal with it when you do own the copyright? there must be legal mechanisms for this situation now as it must have happened before.

- My source of marketing images would stop dead in its tracks

as I've said before, I don't think this has to be the case at all

- 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

if you've ordered custom supplies for the client in good faith and they change their mind then you have every legal right to bill them for it regardless.

- 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

the ability to do what I want with the images is what I want though. as creator you should still have the right to be identified as the creator but that's not the same as copyright (unless I'm wrong?)

- 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

I may not want to buy prints off you. just because I've hired you to take photographs doesn't mean I want to use you to print them too. maybe I want to use someone else who's cheaper, maybe I want to stick them on the internet. maybe I want to print them at home on my £60 inkjet form telco's. why does it matter?

-You dont own the copyright to the music you brought - so you cant distribute it

this is an interesting one. people don't expect to be able to distribute music for free.. well, if they do they know it's wrong, but they do expect to be able to rip it and stick it into their iPod, which funnily enough UK copyright law does not give them any right to do. record companies could sue everyone who rips a CD onto their computer but it would be commercial suicide for them to do so, and now the government is looking at giving us that right in law anyway.

people rip CD because they feel that they ought to be able to move the music onto their iPod. they've paid for it, they're not pirating it they're just making more convenient use of it. in this example the companies were unable to stop people as they then tried to do with DVD and Bluray.

with photography the people I talk to tend to be surprised, disappointed and slightly resigned that when they hire a photographer (usually a wedding tog) that they don't own the images. in this instance there's little they can do about it (apart from scan the prints, which I bet many do) but they grumble and figure it as "just some other money-making scheme". this is why for me, it was my first requirement. lets get that out of the way and then we can discuss other things

All this copyright business is there for a reason

I agree that copyright is there for a reason and I think that it also needs major reformation to meet the demands and expectations of the citizens and not just the businesses.

david

 

[Richard King]

David

I feel you really didn't grasp the essence of what I am saying

I give my wedding customers
- ALL (not 200) finished full res, highest quality JPEGS optimised for print
- The same images, optimised for web
- Slide show for web
- Larger slide show for TV
- A second set of backup disks
- Private gallery
- Public gallery

That is substantitivley more than any other photographer I know of

In addition to that, they get a licence to print and re-distribute (electronically)

In reality, the only limitations are:

- Don't use the images commercially
- Do not miss-represent me or my work
- Under certain limited conditions, my work requires attribution

Essentially, the client gets everything they need to go away and get an album made, print what ever they want for themselves and their family and show their friends all the photographs

----

Copyright set up like this protects me against:

- competitors passing images off as my own
- my work being spoilt and then been passed off as mine, making me look bad

---
It has to be added. We dont make the law, we work within its framework. That framework is clear and logical, and is there fro really good well thought out reasons

---

I am committed to maintaining my archive permanently. I re-visit it every five years and re-duplicate it. I recently swapped a load of CD's to the DVD format (can you still read floppies)

---

If you really thought about this hard, you would realise that giving copyright to the end client is a total nightmare for all concerned, mainly for the photographer, and partially for the client. It is a recipe for chaos

 

[Phil V]

David

I feel you really didn't grasp the essence of what I am saying

I give my wedding customers
- ALL (not 200) finished full res, highest quality JPEGS optimised for print
- The same images, optimised for web
- Slide show for web
- Larger slide show for TV
- A second set of backup disks
- Private gallery
- Public gallery

That is substantitivley more than any other photographer I know of

In addition to that, they get a licence to print and re-distribute (electronically)

In reality, the only limitations are:

- Don't use the images commercially
- Do not miss-represent me or my work
- Under certain limited conditions, my work requires attribution

Essentially, the client gets everything they need to go away and get an album made, print what ever they want for themselves and their family and show their friends all the photographs

----

Copyright set up like this protects me against:

- competitors passing images off as my own
- my work being spoilt and then been passed off as mine, making me look bad

---
It has to be added. We dont make the law, we work within its framework. That framework is clear and logical, and is there fro really good well thought out reasons

---

I am committed to maintaining my archive permanently. I re-visit it every five years and re-duplicate it. I recently swapped a load of CD's to the DVD format (can you still read floppies)

---

If you really thought about this hard, you would realise that giving copyright to the end client is a total nightmare for all concerned, mainly for the photographer, and partially for the client. It is a recipe for chaos

This is surely the whole crux of this thread, the difference between a few people with a perceived 'issue' with how they believe wedding photographers do business and the actual service that we provide.

There are more photographers closer to Richards model than there are photographers who see copyright as a way to control customer behaviour. This is a service industry and if we're not giving the customer what they want they'll go elsewhere.

Giving over copyright is something pro photographers are familiar with, there are occasions that it's the correct business model and there are also many occasions that it isn't. This isn't simply an argument about photographers wanting control, MOST wedding customers have no need to hold copyright to their wedding images.

The arguments above are a squirmy response to some valid points; the couple can get copyright but then licence the photographer to enable him to use images for promotion, oh and to have licence to sell pictures to relatives, and keep copies in archive, because the couple don't need to be bothered by having to actually exercise the responsibility that'd go along with ownership of the images. It's utter nonsense compared to the photographer having copyright and the customer having reasonable usage rights.

 

[asphotographymk]

I think yet again people are making an issue that simply does not exist. If it aint broke dont fix it. There is nothing wrong with the way that the majority of photogrpahers protect there business with copyright, a license can give the client everything that they want without the photographer losing the right to protect there work. Why would any client need more than the right to print and use images on the web. Why do clients need to be able to sell there images or mess around with them putting terrible spot color. If thats what the client wanted then they should have gone to a photographer that does that and thats totally fine.

With a large range of clients i have not got a single one that is unhappy with the easy to understand terms of both there contract and the usage license.

 

[joescrivens]

I don't know that this is an issue that doesn't exist. I do get the sense that almost everyone who has contributed in a large way in this thread is "of the new breed" and provides much freedom.

But that doesn't feel the norm on here from the threads you read.

 

[Richard King]

I don't know that this is an issue that doesn't exist. I do get the sense that almost everyone who has contributed in a large way in this thread is "of the new breed" and provides much freedom.

But that doesn't feel the norm on here from the threads you read.

There seems to be a difference between having an opinion, discussing it... and earning a living from it dealing with the real issues, from week to week, and dealing with real customers (and actually doing the work)

Thanks for calling me "new breed" my wife will like that! I remember the film days, and still shoot some for pleasure

 

[gingerweasel]

To be honest I don't know which side I fall on.

I was having a conversation about this a few weeks ago with my wife and she said something which really made me think.

"If I chose the Venue, I picked the clothing, I arranged for the cars with ribbons and flowers, the colour scheme was my choice, I chose the rings, I chose the cake and even the style of my makeup and hair - don't I have as much involvement as the photographer when it comes to how the pictures look? So why do they own the copyright and I can't even post them on Facebook without paying them an additional fee (on top of the time I've already paid them for)."

I'm not saying I agree 100% but she does make a good point, food for thought.

 

[big soft moose]

don't I have as much involvement as the photographer when it comes to how the pictures look? .

umm no you dont - you could have the best possible of all those factors and a crap photographer would still provide crap pictures - on the other hand you could have done a mediocre job of all those factors and a good photographer would still make them look excellent

that said usually you can put them on facebook etc without paying an extra fee or asking permission, so long as you dont mutilate them.

 

[Urban Grimshaw]

You lot stopped quibbling yet

I've been super busy, so not had a chance to reply, but I shall leave a quick one.

Some valid points both ways. And I completely understand some of the more serious scenarios, such as selling the work on. And the point that if the copyright for the images is sold, then the photographer has no right to sell them should the happy couple for example lose their set....that's an interesting one.

Whilst I made some bold statements in my initial post, they need to be taken with a pinch of salt. I wouldn't be fussed if I didn't own full copyright. But there's still some points I'm puzzled about.

Take the manipulating pictures for facebook example.

So, the bride...most likely...what blokes post up all them cute lovey dovey pictures on facebook? They've got pics of the beer session afterwords. Anyways, the bride posts up some manipulated pics on facebook.

The reality as I see it....is that half of her 700 friends love them anyway because they haven't got a clue about quality and buy their prints out of Poundstretcher. And the vast majority will take her recommendation purely on word of mouth. At which point they view your portfolio of the pictures you have complete control over, on your website or whatever. Without that recommendation, there's only the Groom and Mother in Law on her friends list that know your name anyway.

So an angry photographer phones up, telling them that they are to take their pictures down, because they are not of the photographer's liking.

Next post on facebook clearly states your name alongside some uncharacteristically colourful and derogatory language.

Who's winning? At the very worst it sounds like 6 and two 3s to me. Except if you allow them the priveledge, they gain an extra 1 for themselves. And with that adding up to 7, it then multiplies by their 700 friends....my statistics for the moral photographer are jumping way ahead of the game.

So there you have it. A photographer with a conscience will have 700 more jobs than a photographer without one

 

[big soft moose]

Y
So an angry photographer phones up, telling them that they are to take their pictures down, because they are not of the photographer's liking.

Next post on facebook clearly states your name alongside some uncharacteristically colourful and derogatory language.

thing is thats distorting what andy was saying - no ones suggesting they would ring them up angrily and tell them to take it down or else

you ring them up or more likely email in a freindly manner and say " I notice that black and white conversion you've got on face book is a little bit blown and doesnt show your dress to the best effect which is a shame because it looked amazing in person, so i've done you a free one (attached) which shows the dress detail , would you mind swapping them over ? "

What bride doesnt want her dress etc to look the best in the photos ? so chances are that the next post on facebook clearly states your name and what a great bloke you are

 

[Urban Grimshaw]

Not trying to distort anything. Just adding my general views. If you're kind enough to knock out another one free of charge....see no problem with that.

 

[asphotographymk]

It has not once been said you should call up the client angry at what they do... Infact many times i have said that its about how you sell it.
As moose said there are ways of making them feel like you are actually going to extra mile for them and giving them more yet still keeping your standards the way you want them.

 

[joescrivens]

To be honest I'm still not convinced of andy's rules around the edited facebook pic. Right now he is saying that he'd only send the change if the pic was edited so badly that it was ruining his reputation.

Yet when I put the scenario to him that the person refused the edit and what would he do next - he said

That would of course then depend on what exactly they have done to the image. If the images was made to look so terrible i would remind them of the license terms and that they are not to modify the image.

But surely it would never depend, because you are now saying you would only offer the edit if they'd ruined the shot in the first place.


confused

 

[big soft moose]

I think you are being a bit litteral (or deliberately argumentative) It seems fairly clear to me that

step one he notices they've made a hash of editing a shot
step two he offers a better edit
and step three if they refuse the edit, whether he takes further action would depend on how badly mullered the shot is

I also wonder why you are so concerned about andy's facebook protocol as I cant see any reason why what he does should affect you.

 

[joescrivens]

I think you are being a bit litteral (or deliberately argumentative) It seems fairly clear to me that

step one he notices they've made a hash of editing a shot
step two he offers a better edit
and step three if they refuse the edit, whether he takes further action would depend on how badly mullered the shot is

I also wonder why you are so concerned about andy's facebook protocol as I cant see any reason why what he does should affect you.

it's more that I don't like the concept of the amount of control a photographer thinks they have on someone product that they have bought. When else does this happen in the world where once I have bought something I have big brother watching me to make sure I don't deface it in anyway? I don't like the concept.

 

[big soft moose]

DVDs
music
computer software

are the ones that spring to mind, but basicaly anything where you buy a licence rather than the product itself

also some cars ( a guy was taken to court recently for stretching a ferrari - ferrari claimed it was a brand infringement)

 

[joescrivens]

DVDs
music
computer software

are the ones that spring to mind, but basicaly anything where you buy a licence rather than the product itself

also some cars ( a guy was taken to court recently for stretching a ferrari - ferrari claimed it was a brand infringement)

A cd of a singer, a movie or some computer software is very very different to a personal product where you are the subject

The average joe see's paying someone to take photo's at their wedding, that they aren't buying a license to then use those photo's. They are personal things to them and they feel like they are theirs not that they are purchasing a license to use.

That feels wrong.

When I buy a football shirt and get my name printed on the back that shirt is mine mine mine, i haven't bought a license to wear it.

 

[big soft moose]

yeah but thats the basic misaprehension , unless they are buying the copyright the photos arent theirs - they are just paying for a service and then buying either prints or files with a licence to print/use on the web

in pre digital days they bought the prints - they didnt get the negatives as well

 

[joescrivens]

yeah but thats the basic misaprehension , unless they are buying the copyright the photos arent theirs - they are just paying for a service and then buying either prints or files with a licence to print/use on the web

in pre digital days they bought the prints - they didnt get the negatives as well

but hang on, when i buy a football shirt i don't get the copyright along with it - yet the shirt is mine and i can deface it if i like.

Why can't I deface a print of a photo if i now own the print?

 

[neil_g]

it's more that I don't like the concept of the amount of control a photographer thinks they have on someone product that they have bought. When else does this happen in the world where once I have bought something I have big brother watching me to make sure I don't deface it in anyway? I don't like the concept.

so dont use a photographer that states in their terms that they do not allow edits of their work.

simples.

i dont see the need for the level of pedanticness (if thats even a word) in this thread.

 

[joescrivens]

yeah i have been a bit too pedantic at times

 

[Richard King]

OK lets discuss the real moral issues that actually face social photographers

Is it OK for me to buy stock images of brides and grooms and put them on my wedding photography website?

Is it OK for me to put wedding Images onto a stock website (when I Hire a model)

Is it OK for you to use my wedding images that I put on a stock website on your wedding photography site? How about a bridal publication?

Is it OK for me to use a cake shot or ring shot or some other "still" from a live wedding on another website, or sell it for stock

Why (assuming the bride now has copyright) don't I just approach the bride of an award winning photographer, and get permission (for money) to use the images on my site

Is it OK for me to give a vendor a image of his car to use on his website. What limitations should I put on the vendor?

How about if the bride has the copyright, and releases an image to the car chap, and that chap then gets into bed with an all inclusive venue, who also use the image... but that venue is also in bed with a crap photographer, my image appearing on the same page as the photographers plug

I shoot your wedding, and I produce an absolute jaw dropper. Can I enter it into the WPJA competition?

How about wedding albums for wedding fayres, or banners, or fliers, or business cards. Should I hire a model MUA, hair dresser, dress and location and shoot my own, or should I use examples from real weddings?

What happens if a bridesmaids mother decides she wants you to delete all images of her daughter, spoiling the whole set

What if I accidentally shoot the private parts / breasts of some guest who decided not to wear too much? (I managed this once when the woman's husband decided to suddenly lift the poor woman in a dance)

What if I accidentally shoot some artwork that is subject to copyright, or manage to get the contents of the register in focus, or part some document that contains private info on it (can happen with these superb ISO performing high res cameras we have)

These questions are also at the crux of all of these copyright questions, and also underline why for social photographers, the photographer should retain the copyright, and issue correct licences

Bottom line is that the B&G only have themselves to worry about, and wont give a hoot id some third party breaches their copyright, as they have nothing to loose. Whereas the photographer has everything to loose including his/her reputation, business, customers, commercial leverage

 

[joescrivens]

just for the sake of debate - what about if it were the other way round though?

The bride and groom own the pics and the copyright and license it to you for sole commercial use?

wouldn't that solve both problems - the bride and groom OWN the pics and you have sole use commercially?

 

[Richard King]

just for the sake of debate - what about if it were the other way round though?

The bride and groom own the pics and the copyright and license it to you for sole commercial use?

wouldn't that solve both problems - the bride and groom OWN the pics and you have sole use commercially?

No

I demand the right as a professional with a business, supplying to a non professional with out a relevant business to protect to edit the photograps with the following in mind:

- A RAW file is a single step in my creative process
- For some of the reasons outlined in my previous post, I need to be able to delete what I see fit from the set, or at least edit as I see fit before the customer sees them
- I have a business to build maintain and protect
- Under some circumstances, I need to control the non-commercial usage of the images too

 

[Richard King]

Why would someone hire me for £1500 when someone down the road does it for £200?

Because:

- I am a better and more talented photographer than the other chap, and the customer recognises and appreciates this
- I have been able to freely present my work and offering

Copyright and usage lays at the feet of both of these statements

 

[joescrivens]

- Under some circumstances, I need to control the non-commercial usage of the images too

what circumstances do you need to control the non-commercial usage?

 

[asphotographymk]

what circumstances do you need to control the non-commercial usage?

When it misrepresents my work and my company. And many of the other reasons said above such as inclusion of other copy written works.

just for the sake of debate - what about if it were the other way round though?

The bride and groom own the pics and the copyright and license it to you for sole commercial use?

wouldn't that solve both problems - the bride and groom OWN the pics and you have sole use commercially?

there is not problem to solve..... As i stands the bride and groom get there prints and get to share on social media. THere is nothign wrong with that and i have never had a bride complain.

but hang on, when i buy a football shirt i don't get the copyright along with it - yet the shirt is mine and i can deface it if i like.

Why can't I deface a print of a photo if i now own the print?

If you buy a print then yes you own that print... You can write on it you can cut it up you can set fire to it and there is nothing i can do. We are not talking about a print here. I would love it if i could tell people not to deface physical products to but i cant. If however you sold copies of said teams shirt with someones sponsor logo on it i am sure they would have something to say about that.

The fact is the law and my terms and condition say the images are not to be altered, if someone was so bothered about these terms then they dont book me... I am fine with that as so far all my other customers are happy with my terms and there usage rights.

 

[joescrivens]

so i can crop a print but not a digital file - what's the difference?

that's not argumentative, i'm really wondering why there is a difference

 

[big soft moose]

so i can crop a print but not a digital file - what's the difference?

that's not argumentative, i'm really wondering why there is a difference

because a print is a print - wheras a digital file can be displayed, duplicated posted on facebook etc etc