Wedding Photography and Moral Implications of 'Licences'

[joescrivens]

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

right, so is it about the potential for people to see it? Because a digital file potentially could be seen by more people it's considered something you can't change, but a print is fair game to do with what you like?

what happens if a couple get the prints only and then scan them creating a new digital file - are there rules in the license to prevent that from happening?

 

[big soft moose]

what happens if a couple get the prints only and then scan them creating a new digital file - are there rules in the license to prevent that from happening?

this is just getting silly now

general licence terms would cover the use of any digital file - which would also cover anything derived from copying the prints - but be serious, I've never heard of a couple doing that - why would they when they get a set of web ready low res files free with their prints.

I'm sure you can think of another 'what if' but the point of T&C is to cover reasonable expectation not every eventuality however fanciful

 

[asphotographymk]

what happens if a couple get the prints only and then scan them creating a new digital file - are there rules in the license to prevent that from happening?

Scanning a print would be breech of copyright... come on thats simple common sense. Yes people do it, just like people copy CDs and movies. Just becasue people do it does not make it right.

If they have a disk with reprint rights why the hell would they be scanning there print.

 

[Nikon_Nick]

this is just getting silly now

Indeed...

 

[joescrivens]

Scanning a print would be breech of copyright... come on thats simple common sense. Yes people do it, just like people copy CDs and movies. Just becasue people do it does not make it right.

If they have a disk with reprint rights why the hell would they be scanning there print.

that makes sense, i was just curious. I don't think anyone would do it. I just wondered how the law would apply in that instance.

It still seems weird that you are allowed to deface a physical image but not the digital one - i don't know of any other product where that rule would apply.

it seems when they pay for the prints they own them but when they pay for the digital files - they don't own the files - they just buy a license to use the files.

 

[neil_g]

will this thread please die..

 

[joescrivens]

probably due for a close, i don't think anyone can take any more of my questions!!!

 

[asphotographymk]

that makes sense, i was just curious. I don't think anyone would do it. I just wondered how the law would apply in that instance.

It still seems weird that you are allowed to deface a physical image but not the digital one - i don't know of any other product where that rule would apply.

it seems when they pay for the prints they own them but when they pay for the digital files - they don't own the files - they just buy a license to use the files.

Well yes they could deface a print but why would they? If its not something thats going to happen why would you worry about it.

If there was a way to stop people defacing a print or if it was even needed then great but as it stands the paper and ink of a print is owned by the client. And if they do want to get a pair of scissors to that print or take a pen to it then i guess they can but other than the fact pretty much know one would see it why would they want to do that.

Any other product would have this rule apply... again if you use music as an example, you are free to write on a cd cover or even break it up into little pieces if you want to but that does not mean you can sample the music.

 

[ZoneV]

Well yes they could deface a print but why would they? If its not something thats going to happen why would you worry about it.

If there was a way to stop people defacing a print or if it was even needed then great but as it stands the paper and ink of a print is owned by the client. And if they do want to get a pair of scissors to that print or take a pen to it then i guess they can but other than the fact pretty much know one would see it why would they want to do that.

Any other product would have this rule apply... again if you use music as an example, you are free to write on a cd cover or even break it up into little pieces if you want to but that does not mean you can sample the music.

I believe it is now legal to record/sample music CD's you have bought for your own use and backup. There is no restriction or control on the way the media is sampled, or the quality of the new recording.

 

[big soft moose]

Well yes they could deface a print but why would they? If its not something thats going to happen why would you worry about it.

If there was a way to stop people defacing a print or if it was even needed then great but as it stands the paper and ink of a print is owned by the client. And if they do want to get a pair of scissors to that print or take a pen to it then i guess they can but other than the fact pretty much know one would see it why would they want to do that.

Any other product would have this rule apply... again if you use music as an example, you are free to write on a cd cover or even break it up into little pieces if you want to but that does not mean you can sample the music.

and more to the point if they draw a moustache on the print its clear that its an aftermarket adaptation - wheras if they masacre a digital file in photoshop it could be thought that the awful editing was the work of a tog.

Cue ' oh but what if they took the print into the dark room (which they just happen to have) and made a positive to postive copy... what if aliens landed and subtly altered the print by telekenesis etc

 

[big soft moose]

I believe it is now legal to record/sample CD's you have bought for your own use and backup. There is no restriction or control on the way the media is sampled, or the quality of the new recording.

but you cant then republish the music into the public domain where other people could think that the crap editing was the work of the original artist

 

[ZoneV]

...Any other product would have this rule apply... again if you use music as an example, you are free to write on a cd cover or even break it up into little pieces if you want to but that does not mean you can sample the music.

I believe it is now legal to record/sample CD's you have bought for your own use and backup. There is no restriction or control on the way the media is sampled, or the quality of the new recording.

Here's a link.

 

[MartynK]

will this thread please die..

I think it should, too.

The subject has been argued/debated to death in the past and nothing has really changed.

I think a lot of the controversy is because people don't always grasp the difference between copyright and licensed use - which can be very flexible - but I can understand why some people look at it from a different point of view. It's my wedding, I'm paying you to take photographs for me, you wouldn't have had this opportunity and the photographs wouldn't exist if I hadn't commissioned you, and I don't see why there should be any restrictions on what I do with my photographs. It's a valid argument, whether you like it or not.

I don't have a horse in the race, but I used to live in South Africa where the client owns the copyright to commissioned work by default - the way it used to be in the UK - and my son got married there a couple of years ago. This was my only experience of hiring professional photographers. Some do ask for transfer of copyright, but the couple who took the wedding photographs - and did a wonderful job - didn't want to, and actually said they weren't interested in owning it. As far as they were concerned, they were engaged to do a job and deliver the album and prints under the contract, and that was the end of it. They gave the client all the images in raw and JPEG format on disk, with a note about backing them up, and said they would keep copies for three months and then delete them. If you wanted to edit or sell copies of your own wedding photographs, go for it. They were booked up well ahead, so this obviously worked for them.

 

[asphotographymk]

I believe it is now legal to record/sample CD's you have bought for your own use and backup. There is no restriction or control on the way the media is sampled, or the quality of the new recording.

Here's a link.

Yes i get that but as moose said you can not publish the music out to the public domain. People are free to backup the images in anyway they want.

 

[joescrivens]

Well yes they could deface a print but why would they? If its not something thats going to happen why would you worry about it.

I can think of a perfect example because my wife does it all the time.

scrapbooking.

She will often chop up a photo, cropping it way against your rules and likes to fudge it into a shape and then cover it in glitter and carp etc

The fact is she is allowed to do this physically but wouldn't be permitted to do it on many of the digital scrapbooking apps that are available and that's a shame

 

[big soft moose]

I can think of a perfect example because my wife does it all the time.

scrapbooking.

She will often chop up a photo, cropping it way against your rules and likes to fudge it into a shape and then cover it in glitter and carp etc

The fact is she is allowed to do this physically but wouldn't be permitted to do it on many of the digital scrapbooking apps that are available and that's a shame

but as i said if she physically mutilates the image its clear that its her work not the togs - if she mutilates it in photoshop then its not

why anyone would want to do that with expensive wedding photos s beyond me, but f thats what the client wants

however use in a digitalscrap booking app would be allowed under my personal use terms - thats not the same thing as editing it using photoshop, because in the former case the context makes it clear that its been re edited later.

 

[Phil V]

I believe it is now legal to record/sample music CD's you have bought for your own use and backup. There is no restriction or control on the way the media is sampled, or the quality of the new recording.

I believe it is now legal to record/sample CD's you have bought for your own use and backup. There is no restriction or control on the way the media is sampled, or the quality of the new recording.

Here's a link.

Now I feel it's me with the pedantry (not pedanticness)

There's a big difference in law between 'it is now legal to record/sample CD's you have bought' and 'As part of an overhaul of its intellectual property regulations, the United Kingdom’s government announced its intention to legalize copying CDs for personal use.'

I'd wait till the law is passed before I took anything for granted.
My bold in case anyone read through the important fact again.

 

[joescrivens]

but as i said if she physically mutilates the image its clear that its her work not the togs - if she mutilates it in photoshop then its not

why anyone would want to do that with expensive wedding photos s beyond me, but f thats what the client wants

however use in a digitalscrap booking app would be allowed under my personal use terms - thats not the same thing as editing it using photoshop, because in the former case the context makes it clear that its been re edited later.

Man this is getting so complicated, now I'm allowed to edit the files as long as it's obvious that I edited it and not you. How the hell do you wrap that up in your t & C's?

 

[neil_g]

Now I feel it's me with the pedantry (not pedanticness)

pedantry? isnt that where you store food?

 

[big soft moose]

Man this is getting so complicated, now I'm allowed to edit the files as long as it's obvious that I edited it and not you. How the hell do you wrap that up in your t & C's?

its actually pretty simple - my T&cs are less restrictive than andy's - we've been discussing his.

my licence terms ,as I said earlier, grant them the right to use the files for personal (non comercial) use - so they can print them, edit them, put them on facebook, put them on scrap booking sites, whatever... i'm not worried - the only restriction is that they cant use them comercially (e.g if they decide to start a tog buisness themselves) and they can't transfer them to third parties (and no before the residenat peasant - sorry pedant - gets excited this doesnt mean they cant prin't one and send it to great aunt flo, or even email her one - that kind of thing would reasonably be considered personal use)

If someone mutilated one of mine on facebook i'd send them a better edit and ask them to change it , but I dont reserve the right to make them - because for someone like me that doesn't derive his main income from photography life is too short to worry. (if they refuse to change it i'll just leave a message making it clear that the edit isnt my work)

that doesnt imply that I think Andy is wrong to have his T&Cs tighter than mine - for a full time tog it makes perfect sense.

 

[joescrivens]

its actually pretty simple - my T&cs are less restrictive than andy's - we've been discussing his.

my licence terms ,as I said earlier, grant them the right to use the files for personal (non comercial) use - so they can print them, edit them, put them on facebook, put them on scrap booking sites, whatever... i'm not worried - the only restriction is that they cant use them comercially (e.g if they decide to start a tog buisness themselves, and they can't transfer them to third parties)

If someone mutilated one of mine on facebook i'd send them a better edit and ask them to change it , but I dont reserve the right to make them - because for someone like me that doesn't derive his main income from photography life is too short to worry. (if they refuse to change it i'll just leave a message making it clear that the edit isnt my work)

that doesnt imply that I think Andy is wrong to have his T&Cs tighter than mine - for a full time tog it makes perfect sense.

i like your t & c's if I were booking a photographer i'd be wanting one like this or if starting my own business I think mine would be similar

 

[MartynK]

Now I feel it's me with the pedantry (not pedanticness)

There's a big difference in law between 'it is now legal to record/sample CD's you have bought' and 'As part of an overhaul of its intellectual property regulations, the United Kingdom’s government announced its intention to legalize copying CDs for personal use.'

I'd wait till the law is passed before I took anything for granted.
My bold in case anyone read through the important fact again.

I think you're right that these are just proposed changes, but it's been the de facto situation since I was a kid 40 years ago. Just about everyone taped LPs onto cassette for their own use, and it wasn't much of an issue until digital technology made it possible to make perfect pirate copies for commercial sale. Sometimes the law just becomes "a ass" because it's commonly and blatantly ignored, and sometimes the best solution is just to recognise the situation and amend the law. Commercial pirating, no; making a personal copy, perhaps to keep in the car, yes.

 

[ZoneV]

Now I feel it's me with the pedantry (not pedanticness)

There's a big difference in law between 'it is now legal to record/sample CD's you have bought' and 'As part of an overhaul of its intellectual property regulations, the United Kingdom’s government announced its intention to legalize copying CDs for personal use.'

I'd wait till the law is passed before I took anything for granted.
My bold in case anyone read through the important fact again.

It may not be law yet but it's on the cards. I'd be very surprised if the change doesn't go through.

Reuters headline: "UK to legalize private copying of CDs"

 

[asphotographymk]

Again as i have said situations like digital scrapbook i would use my discretion. But in that case the client could simply ask me "can i use my image in my digital scrap book, i love scrapbooking as a hobby" and i could then use my own judgment at the time to say yes or no. Either way that is my decision to steer away from the usual terms and conditions or to stick to them. You simply cant cover each and every possibility of what people might just want to use the images for in the terms so you write your terms to cover the majority and usage agreements are written for the individual if you want to allow specific requests.

Do i think if an image was cropped in a scrapbook that would be a big deal... Not really as i think it is clear that this has been done. Would that make me allow modification of my images as a right in my usage agreement no becasue there are other possibility that i would not want to see with my images.

 

[joescrivens]

Again as i have said situations like digital scrapbook i would use my discretion. But in that case the client could simply ask me "can i use my image in my digital scrap book, i love scrapbooking as a hobby" and i could then use my own judgment at the time to say yes or no. Either way that is my decision to steer away from the usual terms and conditions or to stick to them. You simply cant cover each and every possibility of what people might just want to use the images for in the terms so you write your terms to cover the majority and usage agreements are written for the individual if you want to allow specific requests.

Do i think if an image was cropped in a scrapbook that would be a big deal... Not really as i think it is clear that this has been done. Would that make me allow modification of my images as a right in my usage agreement no becasue there are other possibility that i would not want to see with my images.

Well, the thing is that people aren't going to ask your permission, they are just going to do it anyway, so its largely irrelevant whether you support it or not I suppose.

 

[asphotographymk]

Well, the thing is that people aren't going to ask your permission, they are just going to do it anyway, so its largely irrelevant whether you support it or not I suppose.

No most people are decent and after having there usage terms clearly explained will ask if they are unsure about something.

 

[joescrivens]

No most people are decent and after having there usage terms clearly explained will ask if they are unsure about something.

How would you know?

You have more faith in the general public than I. But then I was a teacher for 4 years! Copyright to teachers is just a 9 letter word with no meaning.

 

[Phil V]

I think you're right that these are just proposed changes, but it's been the de facto situation since I was a kid 40 years ago. Just about everyone taped LPs onto cassette for their own use, and it wasn't much of an issue until digital technology made it possible to make perfect pirate copies for commercial sale. Sometimes the law just becomes "a ass" because it's commonly and blatantly ignored, and sometimes the best solution is just to recognise the situation and amend the law. Commercial pirating, no; making a personal copy, perhaps to keep in the car, yes.

I never said I disagreed with the proposed changes, they're long overdue, but that doesn't mean that they've happened yet. I'll still rip CD's to my PC, but I'm well aware that it's illegal. And it has no real bearing on whether I ought to give up the copyright to my photographs (the point of this thread).

It may not be law yet but it's on the cards. I'd be very surprised if the change doesn't go through.

Reuters headline: "UK to legalize private copying of CDs"

It's ridiculous to state something which is UNTRUE, then when questioned to say, ahh but it will be TRUE SOON.:bonk:

It may change, in fact I'd bet money that it will. But that doesn't alter what the current law is.:bang::bang:

And then to back it up with "UK to legalize private copying of CDs"

As if saying that there's no difference between where something MAY happen, and actually HASN'T YET, with the justification that you've found yet another place where there's confirmation that it MAY?

As with most changes in the law, when it happens, it'll probably be from a set date. So not only will all of your previous MP3's still be illegal, any that you illegally create between now and then would still be.

Interestingly when the govt. created 2 Laws to make protesting outside the House Of Commons (without a licence) illegal. The Met Police went straight out and arrested Brian Haw for setting up his peace camp. However the Magistrate set him free because his protest camp pre dated the change in law. That's generally how laws work.

And still has no meterial difference to this thread where the only wedding photographers that haven't given up on it:bonk: all supply multi format electronic files to our customers.:shrug:

 

[fyonn]

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

...

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 honestly don't understand this example...

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

if the B&G own copyright then by default no, but if you think it's a really great shot then I would imagine you'd ask them for permission and more than likely they'd give it to you and then you would.

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

she has to approach the ones holding the copyright, i.e. the B&G and take the issue up with them. it's no longer your problem. incidentally, what would you do about this? if the pictures are in a public place (outside, and potentially in church during the wedding) then they may well have no right to have the pictures removed...?

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)

as above, B&G's problem

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)

as above, B&G's problem. surely this must happen commercially from time to time anyway?

also in the cases where the client does buy the copyright, how do you deal with these issues?

and more to the point if they draw a moustache on the print its clear that its an aftermarket adaptation - wheras if they masacre a digital file in photoshop it could be thought that the awful editing was the work of a tog.

again, I think this is being precious. by and large, the tog is not ansel adams and the B&G are not the beckhams. rarely are the B&G's friends going to know who you are. If the B&G do ruin their wedding photo's, hardly anyone is going to know it's you, the pictures are not signed or otherwise emblazoned with your logo. If someone asks the B&G for a wedding tog recommendation then they will either recommend you or not based on their opinion of your work, not based on what they've since done. as as B&G's tend to be proud of their wedding, if asked for a recommendation, they're likely to bring out the album to show off a larger number of pics than just that one pic that they badly cropped and put up on Facebook. incidentally, the Facebook factor is only going to get worse.

also, how many wedding togs are friends on facebook with their clients? I'm not friends on Facebook with my wedding tog. don't get me wring, he was a great tog, took great pics and a really nice guy. I'd use him again for my next wedding *cough*. but in a sense, he's a tradesman here. I'm not friends on Facebook with my plumber either, or the guy who just cut down my tree.

and if you are friends on Facebook and spot a pic someone has put up and they're done a "bad" job (for whatever that means) of making it B&W or whatever and you make them a better version, well, that's very nice, but it does come over as a bit controlling and what if the client likes their version? what if the client has done "version of 50 of their pics? you'd probably want to charge for that, would you go and then do it for free just to try and look good after the fact? or would you do it and then present them with a bill? even if they do like yours better and put yours up, will they remember to go and delete the old one? your sending three emails to remind them is hardly going to endear you to them.

Incidentally, I imagine the beckhams would own the copyright over their wedding pics

I can understand why some people look at it from a different point of view. It's my wedding, I'm paying you to take photographs for me, you wouldn't have had this opportunity and the photographs wouldn't exist if I hadn't commissioned you, and I don't see why there should be any restrictions on what I do with my photographs. It's a valid argument, whether you like it or not.

that's exactly my opinion. again, I think it's entirely different from the tog going out to create artwork and then selling it as art, wedding work is commissioned work, it's a job for the client

why anyone would want to do that with expensive wedding photos s beyond me, but f thats what the client wants

well that's the joy of digital photography. you can mess up the picture as much as you want and yay, there's another pristine copy right there...

David

 

[Phil V]

I honestly don't understand this example...

if the B&G own copyright then by default no, but if you think it's a really great shot then I would imagine you'd ask them for permission and more than likely they'd give it to you and then you would.

she has to approach the ones holding the copyright, i.e. the B&G and take the issue up with them. it's no longer your problem. incidentally, what would you do about this? if the pictures are in a public place (outside, and potentially in church during the wedding) then they may well have no right to have the pictures removed...?

as above, B&G's problem

as above, B&G's problem. surely this must happen commercially from time to time anyway?

also in the cases where the client does buy the copyright, how do you deal with these issues?

again, I think this is being precious. by and large, the tog is not ansel adams and the B&G are not the beckhams. rarely are the B&G's friends going to know who you are. If the B&G do ruin their wedding photo's, hardly anyone is going to know it's you, the pictures are not signed or otherwise emblazoned with your logo. If someone asks the B&G for a wedding tog recommendation then they will either recommend you or not based on their opinion of your work, not based on what they've since done. as as B&G's tend to be proud of their wedding, if asked for a recommendation, they're likely to bring out the album to show off a larger number of pics than just that one pic that they badly cropped and put up on Facebook. incidentally, the Facebook factor is only going to get worse.

also, how many wedding togs are friends on facebook with their clients? I'm not friends on Facebook with my wedding tog. don't get me wring, he was a great tog, took great pics and a really nice guy. I'd use him again for my next wedding *cough*. but in a sense, he's a tradesman here. I'm not friends on Facebook with my plumber either, or the guy who just cut down my tree.

and if you are friends on Facebook and spot a pic someone has put up and they're done a "bad" job (for whatever that means) of making it B&W or whatever and you make them a better version, well, that's very nice, but it does come over as a bit controlling and what if the client likes their version? what if the client has done "version of 50 of their pics? you'd probably want to charge for that, would you go and then do it for free just to try and look good after the fact? or would you do it and then present them with a bill? even if they do like yours better and put yours up, will they remember to go and delete the old one? your sending three emails to remind them is hardly going to endear you to them.

Incidentally, I imagine the beckhams would own the copyright over their wedding pics

that's exactly my opinion. again, I think it's entirely different from the tog going out to create artwork and then selling it as art, wedding work is commissioned work, it's a job for the client

well that's the joy of digital photography. you can mess up the picture as much as you want and yay, there's another pristine copy right there...
David

David, I think you need to understand that although your attitude to your own wedding photographs is quite valid and could be accomodated by many photographers; you are an exceptional case.

Most people have no backup plan for their home PC and just as they may think that they 'want' copyright of their images - they genuinely have no idea what that means in practice.

Our customers come to us as professionals, they trust us to archive their memories, and to deliver them a product that they'll be happy with. They don't want to be bothered by having to licence our images back to us so that we can distribute prints to their Antie Beryl, or to be bothered by us for further permissions to post an image on the internet 2 years after their wedding to help out someone on a forum, or to have to deal with stupid requests from their wedding guests (above) or copyright / data protection issues. They would be gutted to find 2 years after their wedding that they'd replaced their PC and all of a sudden had no original files left - just what they'd had printed. Who'd they expect to bail them out?

This started out as you justifying how it'd be better for our customers for them to hold the copyright - however most of the above has turned into 'that'd be the B&G's problem'! :bang::bang:I fail to see how handing my customers these 'problems' is an improvement to the current situation.

It's not that we'd refuse to give up copyright under any circumstances, just that the status quo is much simpler for the customer and for us, whether they fully understand that or not.

 

[fyonn]

David, I think you need to understand that although your attitude to your own wedding photographs is quite valid and could be accomodated by many photographers; you are an exceptional case.

I'm not sure I am. I do agree that I have a bee in my bonnet about IP law and most aren't as bothered as I am, but I do think that a lot of people have expectations when they hire a professional photographer. from the clients point of view, they might well expect to own the photos and do anything they like with them. The photographer then tells them that the copyright will cost another £500-£1000 and they shrug their shoulders as the photographer is the expert and so must be right. it doesn't mean they're happy though, it just means they they're not prepared or can't afford to spend the extra money.

I also think that it engenders a feeling of the photographer wanting more and more money. I'm is paying for the tog to take photo's. I don't necessarily want to use the tog to print the photo's too at high cost and I think that's one of the major implications of the deal. I pay a tog a shedload to take the pics but then the tog wants £50 a printed picture as well?

I might want to print the pics at home. will it be as good? no obviously, but it might well be good enough and surely that's my choice? I might well want to use iPhoto[1] to put together a photo book. surely this is a fairly easy thing for people at home to do? it's designed to be easy to do and the better quality the pics that go in, the better quality the result that comes out. So what I want is full quality, full resolution jpegs, not reduced resolution, "web-ready" Facebook versions, or worse, a nice print badly scanned...

I think most people don't complain because they don't think they have any choice. but they can still feel annoyed about it.

not to say that that photographers shouldn't offer prints etc, but I think the ownership of the copyright is often used as the draw to make you spend more money. i.e. the tog is keeping the copyright so that if you want more prints, you come back to him. and if you don't like that arrangement then you can buy yourself out of it for hundreds of pounds. not saying everyone does this of course but I think that many do and that's the impression that many customers have. it's the impression that I have at least.

Our customers come to us as professionals, they trust us to archive their memories, and to deliver them a product that they'll be happy with. They don't want to be bothered by having to licence our images back to us so that we can distribute prints to their Antie Beryl, or to be bothered by us for further permissions to post an image on the internet 2 years after their wedding to help out someone on a forum, or to have to deal with stupid requests from their wedding guests (above) or copyright / data protection issues. They would be gutted to find 2 years after their wedding that they'd replaced their PC and all of a sudden had no original files left - just what they'd had printed. Who'd they expect to bail them out?

it works both ways though, the customer doesn't want to be bothered licensing the image from you when they don't understand how the image is somehow not theirs anyway.

I appreciate the service you're adding with the backup etcetc, but surely if you can licence the images to them with you keeping the copyright, then it's just as easy to assign the copyright to them with a standard boilerplate licensing use back to you to keep copies on their behalf, to sell prints on request etcetc. it's just paperwork at the end of the day but it would mean that the customer gets to do as they like with the images that that paid for.

This started out as you justifying how it'd be better for our customers for them to hold the copyright - however most of the above has turned into 'that'd be the B&G's problem'! :bang::bang:I fail to see how handing my customers these 'problems' is an improvement to the current situation.

well no, I'm not the thread starter. I just jumped in half-way with my thoughts on the issue. giving your customers the copyright gives them extra abilities and extra responsibilities.

the extra abilities make them happy and give them the flexibility to make the most of the product they have paid for. how you help them with the responsibilities may be the differentiator between you and the next tog.

at the end of the day I don't think we're going to come to any firm conclusions here, we all have our opinions. I just hope that for my side of the argument that I've given you something to consider.

David

[1] actually I used Apple Aperture's photo book creation tool for our wedding albums. maybe not as impressive as the £1500 steel bound number our tog showed us but at £80 it fit the bill nicely and came out really well

 

[Richard King]

at the end of the day I don't think we're going to come to any firm conclusions here, we all have our opinions. I just hope that for my side of the argument that I've given you something to consider.

David

We can agree on this

[1] actually I used Apple Aperture's photo book creation tool for our wedding albums. maybe not as impressive as the £1500 steel bound number our tog showed us but at £80 it fit the bill nicely and came out really well

Everything I do with wedding photography is about ensuring long lasting quality & long lasting memories. That starts with the way I prepare for a wedding, and finishes with things like only using acid free materials to make albums

Most of the steps are totally unseen and never appreciated. But in some circumstances, crossing all of the T's and dotting all of the I's pays your customer back grandly

The whole point of wedding photography isn't to massage the ego of the photographer, it is to provide a lifelong memory, and a product that can last a lifetime and beyond

I wonder if your £80 book will still be looking great in 20, 30, 50, 80, 100 years time. I know the albums I supply will be looking just as good then as they do now

You are arguing that I ought to hand all control of the RAW files to the client, and while on the surface, and from a singular point of view that seems to be logically and morally right. However if one takes a practical and wider point of view it will be a recipe for disappointment, and the person left holding the baby will be the person most unlikely to be able to resolve any of the issues (the client)

I argued at the beginning of this thread that my RAW files are in my opinion "unfinished work". As a creative professional, I am now taking that argument one step further and saying from my point of view it would be wrong to hand these files to a end user (consumer) client

- They have no idea how I intended to process them
- They probably don't have the skills or software to process them well

What copyright allows me to do as a creative professional is exercise judgement

- what should be included
- what should be excluded
- what should be "silently edited"
- what gets left alone

That judgement is at the core of any photographer's business, and actually starts before the shutter is pressed. It needs to be exercised to

- produce a truly creative body of work
- to avoid conflicts and embarrassment for the client
- to protect the photographers reputation
- to provide suitable marketing materials for the business
- to maintain a reputation

You can argue all you like about split licensing, licensing back to the photographer, it wont rub. It wont rub because any photographer who actually knows what copyright really means will not want to hand over the keys to their creativity and business to a-an-other client

The system we have now works because

- The client gets exactly what they need, no more, no less
- The photographer retains exactly what he/she needs too

Of course there are exceptions... we can argue the toss if Madonna decides to book me as a photographer, and that will be argued because her need is substantively different to the average bride. I would still feel that this is a contracts issue, and not a copyrights issue though

The answer to most of your questions regarding limits of photographer usage is actually in the contracts we use. In our contracts, wedding photographers generally outline, what we will and will not do with the images

 

[Phil V]

I'm not sure I am. I do agree that I have a bee in my bonnet about IP law and most aren't as bothered as I am, but I do think that a lot of people have expectations when they hire a professional photographer. from the clients point of view, they might well expect to own the photos and do anything they like with them. The photographer then tells them that the copyright will cost another £500-£1000 and they shrug their shoulders as the photographer is the expert and so must be right. it doesn't mean they're happy though, it just means they they're not prepared or can't afford to spend the extra money.

This is about the bee in the bonnet rather than the reality, if you read the whole thread (and many others on the subject) you'll know that at the point a wedding photographer is asked for 'copyright' the situation is generally resolved to the satisfaction of the customer for free. They might believe they want copyright but if we explain to them what they're then responsible for they start to go pale. (see the rest of the thread for details)

Our customers get a licence to print their images, and a disc of re-sized images for use on the internet. So they will have what you're describing as the ability to 'do anything they like with them'. It's a very rare occurrence when someone would get to a discussion of a bill for the handover of copyright, because as I and others have explained, our customers would be taking on hassle with copyright that they simply don't need. :bang::bang:

The business model is simple enough, we retain copyright in order for us to carry on with our business without having to hassle our customers. Our customers get to keep images from their wedding with a licence which gives them reasonable use. I'm afraid that your issues with the current state of IP law is making you imagine problems that simply aren't relevant to 99.9% of wedding photography customers.

It'd be a mistake for any business to change the way that it trades with the vast majority of customers to satisfy a tiny minority. When developing a business strategy we categorise our processes into:

Runners
This is bread and butter work, for a wedding photographer it'd be a local couple at a familiar venue and a standard album package (for example). We can pick a price directly from our menu.

Repeaters
These are customers who we come across on a regular basis who have expectations different from our bread and butter; eg. weddings involving lots of travel, same sex ceremonies, weddings spread out over several days (if Asian weddings aren't your usual customers) - for these scenario's we automatically have plans which mean that the customer has no knowledge that they're in some way 'different' because we have plans in place to deal with their particular needs, and we tailor our packages appropriately, maybe requiring extra cost to cover their needs. (obviously not an exhaustive list) We would easily be able to calculate a price based on various menu options.

Strangers
These are customers with a unique need, ie customers with a heightened need for privacy, customers requiring copyright to their images, overseas travel etc. These customers still get exactly what they expect from a wedding photographer but their needs are far enough away from 'normal' that we may need to change our service completely to accomodate their needs and to charge appropriately.
We would probably have to quote individually as the extra costs may need to be researched.

Largely these customers understand that their needs are somewhat unique and I can't see any customer asking me to fly to Paris to shoot a wedding at my advertised 'all day package' price

 

[fyonn]

I wonder if your £80 book will still be looking great in 20, 30, 50, 80, 100 years time. I know the albums I supply will be looking just as good then as they do now

you're right, but then I can easily print it again

You are arguing that I ought to hand all control of the RAW files to the client, and while on the surface, and from a singular point of view that seems to be logically and morally right. However if one takes a practical and wider point of view it will be a recipe for disappointment, and the person left holding the baby will be the person most unlikely to be able to resolve any of the issues (the client)

well, honestly, the main reason *I* want the raw's is because I'm an amateur photographer and so am interested in messing about with the pics myself, but yes I agree that most clients would not know what to do with the raw's, but the processed jpegs at full resolution would be useful to many people.

The system we have now works because

- The client gets exactly what they need, no more, no less
- The photographer retains exactly what he/she needs too

the client may get what they need, but often they want more.

I do think that there are some enlightened togs on this board though who perhaps offer more than the average tog on the street and perhaps many of your clients do get exactly what they want and need, but the last time I used a professional tog, buying the copyright was the only was I could take the pics home on a disc to do with as I wished, which included putting up on Facebook, printing out and posting to relatives etcetc.

This is about the bee in the bonnet rather than the reality, if you read the whole thread (and many others on the subject) you'll know that at the point a wedding photographer is asked for 'copyright' the situation is generally resolved to the satisfaction of the customer for free. They might believe they want copyright but if we explain to them what they're then responsible for they start to go pale. (see the rest of the thread for details)

I have read all of this thread, though perhaps not others on this topic. I still maintain that people find it annoying that someone else "owns" their wedding pictures. most just accept it as the status quo because a professional tells them that it is and tells them that it'll cost double to change it and they're not prepared to argue.

now that ownership has responsibilities like any other ownership (much like owning a house vs renting it) and often they don't know how to deal with that and could use help and explanation, but I don't think that removes the feeling of being "hard done by" that someone else owns their wedding.

however this is all getting very circular and if what I and others have said so far hasn't convinced you then I'm sure we can agree to disagree

David

 

[big soft moose]

you're right, but then I can easily print it again

its very unlikely that a CD will be readable in 50 years time - even if it is still physically okay, technology will have moved on to the point where no one has the capability to read it

and while its easy to say that you'd have them digitially it would only take a virus or a hard drive crash to wipe them.

 

[fyonn]

and while its easy to say that you'd have them digitially it would only take a virus or a hard drive crash to wipe them.

to be fair, that applies to you as much as me

david

 

[big soft moose]

yes - but the point was that a well printed wedding album will be a lifetime memory so there'll be no need to have it reprinted , wheras your cheap one will only last a few years

 

[Phil V]

you're right, but then I can easily print it again

You clearly are very young then if youre planning to do reprints in 80 or 100 years time.

well, honestly, the main reason *I* want the raw's is because I'm an amateur photographer and so am interested in messing about with the pics myself, but yes I agree that most clients would not know what to do with the raw's, but the processed jpegs at full resolution would be useful to many people.

and as we've both said, you're sucked into seeing things from your point of view rather than a customers point of view ( none of my customers would so far understand what a raw file is, back to my runners,repeaters and strangers.

the client may get what they need, but often they want more.

Richard clearly said want and need, -it seems at this point that this has stopped being a discussion and has become argumentative, our customers get what they want and need and it doesn't involve charging them for copyright, which appears to be a misunderstanding based upon 1 experience of yours.

I do think that there are some enlightened togs on this board though who perhaps offer more than the average tog on the street and perhaps many of your clients do get exactly what they want and need, but the last time I used a professional tog, buying the copyright was the only was I could take the pics home on a disc to do with as I wished, which included putting up on Facebook, printing out and posting to relatives etcetc.

My belief is that you met the exception, as all the pro's I know would have satisfied you without having to sell copyright, are you certain that you both understood fully what you were dealing with?

I have read all of this thread, though perhaps not others on this topic. I still maintain that people find it annoying that someone else "owns" their wedding pictures. most just accept it as the status quo because a professional tells them that it is and tells them that it'll cost double to change it and they're not prepared to argue.

now that ownership has responsibilities like any other ownership (much like owning a house vs renting it) and often they don't know how to deal with that and could use help and explanation, but I don't think that removes the feeling of being "hard done by" that someone else owns their wedding.

Most portrait and wedding photography customers would never give a thought to the fact that I 'own' their photographs, because they have all that they need, album, print file etc. They understand that if their relatives need reprints I will look after them, even the ones with digital images often insist that relatives come to us for reprints. This is good customer service not me holding on to some medieval right.
My customers have no need to feel 'hard done by', they might feel hard done by if I handed them raw files that they couldn't process and told them they had to look after their own archiving and reprint orders. I'd guess that less than 1% of the population are familiar with a raw converter, why do you insist that your requirement is the norm?

however this is all getting very circular and if what I and others have said so far hasn't convinced you then I'm sure we can agree to disagree

David

David, there is only you insisting that all customers require raw files and copyright, all other non pro photographers gave up the argument when they realised we were actually giving customers reasonable rights to their images, transfer of copyright is not an issue in the normal relationship between wedding photographer and customer. Transfer of copyright is normal behaviour for commercial customers who understand processing licensing and archiving. The general public don't and therefore it's a mistake to treat them as if they do. If my next wedding customer is a photographer who wants to look after all of the above and wants me to hand over files I'd be happy to oblige, but let's not pretend that it's normal.

 

[fyonn]

yes - but the point was that a well printed wedding album will be a lifetime memory so there'll be no need to have it reprinted , wheras your cheap one will only last a few years

okay, well to move the virus/hard disk crash situation into the real world, that album could easily succumb to fire or water damage and when it cost hundreds and hundreds of pounds, that hurts. when it's less than a ton then it's a shame but easily re-created.

anyway, as we've said before, different people have different wants and needs. my wife and I were happy to pay good money for professional pictures to be taken, but we didn't want an expensive album. we don't often look at the album itself and spending loads on that seemed a waste to us.

for us, the digital files were much more valuable. we could use them to design our own cheaper album but we could then do anything else we wanted. now I'm a geek so you can see my interest, but my wife isn't and she got it immediately.

I think the days of the big album are waning a little. not sure they'll go away completely, but I don't think they are as important now as they were.

david

 

[big soft moose]

okay, well to move the virus/hard disk crash situation into the real world, that album could easily succumb to fire or water damage and when it cost hundreds and hundreds of pounds, that hurts. when it's less than a ton then it's a shame but easily re-created.

except that in your case if the album sucumbed to fire the chances would be that you'd also lose the cd and computer with the digital copies too so recreation wouldnt actually be possible