3 ms·
Something those who think "work for hire" and "you should own the IP" don't seem to understand... a huge part of being a good photographer is being a good EDITO
by beat 13y ago
Something those who think "work for hire" and "you should own the IP" don't seem to understand... a huge part of being a good photographer is being a good EDITOR, and learning to keep only the very best images. I'm not a "professional" in the full time sense, but I've released professional work. My "keep rate" is 2-3%. I'm simply rejecting 49 out of every 50 photos I take. I do not EVER want ANYONE to see those other 49. Many are just plain bad, and even the good ones aren't good enough for my critical standards.
Because of this, I would not under any circumstances sign a work-for-hire contract as a photographer. No good photographer I know would do that.
Something else to consider... for many photographers, the editing process is inseparable from the photo. The in-camera raw image is only an intermediate step. I don't know how many times I've been asked for a complete set of raw images by models or performers (I mostly shoot dance performance), and they've reacted with surprise to my flat NO answer. I'm not willing to let someone else make aesthetic decisions on my raw images, except perhaps in cases where I consider the person an artistic peer and treat it as a co-project.
- moron4hire 13y agoSomehow sports journalists do a lot of work for hire and it doesn't ruin their reputation.
- beat 13y agoSports journalists don't have to worry about some bridezilla taking their images, soft-filtering them and adding glowing pink hearts, and publishing every single one, no matter how awful. Their work-for-hire is going to professional editors. This is a VERY important distinction.
- moron4hire 13y agoActually, it's not a distinction at all, because the fear is unwarranted. There is no realistic impact that such a bridezilla can have on a photographer.
- beat 13y agoThere is if artistic integrity matters.
- moron4hire 13y agoart is a completely different subject from works created for hire
- beat 13y agoNo, there's coupling involved. Every paying job I've ever gotten as a photographer, I've gotten due to my artistic qualities. This isn't universal, but it's common. So releasing work that undermines my artistic integrity also undermines my commercial appeal. Besides, art is WHY many of us take up photography! When you just whore out your work for money, it's demoralizing. You think less of yourself as an artist, and as a person.
- moron4hire 13y agoI'm not denying that such an image could possibly besmirch the name of a photographer, I'm just denying that it could have such the reach that it would require such destructive terms as exclusive copyright. It's the same sort of classic conflation and/or misunderstandings of impact and likelihood that plagues security audits. And it's only demoralizing if you subscribe to the notion that "art" is more important than "work" or that "work" is less important than "art". These are largely conceits that are forced on us by our culture, so you'd basically be letting other people's values make you a depressed mess.