3 ms·

The biggest difference is that the photographer sells a finished product, that nobody else can work on. How would this work when teams of independant free lanc

The biggest difference is that the photographer sells a finished product, that nobody else can work on. How would this work when teams of independant free lancer work on a piece of software? What about when they get someone else to modify the code you wrote?

rch 12y ago
Client could buy a license for 1-5 developers to modify the source.
dorfsmay 12y ago
The is another thing linked to the notion of "done": environment rot. Professionnal photographers know to print on archival paper, and give you advice on how to store your pictures to potentially keep them for ever. What happens in two years when they upgrade their OS and your software no longer works? What if you went out of business? What if you are still in business but now charge ridiculous price? Do you have a duty to update your licensed software for ever for free? Or at the maximum at the price you agreed to work for originally?
- janpieterz 12y ago
  A photographer usually doesn't have the duty to do this either. You can certainly ask them to do it but the pricing will be higher. The photographers I know delete their source files after a certain amount of time and only keep the end products in the state they are in. This is quite equivalent to the software that you build, you get it in the state it is in but if certain things change you need to pay more or agree for something else. A good developer/company will talk to you about it, how to manage the lifetime of the application, for how long their support goes and what it implies afterwards.
  - dorfsmay 12y ago
    On the other hand, some photographers will sell you the raw files of your images, I even know some who will give them to you a year after the event as part of the original pricing. Similarly, a lot of companies will insist on keeping a copy and the rights to the source of software they pay people by the hour to write.

rch 12y ago

Client could buy a license for 1-5 developers to modify the source.

dorfsmay 12y ago

The is another thing linked to the notion of "done": environment rot. Professionnal photographers know to print on archival paper, and give you advice on how to store your pictures to potentially keep them for ever. What happens in two years when they upgrade their OS and your software no longer works? What if you went out of business? What if you are still in business but now charge ridiculous price? Do you have a duty to update your licensed software for ever for free? Or at the maximum at the price you agreed to work for originally?

janpieterz 12y ago
A photographer usually doesn't have the duty to do this either. You can certainly ask them to do it but the pricing will be higher. The photographers I know delete their source files after a certain amount of time and only keep the end products in the state they are in. This is quite equivalent to the software that you build, you get it in the state it is in but if certain things change you need to pay more or agree for something else. A good developer/company will talk to you about it, how to manage the lifetime of the application, for how long their support goes and what it implies afterwards.
- dorfsmay 12y ago
  On the other hand, some photographers will sell you the raw files of your images, I even know some who will give them to you a year after the event as part of the original pricing. Similarly, a lot of companies will insist on keeping a copy and the rights to the source of software they pay people by the hour to write.