4 ms·

When I got married I annoyed many photographers by balking at their rates and then negotiating for copyright ownership. If I'm paying someone $3500 per day, I e

by logn 12y ago

When I got married I annoyed many photographers by balking at their rates and then negotiating for copyright ownership. If I'm paying someone $3500 per day, I expect that to be a work-for-hire. If they want to show up for $100 then fine I'll pay per picture. Anyhow the SaaS model, per-cpu, or per-seat models are pretty much equivalent to how photographers work. The clients own no IP and it's all usage based. Independent contractors can just set up a SaaS that has a one-time fee for customizations, in addition to the normal monthly price (this is usually the last option in the menu, "Call us for pricing").

vgabios 12y ago
I, and I think most people, wouldn't want someone (nor the NSA) running around with license to do whatever they wish with my personal family photographs and then turn around and extort us either. Sure photographers have to make a living, but extortion and privacy violation is a bridge too far. Might be cheaper to either have TaskRabbits with copyright assignment waivers or have family / friends do it at the expense of amateurishness for the peace-of-mind that you or your entourage doesn't end up on some stock photo site or kitsch choskey.
- kbutler 12y ago
  Model release requirements prevent that, not copyright.
jxcl 12y ago
How often were you successful in negotiating to work for hire?
- logn 12y ago
  Eventually I found a photographer willing to do it. Such photographers are definitely not common though and in talking to about 10 of them, only 2 would assign copyright. I carved out an exception to allow the photographer use for offline portfolio examples, and for selling prints to invited wedding guests (but as the owner I could print them or share them digitally for free).
  - jfoster 12y ago
    How did the other 8 attempt to justify retaining copyright to your wedding photos? I've never hired a photographer before, but your expectations sound the same as mine.
    - logn 12y ago
      One literally told me I offended her by attempting to negotiate. Most replied saying they'd give me a DVD of the digital photos, so I shouldn't worry about it. I tried explaining to them that I work as a freelancer/contractor too and am very familiar with IP issues unlike probably most of their clients. They mostly justified it by saying they're artists and that the work is theirs. I know these days they also put a lot of time in post-production and color correction. They like the idea they can showcase their work in magazines and on their websites (which I don't like). They also like selling prints to your friends/family (which is ok with me, as long I can do the same for free). Historically photographers have generally owned their work. But I doubt they've historically made as much as they do from weddings (which is an insane industry, pricing-wise).
      - vgabios 12y ago
        Artist arrogance must be cousin of designer ego: folks that overrate themselves with hubris believing that others will see that as a signal of quality. The only reason for a photographer to retain copyright is to screw unsuspecting people and others that will bend to the manipulate nonsense. If it's your private event and they're any good, they don't need unlimited rights to your memories. That's offensive.
    - ics 12y ago
      What it comes down to is nobody who produces art (photography, painting, etc.) wants to be in a situation where their work is being curated or published and they have remove good work because they don't have the rights to their own photos. It could be for anything from a gallery show (many photographers' bread and butter) to one of their online sample books. What makes the issue more complex here is that a photograph captures a moment in time (meaning it can not necessarily be recaptured) and the perceived implications of that will vary widely from person to person. But again, if you're a photographer who gets one great photo, some perfect moment from a job, you want to be able to do more with it since you can't just tell the client "hey, this photo is so good you need to pay me 10x as much for it!" (Hopefully that's coherent enough to make sense of, writing multiple things at once now...)

by logn 12y ago

vgabios 12y ago

I, and I think most people, wouldn't want someone (nor the NSA) running around with license to do whatever they wish with my personal family photographs and then turn around and extort us either. Sure photographers have to make a living, but extortion and privacy violation is a bridge too far. Might be cheaper to either have TaskRabbits with copyright assignment waivers or have family / friends do it at the expense of amateurishness for the peace-of-mind that you or your entourage doesn't end up on some stock photo site or kitsch choskey.

kbutler 12y ago
Model release requirements prevent that, not copyright.

jxcl 12y ago

How often were you successful in negotiating to work for hire?

logn 12y ago
Eventually I found a photographer willing to do it. Such photographers are definitely not common though and in talking to about 10 of them, only 2 would assign copyright. I carved out an exception to allow the photographer use for offline portfolio examples, and for selling prints to invited wedding guests (but as the owner I could print them or share them digitally for free).
- jfoster 12y ago
  How did the other 8 attempt to justify retaining copyright to your wedding photos? I've never hired a photographer before, but your expectations sound the same as mine.
  - logn 12y ago
    One literally told me I offended her by attempting to negotiate. Most replied saying they'd give me a DVD of the digital photos, so I shouldn't worry about it. I tried explaining to them that I work as a freelancer/contractor too and am very familiar with IP issues unlike probably most of their clients. They mostly justified it by saying they're artists and that the work is theirs. I know these days they also put a lot of time in post-production and color correction. They like the idea they can showcase their work in magazines and on their websites (which I don't like). They also like selling prints to your friends/family (which is ok with me, as long I can do the same for free). Historically photographers have generally owned their work. But I doubt they've historically made as much as they do from weddings (which is an insane industry, pricing-wise).
    - vgabios 12y ago
      Artist arrogance must be cousin of designer ego: folks that overrate themselves with hubris believing that others will see that as a signal of quality. The only reason for a photographer to retain copyright is to screw unsuspecting people and others that will bend to the manipulate nonsense. If it's your private event and they're any good, they don't need unlimited rights to your memories. That's offensive.
  - ics 12y ago
    What it comes down to is nobody who produces art (photography, painting, etc.) wants to be in a situation where their work is being curated or published and they have remove good work because they don't have the rights to their own photos. It could be for anything from a gallery show (many photographers' bread and butter) to one of their online sample books. What makes the issue more complex here is that a photograph captures a moment in time (meaning it can not necessarily be recaptured) and the perceived implications of that will vary widely from person to person. But again, if you're a photographer who gets one great photo, some perfect moment from a job, you want to be able to do more with it since you can't just tell the client "hey, this photo is so good you need to pay me 10x as much for it!" (Hopefully that's coherent enough to make sense of, writing multiple things at once now...)