4 ms·

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...)
      • bobbytherobot 12y ago
        The photography I went gave me the copyright to the photos with an exception that they can show them as sample to future clients and that only they are allowed to enter them into contests. It seemed more than fair to me.
        • vgabios 12y ago
          I wouldn't let them have any copies, period. They can just resell them to stock photo sites or do whatever else they like and it's nearly impossible to police them.
          • kbutler 11y ago
            If the subject of the photograph is an identifiable person, that type of publishing without a model release opens the publisher up to civil liability...
      • logn 12y ago
        From my perspective, not being able to re-sell that one great photo is exactly the deal you're making when hired to do a job. I wrote some pretty cool software for some past employers, and they could sell one of my patents for a few hundred grand, but they also paid me a fair wage so I signed away my rights. If photographers' bread and butter is gallery shows, then they should come to my wedding for free, or maybe I should charge them admission to cover the costs of the extraordinarily expensive set and costume.
  • vkjv 12y ago
    This was what I worked out, without much effort. A perpetual license for prints, but I couldn't sell the works.
  • tzs 12y ago
    You say "assign copyright" here, but earlier you said "work for hire". These are not the same. Copyright assignment is the one you want. It's very unlikely that a contract purporting to create a work for hire situation would succeed.