I very rarely give all the digital files to a client.
Why? Despite the propaganda that the camera manufactures put out, the files that come straight out of cameras need to be worked on to have them print properly.
On average, I spend 30 to 40 minutes on each 8x10 to pull it into printable shape. This is what I charge for, my time and expertise to push and prod the file into shape.
I agree with everyone who says to shop around for the photographer who will sell you the digital images to print yourself. The hard spot I found myself in when choosing a wedding photographer was a specific photographer who told us that no one who was attending our wedding was going to be allowed to take pictures of us while they were. I am glad we were told up front, because I was not prepared to tell anyone on our wedding day that they would not be able to take our pictures! Review the contracts, as the right questions, and you will all be happy with the outcome.
Hey, I'm with you. For a quarter (plus tax) our local thrift store will sell you TWO mugs. For a couple of bucks you can practically stock the workplace. So indeed bring your own when you go. Our church has two huge mug racks near the coffee pot. Almost everyone has their own. Not only does it cut trash and costs, but Sunday morning coffee tastes so much better.
Just as movie studios software companies etc try to stop people copying and steeling their work, This is what happens when a photographers work is copied. Yet there are many who will give you a disk of full res files ad I cant see why when you hire you dont just find one. $600 is not a lot of money to pay for a professional that may get you a couple of hours with a solicitor/lawyer, You can more than double the time spent with you for the time spent working by the photographer, ay pro will not be using a place like Walgreens they will go to a proper lab whos charges are a lot higher. But at the end of the day you are doing just the same as a software pirater.
WIth virtually no certification or regulation, Wedding/Portrait photography is the ultimate expression of Free Market. Don't like the copyright conditions of a photographer? Find another. All the good ones have websites and all it takes is some time behind Google to find the perfect fit for you.
For better or worse, photographers charge what they do to maintain a profit margin that allows them to pay rent, eat, put their kids into college, and save for retirement. Great photographers can be like ballplayers ... show me the money now as the talent will evaporate.
I hope the photographer reads your blog and sues you.
If you didn't like the contract between you and the photographer, you shouldn't have agreed to it. The photographer is trying to make a living, as, no doubt, are you. The "Guest" comment above is quite right: how would you like it if someone stole your intellectual property?
As I see it, the thing about photography is that it tends to be a place where 'art' and 'service' overlap. A photographer has all of the experience in the craft, and some of them also do photographs to display in galleries, sell to stock photo groups, etc. But they are also providing a service, doing something in place of and at the behest of the consumer, just like a plumber or a lawyer.
In the 'art' model you expect that only the artist can license (permit) reproductions of the work. The consumer buys one or more of the reproductions. The fact that many different consumers might be interested in the piece will cause the artist to make sure the originals are protected for the very long length of the copyright. The artist also needs to guard against derivative imitators that will make his reproductions useless.
In the 'service' model you expect that the customer is buying the time of the contractor and the materials needed, so the customer walks away owning the product. (I think there is a similar concept of work-for-hire for certain things patented in the course of doing your job. The patent rights can go to the company, not to the employee, so the employees can't extort things from the company just because their names are on the patent.) The consumer is responsible for maintaining the product, since it belongs to the consumer.
I think a lot of consumers think of their photographers as contractors, and a lot of photographers think of themselves as artists. Also, it seems like some photographers (not all, just enough that most people have at least one nasty experience) try to charge like *both*--really high sitting and touchup fees (service) and really high fees for running off prints (artist). This means that people need to talk to their photographers and work out a balance they both can live with. There are a lot of really good people out there who are willing to work with your goals, you just have to ask around.
This is exactly why you should discuss the contract with the photographer and be exactly clear on what they are offering in their packages. Photographers will offer anywhere from full rights and copyright transfer of the photos, to retaining all rights to the photos. Some photographers offer a full range of options at different pricing rates. If you're not happy with what the photographer is offering then DON'T HIRE THEM AND FIND SOMEONE ELSE TO TAKE THE JOB!!! Hiring the photographer and then ripping them off is illegal and unethical! Always remember that when you're buying a print you're not paying for the printing costs. You're paying for the talent that went into producing that photograph.
As anyone reading the comments can attest, this is a particularly thought provoking article, as evidenced by the wide range of replies on both sides of the issue. The best advice, I can think of, is to remember that when you hire a photographer you are creating a contract. If you would like to have more rights than the photographer includes in their boilerplate, just ask. Either the photographer will be willing to work with you (increased rights on your part will most likely come with an increase in cost) or you take your business to someone who is willing to come to an agreement about what rights you will get and what rights they will retain.
I am including the following link just for information regarding what types of questions would be good to think about. The info was originally designed with the photographer in mind but it should help consumers also. NPAA: Copyright Questions & Answers
I am in complete agreement with the notion of using washable coffe mugs for in-store consumption, both aesthetically and green-mindedly. The customers' own travel mugs could be filled for take out consumption as well.
Consider this; however: I live in the Raleigh-Durham area of North Carolina which is in the middle of an extreme drought. Raleigh's water supply is down to 90 days; Durham's is down to a mere 60 days worth or so. As part of their Level 4 (of 6) water conservation measures, restaurants are being mandated to serve their food on disposable plates and utensils, to minimize water use in dishwashing (The Duke University Medical Center -- a huge hospital-- switched to using paper plates in their cafeterias months ago). If you want water with your meal, you may need to purchase a bottle of water, rather than receive water from the tap (in a glass that would have to be washed). Your draft beer, will most likely come to you in a plastic cup, rather than a pint glass.
Really makes me wonder about balancing the equally worthy goals(within an extreme drought at least) of conserving water versus paper or petroleum (plastic).
Should the drought worsen to the point where even more extreme mandates were implemented, it is possible that restaurants, and other "non-essential" businesses would be shut down. I guess water, paper, plastic and petrol would all be conserved in that scenario, though at terrible cost (jobs).
Another great use of a coffee cup -- save money and the environment. In my neck of the woods, disposable items made a resurgence for one green restaurant because of a drought that restricted use of water for washing dishes; the company's solution was to buy 100% compostable cups and to-go boxes, and also to educate customers on composting without scaring them.
Hi. Glad to hear someone finally talking sense about this sort of issue.
Since I pay nothing to read the contents of Wise Bread, I copied the entire site and owe nothing. What a great deal!
I will be editing the content to give it my own slant, then reposting it under my own brand on my own site. But it will obviously be read only by those who actually visit my site, so no harm done. The world at large will never see it, so I'm not violating anyone's rights, or laws or anything.
Since the site design is pretty good I may use that too, but I'll probably touch up the colors a bit.
I'm sure you will be glad to hear that others are picking up your ideas and running with them. In the internet era, it all wants to be free, right? Things are so cool these days.
I have photos of me that were taken when I was 3 years old from my daycare. They were professional photos done over 20 years ago, and the photographer who did them has since passed away. I didn't feel guilty trying to get a copy of them to keep since my parents still want to hold on to them. The Wal-mart employee refused to copy them and tried to make me feel guilty. But, it's obviously a farce when the photographs are so old and there is no way to get a copy of the negatives anymore. I'm just going to scan them in so I do have a copy of them for myself.
So I don't go there any more. I was on their MVP program, paying about $15/mth for as many older new releases and really old movies I could watch. I don't have cable tv so this worked out great. Out of the blue one day they just closed all the stores near me, and now I'd have to drive so far to get to one, it's just not worth it. I miss my movies and even went to Blockbuster a few times when desperate :-)
Thanks to the other commenter for posting about redbox.
The little things do add up, but the big things add up a lot quicker. I burn two gallons of gasoline every day. An occasional paper cup doesn't seem so important in comparison. I avoid disposable cups out of principal, but I think we would do more good if we save on on the big things such as housing and transportation.
I bought a travel mug from Starbucks about a year and a half ago for $15, and if I bring it in and have them refill it with plain old regular coffee, they charge me $0.50.
So, not only am I help saving landfill space, I'm saving about $1.50 off my cup of joe.
I am a professional photographer. No matter what, scanning the images is stealing. There is no gray area. If you really feel the cost is too high for the prints talk with your photographer and see if you can strike a deal, I have been known to exchange yard work and other such favors in exchange for a session fee or a discount on prints. Other alternatives exist too, you can have the photos taken in one of those discount studios or do them yourself. You wouldn't go to a bakery and purchase a cake then just take 2 more because you paid what you thought was a good price. It is the same thing.
This should be a familiar sentiment for regular readers: If you can't afford it, then don't buy it. Photographs are a luxury item, they are not a necessity. Hiring a professional photographer, even more so. If you really want photos and you want to be frugal there are other avenues that don't involve stealing.
The first thing is education...get a good education - the sooner you learn the science of Photography and combine it with the art side - the more successful you will be.
Take the time to immerse yourself in Photoshop - because the results you can work in PS really pop the images and make them look professional.
I don't like coffee but every winter I get hooked on hot chocolates from either the local gas/convenience store (Sheetz hot chocolate, yum) or the local coffee shop. Last year I was appalled at the waste and started reusing my cup from Sheetz. I'd take it home, wash it (styrofoam) and reuse it. This year my holiday gift to myself was a stainless steel lined travel mug I use. Sheetz didn't care but the coffee shop was a pain about it.
This is such an important point in a time when people seem to get one (or more) coffees a day in disposable cups. It's such a waste.
I don't know if you or anyone reading this ever visits Providence, RI, but I wrote up a post about my favorites cafes to get coffee "for here". I feel like a missed a few good ones, so I might make a follow-up post at some point.
I am a photographer.
I very rarely give all the digital files to a client.
Why? Despite the propaganda that the camera manufactures put out, the files that come straight out of cameras need to be worked on to have them print properly.
On average, I spend 30 to 40 minutes on each 8x10 to pull it into printable shape. This is what I charge for, my time and expertise to push and prod the file into shape.
You are not just paying for a sheet of paper.
I agree with everyone who says to shop around for the photographer who will sell you the digital images to print yourself. The hard spot I found myself in when choosing a wedding photographer was a specific photographer who told us that no one who was attending our wedding was going to be allowed to take pictures of us while they were. I am glad we were told up front, because I was not prepared to tell anyone on our wedding day that they would not be able to take our pictures! Review the contracts, as the right questions, and you will all be happy with the outcome.
Hey, I'm with you. For a quarter (plus tax) our local thrift store will sell you TWO mugs. For a couple of bucks you can practically stock the workplace. So indeed bring your own when you go. Our church has two huge mug racks near the coffee pot. Almost everyone has their own. Not only does it cut trash and costs, but Sunday morning coffee tastes so much better.
I think both HV and BB are feeling the pinch from RedBox and Netflix, which may explain the closure. Shame, I prefer HV to BB.
Just as movie studios software companies etc try to stop people copying and steeling their work, This is what happens when a photographers work is copied. Yet there are many who will give you a disk of full res files ad I cant see why when you hire you dont just find one. $600 is not a lot of money to pay for a professional that may get you a couple of hours with a solicitor/lawyer, You can more than double the time spent with you for the time spent working by the photographer, ay pro will not be using a place like Walgreens they will go to a proper lab whos charges are a lot higher. But at the end of the day you are doing just the same as a software pirater.
WIth virtually no certification or regulation, Wedding/Portrait photography is the ultimate expression of Free Market. Don't like the copyright conditions of a photographer? Find another. All the good ones have websites and all it takes is some time behind Google to find the perfect fit for you.
For better or worse, photographers charge what they do to maintain a profit margin that allows them to pay rent, eat, put their kids into college, and save for retirement. Great photographers can be like ballplayers ... show me the money now as the talent will evaporate.
The American dream is having security, peace and less stress.
I feel that my family and I are living the American Dream!
I hope the photographer reads your blog and sues you.
If you didn't like the contract between you and the photographer, you shouldn't have agreed to it. The photographer is trying to make a living, as, no doubt, are you. The "Guest" comment above is quite right: how would you like it if someone stole your intellectual property?
As I see it, the thing about photography is that it tends to be a place where 'art' and 'service' overlap. A photographer has all of the experience in the craft, and some of them also do photographs to display in galleries, sell to stock photo groups, etc. But they are also providing a service, doing something in place of and at the behest of the consumer, just like a plumber or a lawyer.
In the 'art' model you expect that only the artist can license (permit) reproductions of the work. The consumer buys one or more of the reproductions. The fact that many different consumers might be interested in the piece will cause the artist to make sure the originals are protected for the very long length of the copyright. The artist also needs to guard against derivative imitators that will make his reproductions useless.
In the 'service' model you expect that the customer is buying the time of the contractor and the materials needed, so the customer walks away owning the product. (I think there is a similar concept of work-for-hire for certain things patented in the course of doing your job. The patent rights can go to the company, not to the employee, so the employees can't extort things from the company just because their names are on the patent.) The consumer is responsible for maintaining the product, since it belongs to the consumer.
I think a lot of consumers think of their photographers as contractors, and a lot of photographers think of themselves as artists. Also, it seems like some photographers (not all, just enough that most people have at least one nasty experience) try to charge like *both*--really high sitting and touchup fees (service) and really high fees for running off prints (artist). This means that people need to talk to their photographers and work out a balance they both can live with. There are a lot of really good people out there who are willing to work with your goals, you just have to ask around.
This is exactly why you should discuss the contract with the photographer and be exactly clear on what they are offering in their packages. Photographers will offer anywhere from full rights and copyright transfer of the photos, to retaining all rights to the photos. Some photographers offer a full range of options at different pricing rates. If you're not happy with what the photographer is offering then DON'T HIRE THEM AND FIND SOMEONE ELSE TO TAKE THE JOB!!! Hiring the photographer and then ripping them off is illegal and unethical! Always remember that when you're buying a print you're not paying for the printing costs. You're paying for the talent that went into producing that photograph.
As anyone reading the comments can attest, this is a particularly thought provoking article, as evidenced by the wide range of replies on both sides of the issue. The best advice, I can think of, is to remember that when you hire a photographer you are creating a contract. If you would like to have more rights than the photographer includes in their boilerplate, just ask. Either the photographer will be willing to work with you (increased rights on your part will most likely come with an increase in cost) or you take your business to someone who is willing to come to an agreement about what rights you will get and what rights they will retain.
I am including the following link just for information regarding what types of questions would be good to think about. The info was originally designed with the photographer in mind but it should help consumers also.
NPAA: Copyright Questions & Answers
"Since my photographer seemd happy with the $600 she received for photographing my kids, why couldn't she just give me what I really wanted?"
Since you seemed happy with the package you purchased, why couldn't you just stay within the rights you paid for?
I am in complete agreement with the notion of using washable coffe mugs for in-store consumption, both aesthetically and green-mindedly. The customers' own travel mugs could be filled for take out consumption as well.
Consider this; however: I live in the Raleigh-Durham area of North Carolina which is in the middle of an extreme drought. Raleigh's water supply is down to 90 days; Durham's is down to a mere 60 days worth or so. As part of their Level 4 (of 6) water conservation measures, restaurants are being mandated to serve their food on disposable plates and utensils, to minimize water use in dishwashing (The Duke University Medical Center -- a huge hospital-- switched to using paper plates in their cafeterias months ago). If you want water with your meal, you may need to purchase a bottle of water, rather than receive water from the tap (in a glass that would have to be washed). Your draft beer, will most likely come to you in a plastic cup, rather than a pint glass.
Really makes me wonder about balancing the equally worthy goals(within an extreme drought at least) of conserving water versus paper or petroleum (plastic).
Should the drought worsen to the point where even more extreme mandates were implemented, it is possible that restaurants, and other "non-essential" businesses would be shut down. I guess water, paper, plastic and petrol would all be conserved in that scenario, though at terrible cost (jobs).
Another great use of a coffee cup -- save money and the environment. In my neck of the woods, disposable items made a resurgence for one green restaurant because of a drought that restricted use of water for washing dishes; the company's solution was to buy 100% compostable cups and to-go boxes, and also to educate customers on composting without scaring them.
20 years ago means nothing. Copyright is in place for 50 years past the persons death. I am glad they refused you and anyone else that gets refused!
Hi. Glad to hear someone finally talking sense about this sort of issue.
Since I pay nothing to read the contents of Wise Bread, I copied the entire site and owe nothing. What a great deal!
I will be editing the content to give it my own slant, then reposting it under my own brand on my own site. But it will obviously be read only by those who actually visit my site, so no harm done. The world at large will never see it, so I'm not violating anyone's rights, or laws or anything.
Since the site design is pretty good I may use that too, but I'll probably touch up the colors a bit.
I'm sure you will be glad to hear that others are picking up your ideas and running with them. In the internet era, it all wants to be free, right? Things are so cool these days.
Thanks so much.
not advocating more buying, because I'm sure everyone has a coffeecup/mug at home, but here is a cute one:
http://www.dcigift.com/product.cfm?productID=763&catID=14
I have photos of me that were taken when I was 3 years old from my daycare. They were professional photos done over 20 years ago, and the photographer who did them has since passed away. I didn't feel guilty trying to get a copy of them to keep since my parents still want to hold on to them. The Wal-mart employee refused to copy them and tried to make me feel guilty. But, it's obviously a farce when the photographs are so old and there is no way to get a copy of the negatives anymore. I'm just going to scan them in so I do have a copy of them for myself.
So I don't go there any more. I was on their MVP program, paying about $15/mth for as many older new releases and really old movies I could watch. I don't have cable tv so this worked out great. Out of the blue one day they just closed all the stores near me, and now I'd have to drive so far to get to one, it's just not worth it. I miss my movies and even went to Blockbuster a few times when desperate :-)
Thanks to the other commenter for posting about redbox.
The little things do add up, but the big things add up a lot quicker. I burn two gallons of gasoline every day. An occasional paper cup doesn't seem so important in comparison. I avoid disposable cups out of principal, but I think we would do more good if we save on on the big things such as housing and transportation.
I bought a travel mug from Starbucks about a year and a half ago for $15, and if I bring it in and have them refill it with plain old regular coffee, they charge me $0.50.
So, not only am I help saving landfill space, I'm saving about $1.50 off my cup of joe.
I use it every day.
I am a professional photographer. No matter what, scanning the images is stealing. There is no gray area. If you really feel the cost is too high for the prints talk with your photographer and see if you can strike a deal, I have been known to exchange yard work and other such favors in exchange for a session fee or a discount on prints. Other alternatives exist too, you can have the photos taken in one of those discount studios or do them yourself. You wouldn't go to a bakery and purchase a cake then just take 2 more because you paid what you thought was a good price. It is the same thing.
This should be a familiar sentiment for regular readers: If you can't afford it, then don't buy it. Photographs are a luxury item, they are not a necessity. Hiring a professional photographer, even more so. If you really want photos and you want to be frugal there are other avenues that don't involve stealing.
The first thing is education...get a good education - the sooner you learn the science of Photography and combine it with the art side - the more successful you will be.
Take the time to immerse yourself in Photoshop - because the results you can work in PS really pop the images and make them look professional.
I also highly recommend following these blogs...they are great for inspiration and ideas and the writers are friendly and fun to read.
http://www.theblogisfound.com/
http://www.beckersblog.com/
http://www.thebschoolblog.com/
all the best to you...
I don't like coffee but every winter I get hooked on hot chocolates from either the local gas/convenience store (Sheetz hot chocolate, yum) or the local coffee shop. Last year I was appalled at the waste and started reusing my cup from Sheetz. I'd take it home, wash it (styrofoam) and reuse it. This year my holiday gift to myself was a stainless steel lined travel mug I use. Sheetz didn't care but the coffee shop was a pain about it.
This is such an important point in a time when people seem to get one (or more) coffees a day in disposable cups. It's such a waste.
I don't know if you or anyone reading this ever visits Providence, RI, but I wrote up a post about my favorites cafes to get coffee "for here". I feel like a missed a few good ones, so I might make a follow-up post at some point.