Help me out here. I definitely understand photographers have a challenging job that requires both skill and talent, and deserve to be paid for their work.
However, if I pay someone to take a picture, is it really reasonable for me to have to pay separately for every copy, be denied a digital copy, and be woke-shamed for musing out loud about just scanning a print and being done with it?
The whole thing seems completely outrageous, but massive numbers of people seem to see no problem with it...
Unus Nemo likes this.
Boris Karnikowski
in reply to Blaise • • •Blaise
in reply to Boris Karnikowski • •@Boris Karnikowski
I just don't get it. If a picture is worth "x", charge me "x" for the picture, and be done with it. I can certainly guarantee that people are *always* pissed off about it, which is bad for business, and it can't really be making the photographer *that* much money. I mean, how often do people make requests for a picture more than a month or two after they are first delivered? It just seems like bad thinking/bad business.
Besides, we're talking about a commissioned work. Does the guy who first drew Donald Duck retain control of the pictures he made? No, of course not, Disney did.
To be honest, it also concerns me a bit that raw photos of my children are perpetually housed in the "collections" of at least two-dozen photographers whose security procedures most likely range from "what's a virus?" to "Microsoft has that firewall, they say I'm safe"...
Boris Karnikowski
in reply to Blaise • • •1/3
It all boils down to your appreciation of the photographer‘s craft and how much you are wiling to pay for a picture. If you expect him to sell the raw file to you, you will need to calculate in the fact that he is losing business, no matter how probable you think it is that your re-ordering. Other customers will, and why should he change his business model to accomodate you.
Boris Karnikowski
in reply to Boris Karnikowski • • •2/3
> Besides, we're talking about a commissioned work. Does the guy who first drew Donald Duck retain control > of the pictures he made? No, of course not, Disney did.
That’s not the point, copyright is - and what you agreed to when signing that agreement. If that photographer was working for a company you might now be talking to their lawyer about this.
Boris Karnikowski
in reply to Blaise • • •3/3
> To be honest, it also concerns me a bit that raw photos of my children are perpetually housed in the
> "collections" of at least two-dozen photographers whose security procedures most likely range from > "what's a virus?" to "Microsoft has that firewall, they say I'm safe"...
So you are saying that that data would be safer with you than with him? Just don‘t commission pictures of your children. Everybody would be better off, I guess.
Unus Nemo
in reply to Blaise • •@Blaise
Laws are vague at best. Though as a rule of thumb the one that took the picture has rights to it, not the subject of the photograph. Though consult a lawyer, as I am not one, for better legal advice on the topic. The same as a painting. Unless a contract is specifically drawn up to give rights to the contractor. You can be sure that the photos taken by a media platforms photographer belong to the media platform and not the photographer (unless they are freelance and have no specific contract then if they sell them to the media they insist on full rights not copies in most cases). The next time you hire a photographer draw up a contract the clearly states that you own the negative (raw files) and all parts of the photographs taken and that you you are only contracting their services and nothing more and that they have no right to maintain a copy of the images for any purpose. This will cause the photographer to ask for more money for their services though it seems you would be okay with that?