Digital Pictures and proof of ownership.

[Jay Cazel]

Dan,


Anyway, I digress. The proffesional photographers demand that printer/processors be aware of copyright. Some of the printer/processors have more latitude in their policy to printing than do others. Wal-Mart (to use them as an example) has been hit with several lawsuits concerning copyrighted material being printed. The courts sided with the photographers. Now as a matter of course and protecting their interests and investments they clamp down on what they will print. It's a situation brought on by ourselves.

You should go to some of the wedding photographers forums and professional photographer forums. Read some of the really bad horror stories brought on by their clients. Someone trying to circumvent a $600 wedding photographer charge, by scanning the proof book, then turning it back in and sueing the photographer because they didn't like the photos.

There are more stories along those lines.

John I have a question and something I don't understand. If I hire a photographer to take pictures of my wedding, why does the photographer get to keep the rights to the pictures? I mean I am paying for them, I am paying for the service and I am most likley going to buy a package from him of different shots and sizes of pictures.

The reason why I ask is some friends of mine where getting married and asked if I would shoot there wedding, I was like sure, (my wife axed the idea, not that I am a bad photographer but she did not want me to make a mistake on the pictures and ruin there wedding photos). The guy they used charged them quite abit of cash and keep the rights to the pictures for like 5 years. I quess if I pay for something it all should be mine.

 

[John Diel]

Most wedding photographers consider themselves to be Artists. In this mode the make theier living by creating Art of the Wedding Photographs. One wedding generally will pay for just shy of a weeks wages and rent at the Studio. Since most are self employed they also have house rent, etc. to pay. One of the ways they derive the income is the prints. Since most are sending the file or negative to a professional print/processing service, it's more expensive than taking them to Wal-Mart. Hence the higher prices. If the photographer were to give up the digital file/negatives, they would then lose all income to be derived from those negatives later on down the road. If they DO give up the negatives, it would only be done at a high price since it means a potential loss of income.

So, Yes, you are paying for the photographer. Actually, you are paying for his/her services as the photographer and his/her skill in creating memories of generally considered the biggest day in most couples lives. The photographer in reurn created the photo album, meets with the couple for pre-service photos, sometimes engagement photos, plans out when and where to be, gets the list of specific shots the couple may want, agrees on a package and price. The images are indeed property of the photographer unless specifically negotiated in the wedding photograhers contract. Giving up negatives is tantmount to giving up all copyrights to the photos. Very few photographers will do that.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

Most wedding photographers consider themselves to be Artists. In this mode the make theier living by creating Art of the Wedding Photographs. One wedding generally will pay for just shy of a weeks wages and rent at the Studio. Since most are self employed they also have house rent, etc. to pay. One of the ways they derive the income is the prints. Since most are sending the file or negative to a professional print/processing service, it's more expensive than taking them to Wal-Mart. Hence the higher prices. If the photographer were to give up the digital file/negatives, they would then lose all income to be derived from those negatives later on down the road. If they DO give up the negatives, it would only be done at a high price since it means a potential loss of income.

So, Yes, you are paying for the photographer. Actually, you are paying for his/her services as the photographer and his/her skill in creating memories of generally considered the biggest day in most couples lives. The photographer in reurn created the photo album, meets with the couple for pre-service photos, sometimes engagement photos, plans out when and where to be, gets the list of specific shots the couple may want, agrees on a package and price. The images are indeed property of the photographer unless specifically negotiated in the wedding photograhers contract. Giving up negatives is tantmount to giving up all copyrights to the photos. Very few photographers will do that.

I've looked at a ton of wedding photographers since I'm planning my July wedding... It's interesting that most of the moderately-priced photographers (<$2000) will say that they keep the negatives / raw images and that you must buy all prints from them. However, I've found many photographers in the >$2000 range that explicity state that the client will receive full copyright permission and ownership, along with the negatives and/or digital originals, free to make reprints as desired. Of course, I'm sure this is accounted for in their initial costs, but there ARE photogs out there that will give you the originals and copyright ownership.

I never thought I'd see so many photographers charging >$2500 for a 6-hour wedding and reception... Granted, many of the more expensive (>$2500) photographers have some beautiful wedding images, and, on the whole, a look through many of their portfolios reveals why some people choose to spend more on get/hire these folks (probably due to more time post-processing, etc). Lots of great photos from the whole range (inexpensive to expensive), but that's just the general trend I've noticed after looking through >20 websites of photographers in the St. Paul MN area...

 

[John Diel]

Boy, I hate to see this thread get hijacked to weddings!

You do certainly get what you pay for when you hire your photographer. Unfortunately for "Professional" photographers, there are so many Uncle Joe's and Aunt Mary's with a fancy 35mm or digital camera that says, "well, I can do that good" and jump on the job.

The "Professional" will bring experience, knowledge, artistic ability, and courtesy. The higher priced ones, also bring the equipment and assitance they need to "create" the photos. Those that are good, are usually very good.

Myself, I'm low budget and not a real threat to the "pros" in the area. I don't advertise except by word of mouth. I'm comlpetely digital and give the photos to the couple on CD. No frills, no prints (except one 11X14 collage), no album. I use good equipment, but I keep it to a minimum with an overhead flash on a bracket and a fill or effect flash triggered optically. The photos I create, are good and INHO better than some of the "Professionals" in the area. However, up against the really good guys? I don't hold a candle to them. I get in maybe 6 weddings a year. I actually do more video work than I do still photography. Of course, I charge more for video as there is more setup, processing, and costs.

It's interesting to see a change beginning in Photographers letting negatives go. I know that for years (and to this day) most that I know of have been taught you don't give the negs away.

There's a surprising amount of work with wedding photography (or any "professional" photography). It's not near as easy as it appears as any of the Professionals on this board will atest (You know who you are!).

 

[Jay Cazel]

Boy, I hate to see this thread get hijacked to weddings!

You do certainly get what you pay for when you hire your photographer. Unfortunately for "Professional" photographers, there are so many Uncle Joe's and Aunt Mary's with a fancy 35mm or digital camera that says, "well, I can do that good" and jump on the job.

The "Professional" will bring experience, knowledge, artistic ability, and courtesy. The higher priced ones, also bring the equipment and assitance they need to "create" the photos. Those that are good, are usually very good.

Myself, I'm low budget and not a real threat to the "pros" in the area. I don't advertise except by word of mouth. I'm comlpetely digital and give the photos to the couple on CD. No frills, no prints (except one 11X14 collage), no album. I use good equipment, but I keep it to a minimum with an overhead flash on a bracket and a fill or effect flash triggered optically. The photos I create, are good and INHO better than some of the "Professionals" in the area. However, up against the really good guys? I don't hold a candle to them. I get in maybe 6 weddings a year. I actually do more video work than I do still photography. Of course, I charge more for video as there is more setup, processing, and costs.

It's interesting to see a change beginning in Photographers letting negatives go. I know that for years (and to this day) most that I know of have been taught you don't give the negs away.

There's a surprising amount of work with wedding photography (or any "professional" photography). It's not near as easy as it appears as any of the Professionals on this board will atest (You know who you are!).

I don't think it is getting hijacked...

Because it does answers questions on who owns the pictures. Even if it is a wedding or storm chasing or anything else. I know after my wedding the guy who took the pictures told me I could buy the negitives after 3 or 4 years. Which we didn't because we forgot and I think he stopped doing weddings anyway.

But thanks to all for the advice, even since I went to digital I have been shootting in RAW and do keep the high res shots backed up.

 

[Angela Brasher]

Has anyone heard of MyPictureMarc by Digimarc? This was a plug-in included in one of my graphics programs. I'm not completely sure how it works but, since it's out of my price range, I've not looked into it deeply.

According to the website: http://www.digimarc.com/mypicturemarc/how-...rks/default.asp you can...

1. Configure MyPictureMarc so that embedded watermarks carry your personal information.
2. Place a visible watermark on your picture to protect your comps.
3. Embed an imperceptible covert digital watermark within your picture to identify your images.
4. Connect with your audience, leading them back to you through your digital watermark.
5. Understand how and where your digitally watermarked images are being used online.
6. Keep your valuable collection safe and sound, and gain easy access to the shots you need.

The prices range from $79 to $499 annually according to how many photos you want to protect and what options you choose.

Like I said, I'm not sure if it would be something someone would be interested in or not, but thought I'd throw it out just in case.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

Sorry to continue the thread-jack, but wedding photography is quickly changing along with the digital revolution. It seems to me that what is happening is that photographers and digital editing specialists are teaming up these days to produce some knock-out prints using the combination of the photographer's expertise and the computer operator's specialty. The prices for the combination service is running the cost higher, but the final quality of the prints is outstanding in many cases. I've considered trying to start something similar for my weddings, which are really starting to accumulate and I'm running out of time to edit shots.

What has happened - is that taking the photo is becoming only HALF or even less - of the battle. The fact that each photo can be filtered electronically with tons of effects takes time ... and lots of work ...

 

[John Diel]

I guess I'm still thinking in the old school mode. When I started out 25 years ago, digital was nothing more than a dream. Now we have camera backs for Medium Format cameras that are beginning to come into the price range for middle range photograhers. We have surpassed 35mm film with digital and the cameras, though still out of range for the general consumer, are well in the range for professionals.

What Mike says only makes sense. I know I do a lot with photographs, backgrounds, and photoshop. I no longer carry 4 cameras two loaded with BW and the other with color. I no longer have to buy the special Kodak or Fuji profressional film and I can forego the printing process almost entirely.

I went entirely digital 2 years ago. I have one Nikon and one Mamiya 35mm left in my arsenal. I have about $4000 invested in still cameras, lens, and equipment and the digital cameras have paid for themselves. I can do more special effects and tweak my photographs and actually recover photos that I would have thrown out 5 years ago. It only makes sense. I know what I can do with photoshop, I can only imagine what someone who knows it and the other programs out there can do. It's simply amazing.

I'll continue targeting the low budget folks though. I view it as more a service rather than a living. I try to catch the folks that really can't afford $600 to $2000 for their weddings. I catch the folks that get their friends to help bake the cake, and pick their flowers in the field next to the church.

That being said, I am now moving into the field of videography. There's a fast growing field. Especially as prices continue to fall and the Non Linear Editing becomes easier to manipulate and becomes everybit as powerful as what we used to see only on TV with hundreds of thousands of dollars invested. Now that I charge for. I can generally gross about $600 to $800 videoing a wedding with two cameras. I can have that edited and put together in a package in about 2 weeks. Add to this, TV commercials, Birthdays, Anniverseries, special events, etc and you can see where it can go. Being in a more rural area, there isn't anyone currently offering those services locally. The closest is Wichita or Tulsa, with OKC coming in third. I beat those prices as I am local.

Yeah, I keep busy. I do about an hour every weekday morning on a Morning Radio show, I work full-time at a mundane, mind numbing job, and I do all this after that. Sometimes, I get swamped! Add to this, Storm Chasing!