Passing/Giving ALL RIGHTS to a PHOTO SHOOT To a Client

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

Anybody have an idea where this trend started and how it can be stopped? Thinking back to photo studios/photographers in the past they did not give their negatives away from their works and I believe never really gave their rights away to the client so how did this start? Is this just a digital thing that has occured since it is so easy to burn a cd/dvd with all of the data to it? What if a client came up with an all rights clause for a shoot and you arrive with FILM to a shoot instead of DIGITAL do you give the FILM away to him? Have the film scanned and give them the files? Neither?

This just came to mind to discuss since the subject of clients wanting all the rights to a shoots images has popped up recently and I don't think film shooters of old gave their film to anyone (*not counting on staff photographers) otherwise we wouldn't have these great archives of work being given to Universities or Research Institutions and Museums.

Also how can we teach the clients that this is a NO NO?

In the case where a client is adamant about giving them all rights and they want copies of all work do you hand them RAW files, TIFF files, JPGs that are un-processed or clean JPGs that have been digitally manipulated or photoshopped to a finished product?

[Mandy]

I so far have given out ZERO digital files to portrait clients. However, I am offering individual files for $100 each as of 2007. I will place the edited file on CD in .jpg format cropped for 8x10 and 5x7 and a websize version. So if someone wants rights to all images it will run between 2-3k and I'm perfectly ok if someone takes me up on that offer. I am planning on having them sign a sheet that baffles them with ICC Profiles and the need to print properly (with examples) along with a list of online Consumer Labs that produce good prints in hopes that if they have spent that much on the file they will at least print it at a good lab. I'm not a fan of giving the disk for a few hundred with the session, but I know it works for some. I'm not sure how we can teach clients it's a no no when there are photographers that build their business doing it this way. I had a friend that shot film and would hand over the roll at the end of the session. She charged $X per roll shot + $X per hour and wiped her hands of it after that. It worked for her. Her clients were happy and she was happy.

[ndsimm]

To date, I have NEVER given away ALL rights to ANY of my images...I may sell limited printing rights, publication usage, etc, but the IP is still mine and I state it in my contract. When i shot film, it was the same way.....

[AndrewCCM]

Originally Posted by ndsimm

To date, I have NEVER given away ALL rights to ANY of my images...I may sell limited printing rights, publication usage, etc, but the IP is still mine and I state it in my contract. When i shot film, it was the same way.....

Same here. We'll sell our "digital negative" to wedding clients as a limited personal use copy for a premium fee. However, we always retain rights to the images themselves via the contract.

[Stephen H]

A couple of comments: First, physical possession of negatives, or prints for that matter, is not the same as having reproduction rights to them. It may practically limit what can be done with the shot, but doesn't affect the legalities at all.

Remember the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. Significance is that if you're a nobody and someone with money wants you to shoot a picture, they tell you how it's going to be. And if you're a rich-and-famous photographer, you tell them how it's going to be. So when it comes to archives given to universities, if they were well-known photographers, they probably retained a lot more control over their work than the average photographer.

In addition, if the copyright has expired on the work, it's a moot point who owned the copyright. Also, work that is copyrighted and not reproducible can still be of interest to researchers of a subject, even if not appropriate for publishing.

[jeffkohn]

Honestly I think in the case of portrait and wedding photography the print-sales model is outdated and doesn't make a lot of sense. If I were to pay for a professional portrait session I would want digital files (preferably fully finished TIFF or PSD). I would want a release to allow me to not only make my own prints, but also use the image for my own personal or promotional use.

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by Stephen H

In addition, if the copyright has expired on the work, it's a moot point who owned the copyright. Also, work that is copyrighted and not reproducible can still be of interest to researchers of a subject, even if not appropriate for publishing.

If Disney gets their way, copyrights will never expire again. (And I do not think that's a good thing).

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

Originally Posted by Stephen H

A couple of comments: First, physical possession of negatives, or prints for that matter, is not the same as having reproduction rights to them. It may practically limit what can be done with the shot, but doesn't affect the legalities at all.

Remember the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. Significance is that if you're a nobody and someone with money wants you to shoot a picture, they tell you how it's going to be. And if you're a rich-and-famous photographer, you tell them how it's going to be. So when it comes to archives given to universities, if they were well-known photographers, they probably retained a lot more control over their work than the average photographer.

In addition, if the copyright has expired on the work, it's a moot point who owned the copyright. Also, work that is copyrighted and not reproducible can still be of interest to researchers of a subject, even if not appropriate for publishing.

Since Copyrights go for 75 years since the photographers DEATH I would say most photos taken are copyrighted except for ones where the photographer died before 1932 and their estates did not do something to extend the copyright. See the 75 year thing is the minimum and not the maximum.

To be honest a lot of universities were donated the files of photo studios of the town or neighboring towns that the school was in, used to be a thing that the family would do for tax reasons since they usually saw little or no value in the works and they would think that the schools would be able to use them for research and they could store them for history sake or in some cases the towns/counties "museum/library" were given the works so not necessarily the "named/known" photographer had thier works preserved in this way.

This discussion is not about the family photos taken on trips and on holidays it is about people who photograph events/people past a hobby level in studio or on location.

Also how often did the family snapshotist give their negatives away unless they captured an historical event on the film?

Also even the guy who ran a studio in a town of a couple hundred people did not give his negatives away even if the client was the President of the Bank or the Sherriff (unless he was shooting crime scene work and that was a product of the job that could be needed later for court).

[Gordon]

I always end up thinking of the FSA photographers in these discussions. All their images were work for hire (which is why people still make,print and sell 'Migrant Mother' for free.

[boxofrocks]

I guess it's a part of the changing photo-economy, and like it or not, one has to structure their fees and rights to coincide with what the market will bear.

I have a few corporate clients that want me to shoot events and burn a disc. I charge them an hourly rate, and give them a contract granting (limited) reproduction rights. I know that even though I have a good relationship with them, if I won't do that, they'll find someone that will (and maybe even do it cheaper).

Since some people (pros, semi-pros, or rank amateurs--doesn't matter who) started the practice of giving away CDs, it's out there. That's just the plain fact. You can't un-ring a bell, you can just decide whether or not you want to strike it again.

I personally wouldn't do it for a wedding, but I might for a corporate event or birthday party. We all need to choose what's right for us. I suppose these issues are just like pricing--a personal decision. My rates seem high to some customers and a bargain for others--for the same results (or at least the same guy doing the work trying to achieve similar results). I don't get too excited when someone tells me I'm too expensive. When a growing percentage of folks tells me I'm a bargain, it's probably time to raise my rates.

[Jake]

I bought the negatives(120 film) from my wedding photog.

[CaptainTom]

Originally Posted by boxofrocks

I guess it's a part of the changing photo-economy, and like it or not, one has to structure their fees and rights to coincide with what the market will bear.

I have a few corporate clients that want me to shoot events and burn a disc. I charge them an hourly rate, and give them a contract granting (limited) reproduction rights. I know that even though I have a good relationship with them, if I won't do that, they'll find someone that will (and maybe even do it cheaper).

Since some people (pros, semi-pros, or rank amateurs--doesn't matter who) started the practice of giving away CDs, it's out there. That's just the plain fact. You can't un-ring a bell, you can just decide whether or not you want to strike it again.

I personally wouldn't do it for a wedding, but I might for a corporate event or birthday party. We all need to choose what's right for us. I suppose these issues are just like pricing--a personal decision. My rates seem high to some customers and a bargain for others--for the same results (or at least the same guy doing the work trying to achieve similar results). I don't get too excited when someone tells me I'm too expensive. When a growing percentage of folks tells me I'm a bargain, it's probably time to raise my rates.

I agree with Tom on this one. I also have corporate clients and provide disks of events for a flat fee. Occasionally they will want a special shot for advertising or some other major publication. I will then charge accordingly.
The companies hire my services because they want a visual record of an event, party, ground breaking, etc. If there is an ad campaign, we deal with it accordingly.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by thejakestir

I bought the negatives(120 film) from my wedding photog.

Same here, I bought the film negatives for my wedding, 5 years ago.
The photographer didn't want the hassle of keeping the negatives.
This was from a successful, long established, high $ wedding photographer.

[HotHolly]

What do you think of a client wanting your services to purchase the digital files for the purpose of "playing with them" later in photoshop? She sought you out b/c she likes your images. Would you still consider it your work? Would color burns and weird conversions be okay?

Is that part of what you release when selling the files? Just asking b/c of something a recent wedding inquiry said.

Thought I'd ask on this thread since you all seem to have opinions on the topic. Its not quite the same as wanting film negatives - very few would actually go to the bother of processing the negs in a dark room and painting them up or tinting or what have you. In other words there is no way to tamper with film negs unless they went to great lengths. Not so with digital.

What's your take on that? And has anyone else gotten that request/ slip-of-the-tounge or did I just find a needle in a hay stack?

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

Musicans like to do that all the time Holly, one reason that I stopped shooting them because they would alter the work but then still atribute the image to me on their website.

This would make me mad to no avail and I basically stopped chasing down the various websites/myspace accounts/garage band accounts etc trying to stop it. Too many people with photoshop or similar programs on their comps and 99% of the time the images would not have passed my muster after they played with them. (one particular band was real bad about this and really screwed up the lighting effects that I worked to produce for them for their pics-these were a studio shoot).