no, you cannot have the copyright...

[ndsimm]

OK, so I sent over a copy of my contract for an upcoming portrait session and one of the clauses state that I retain the copyright to the images and it also includes a model release that says the images MAY be used in publication or on my web site (which they went to in order to see samples of my work and decide to hire me)
well, after "discussing" it, some of the people in the group decided that they didn't want their images displayed....no problem, I can respect privacy, but when you tell me that since you are paying for the pictures and since you are in the pictures, YOU get the copyright...WTH???
her reason - "my daughter just got married and the wedding photographer gave me the copyright to all the pictures"
I tried for 20 minutes to explain print release vs copyright, but she wasn't having it...so in the end, I'll be recommending another photographer to her

[snidow]

Glad you stood your ground on that!

[toverman]

Originally Posted by ndsimm

"my daughter just got married and the wedding photographer gave me the copyright to all the pictures"

Not only should we have to educate clients, but other photogs as well!

[Shelby Lane]

Originally Posted by toverman

Not only should we have to educate clients, but other photogs as well!

Exactly.

[STP Images]

Originally Posted by ndsimm

but when you tell me that since you are paying for the pictures and since you are in the pictures, YOU get the copyright...WTH???

I guess using THAT logic, Leonardo da Vinci didn't own the Mona Lisa, but the model (Lisa Gherardini) did.

Originally Posted by ndsimm

her reason - "my daughter just got married and the wedding photographer gave me the copyright to all the pictures"

Again, using her logic, since all .com companies based their business plans on capturing market share and not profit (and consequently caused the technology bubble to burst in 2000), then every other business should price their services the same way.

Originally Posted by ndsimm

so in the end, I'll be recommending another photographer to her

Unless you really dislike the other photographer, I wouldn't send her anywhere but out the front door of the studio - tell her to kick rocks for the hour of time you will never get back that she wasted.

[HotHolly]

I wouldnt have been able to contain my laughter. What a Schmuckers!

[w9ctm]

Regardless, hindsight tells you that you must be happy she didn't book you. Imagine the argument after the fact......
And the other photog needs an education, I think... Perhaps the other photog did give her all the images and told her she could get them printed wherever she wanted. And perhaps she is interpreting that as her copyright. I wonder if there was a contract for her daughter's wedding?

Chuck

[toverman]

Originally Posted by Paraquat

I guess using THAT logic, Leonardo da Vinci didn't own the Mona Lisa, but the model (Lisa Gherardini) did.

Maybe that explains the sly smile.

[HotHolly]

Originally Posted by toverman

Maybe that explains the sly smile.

Awh! Snap! She duped Leo!

[brad]

Do not try to explain the intricacies of copyright to them.

Tell them that their usage rights allow them to do anything they want with the digital files short of reselling them in a commercial endeavour. "Unlimited personal use" is usually enough (in my experience) to convince these people that copyright is not what they really want.

Now if they persist, tell them copyright costs 4 times as much and they are 100% responsible for archiving - since you will no longer retain the copyright, you will not be allowed, by law, to archive their images.

[mcf0807]

For a newbie can you explain 'print release vs copyright'?

[Jenny Z]

I had a similar problem a few weeks ago, chick wanted to rewrite my whole contract... no thank you ma'am.

[brad]

Originally Posted by mcf0807

For a newbie can you explain 'print release vs copyright'?

Print release means you allow them some level of rights to take the image and reprint it on their own. This may be complete rights to do with it however they please or may be as limiting as "for personal use only, no use for self promotion (biz cards, etc)." You still have ultimate ownership of the image.

Copyright means they own the image absolutely and can literally do anything they want with it - including, but not limited to, reselling it commercially for advertising or even using it as an example of work for their own photography business.

[Jessica Merritt]

You would NOT BELIEVE how many photographers tell potential clients they can own the copyright.

My husband and I went to a bridal show in Houston. We had a lot of photographers approach us and without being asked (because we were really just there to look at displays), probably 85% of them said that we'd get copyright. (!!!) I even asked one of them to clarify what he meant by that-I asked him if it was a print release, and he corrected me: no, it's full copyright. I just smiled nicely at him, and made a silent prayer that he learns what's up before he gets sued for using a client's image on his website.

[Aric C. Hoek]

I'd like to chime in here if I may.

I really think we are talking about copyright vs reproduction rights.

There are limited and unlimited reproduction rights.

If I am contracted to photograph a car for Ford for their upcoming advertising campaign, I might reasonably say that Ford is granted limited reproduction rights which allows them to use the images I create for this advertising campaign only. And I might want to put a time constraint on the image purchase as well. What if they decided to run the campaign for 20 years! So I might say you can use the image for one year only.

This is limited reproduction rights. Think of it as licensing your images. What you are saying to your clients when you give them a high resolution DVD is that they have Unlimited Reproduction Rights to the DVD.

But you still have the right to use the image on your site,blog, advertising, or any legal way you see fit. You have the copyright.

All they really want is to be able to print from the DVD. Once they understand that, then they should be fine.

If the actually do understand the difference between copyright and reproduction rights, and they do not want you to retain the copyright, the price has to go up!

I will give my clients the copy right, but the price has to double... at least.

Just my two cents.