[Geekybiker]

and what about professional film users? they'll lose business if they only use a darkroom and wet techniques, because people want digital. how is that fair?

Well, honestly its not fair. Who said it would be? I imagine there will always be some market for film. Some people just want that aesthetic, or to know that it was physically produced. Much the same way there is still a market for mechanical watches, but the great bulk of the market has moved on to quartz. I guess the real question is how long will there be enough market is smaller areas to live on film only.

[PDL]

I think Mr. Tokina's comments are much more contributing than all his detractors.

He is espousing a business model that sells a service.

All the detractors are espousing a business model that sells a product.

Images are not a service - they are a product. They are owned - by international law - by the photographer. If you produce a copy of a print without payment - you are a thief.

snip

Personally, if I interviewed several wedding photographers, some who spelled out a fee and continuing print costs in perpetuity, one who spelled out a fee and handing over image files for me to do whatever I wanted with, I would definitely sign the latter, and, to get back to original topic, I would therefore never enter into issue of copyright upon printing additional images of my wedding.

Ah - you would not work with someone who will not sign away his/her rights. That happens - I know of a few semi-pros who do that. However, they reserve the right to print 'your pictures' on their sites, handouts, cards, calendars - without contacting you for permission. Cuts both ways.

Around here (chicago) most wedding photographers now provide you with the full resolution digital files and a release for personal re-prints. Or at least that was what I saw when shopping for a wedding photographer recently. The deal is that you dont get the digital files for 6mo -1 year after the wedding so they have time to sell prints. I image that very few prints are sold past 1 year so giving the ability to print later means very little. I not sure if they're charing more for that now. FWIW I wouldn't do business with a photographer who wouldn't release me the files to make my own prints eventually. Its not like a film negative where he would lose the original for his record or other use.

My empahsis - you also work with a subset of photographers who have been forced out of the traditional film model. Diversity is the key.

I believe too that they really should be making their money on their time rather than a lowball figure up front and hoping to make it up on the back end. How many other services do you pay for that you dont have the right to do as you like with the end product once paid for?

If they charge enough for their time - the cost of a photographer just doubled. Uncle Joe with the Rebel - just became the primary candidate. Back to low-balling.

And despite that, it seems its where the market is moving. I suppose it depends on your outlook though. I am hiring a wedding photographer to produce images for me. Now that is different than prints. Just like any other industry people have to adapt though, and the new model is that people get their digital files. I would argue that rather than losing clients based solely on cost, the wedding photographer who refuses to release digital files will lose clients based on that fact.

This may not be everywhere yet, but I would be shocked if it didnt spread considering the ubiquity of digital cameras these days.

If the consumer - is not going to pay for prints, then they are going to pay through the nose for CD/DVD's. It does take time and effort to create the CD/DVD's along with music (which is copyrighted also remember). If all you want is images - get uncle Joe to break out his Rebel and blast away, or gather all the cell phone images that the attendents and do it your self. If you understand how long it takes to get "professional" images and produce "Professional" results - if they want you to pay for prints, then you get what you pay for.

Those of us who see these CD's and see the cost are somewhat outraged, but just how much time does it really take to do all the organization, planning, image taking, post processing and CD/DVD creation. We all really know this - so take that amount of time, add in transportation, overhead and what your time is worth. It ain't cheap. You want pro work - expect to pay pro prices.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

[stewart_photo]

Full of pomp and vitriol aren't we? (snip)

Nope, simply stating the obvious.

(snip) don't be surprised if you stick to the traditional model and slowly lose business to people that do adapt fully to the digital world.

Since I've already said I'm not a wedding photographer, that particular threat (real or imagined) means very little to me. However, since you seem to think the "digital world" is analogous to everything you want being free, perhaps you can explain how those in the future are going to find decent photographers willing to work for peanuts (minimal labor and expenses) after spending years learning the craft, thousands on photo equipment, and many hundreds each month trying to finance the advertising and so on associated with a business.

(snip) Oddly your attitude much reminds me of the RIAA who desperately wants to deny that a new business model exists, and are being dragged kicking and screaming into a new way or distribution.

If required to choose between your ideas and the RIAA (fighting music piracy), the latter would easily win simply because I don't believe what you create belongs to me, what I create belongs to you, or what others create belong to either of us. I believe performers have both a legal and moral right to their music (and profit from it), just as photographers have a right to their photographs. And I believe any attempt to take that from either is not just wrong, but also undermines creativity itself.

stewart

[Lowell Goudge]

one point really got me.

Originally Posted by Geekybiker
"I believe too that they really should be making their money on their time rather than a lowball figure up front and hoping to make it up on the back end. How many other services do you pay for that you dont have the right to do as you like with the end product once paid for?"

What if they do a poor job, and you are dissatisfied with it but you paid them on time, not product.

Aside from being really upset, you would not be inclined to take many prints from them, and therefore the photographer gets what he truely deserved.

It is a tough business, on both sides. I'm not sure there is a really easy and simple answer in terms of payment, performance, quailty, and long term ownership.

The fairest model almost seems to be a release of data after a period where prints would be exclusively ordered from the photographer. The wait period would be enough for him to have a reasonable opportunity of profit if he did a good job, but not unreasonably long so that the occasional print could not be done indepenantly, or reprints could be obtained if the photographer either went out of business or moved. There are a lot of examples in business where there are specific conditions for rights to propriatry data (this is a similar situation).

This has digressed however from the issue of walmart not printing them, once you have the disk. You would still need a release from the photographer for that.

[Geekybiker]

Since I've already said I'm not a wedding photographer, that particular threat (real or imagined) means very little to me. However, since you seem to think the "digital world" is analogous to everything you want being free, perhaps you can explain how those in the future are going to find decent photographers willing to work for peanuts (minimal labor and expenses) after spending years learning the craft, thousands on photo equipment, and many hundreds each month trying to finance the advertising and so on associated with a business.

If required to choose between your ideas and the RIAA (fighting music piracy), the latter would easily win simply because I don't believe what you create belongs to me, what I create belongs to you, or what others create belong to either of us. I believe performers have both a legal and moral right to their music (and profit from it), just as photographers have a right to their photographs. And I believe any attempt to take that from either is not just wrong, but also undermines creativity itself.

stewart

I have never said I want everything to be free. I understand that producing finished images takes time. I know that a wedding shoot is more or less a week of work once you do the post. I would rather sign up for someone who charges $3k and give me my images than sign someone up for $1k and hopes to make it up on prints. Why is this such a difficult concept? You hire someone to take the photos, do the post and provide you with a disc and a release. Its a different product, but not much different in concept than paying for a set of prints up front. Instead of prints you get your images.

Fighting music piracy was not the point of the RIAA comment. I work in an industry with heavy piracy myself, so I'm a big proponent of respecting IP rights. The RIAA has heavily resisted moving into a digital marketplace. Music distribution went digital whether or not the RIAA wanted it to. Rather than accept the will of the consumer and give them a legal method to download music, they have spent alot of money and effort fighting it. Only recently have legal DRM free music files been available from major labels. The point being resisting the will of the consumer is futile in the end. You need to find a way to roll with the way people want to use your IP or they will find illegal methods to do so.

In photography that might be scanning the prints, or just finding a lab that doesn't care about making duplicates. Every studio I talked to locally had a significant delay before you got the final files. That's the time you make your money on prints. People who want to copy the photos illegally during this time will still do so, just like they did before. Some had the option to get the files immediately, but at an extra cost. (presumably how much they expect to make off the print sales)

[Geekybiker]

The fairest model almost seems to be a release of data after a period where prints would be exclusively ordered from the photographer. The wait period would be enough for him to have a reasonable opportunity of profit if he did a good job, but not unreasonably long so that the occasional print could not be done indepenantly, or reprints could be obtained if the photographer either went out of business or moved. There are a lot of examples in business where there are specific conditions for rights to propriatry data (this is a similar situation).

And this is exactly the market that is developing in the Chicago area. Sign up, typically you get printed proofs, and a photo book included in the price (though it varies of course) 6mo-1yr after the order of the book you get the digital files released.

I don't begrude the photographers wanting to make a profit off the prints at all. However like you said if they go out of business, or move etc I want rights to my photos for archival purposes and reprints if my photos get damaged at some point.

[Geekybiker]

Ah - you would not work with someone who will not sign away his/her rights. That happens - I know of a few semi-pros who do that. However, they reserve the right to print 'your pictures' on their sites, handouts, cards, calendars - without contacting you for permission. Cuts both ways.

I don't think its about signing away rights. Work you do for hire is governed by whatever contract you sign. Professionally, every thing I create my company own regardless of the fact that I would normally be granted copyright on the works of art I produce. "pros" working for corporation sign away rights all the time. Its part of the gig. I just want a contract that will provide me the right to make reprints. The photographer retains all other rights, including the copyright and ability to sell that image elsewhere if they like.

My empahsis - you also work with a subset of photographers who have been forced out of the traditional film model. Diversity is the key.

Perhaps. But the selection of people locally who don't offer the digital files is extremely slim from what I saw. Mainly film guys.

If they charge enough for their time - the cost of a photographer just doubled. Uncle Joe with the Rebel - just became the primary candidate. Back to low-balling.

Well, they will get what they pay for in that case. Photographers vary dramatically in cost. If you don't review their portfolio before signing a contract you'll get what you deserve. (uncle joe) Some people will be happy with uncle joe I suppose. I know I'm more critical than that.

If the consumer - is not going to pay for prints, then they are going to pay through the nose for CD/DVD's. It does take time and effort to create the CD/DVD's along with music (which is copyrighted also remember).

Well you are right that you'd be paying alot for just a dvd without prints. Which is why most packages include some prints. What you're really paying for most of the time is the post processing work. I'm not thinking about video slide shows FWIW. ( I wonder how many photographers legally use the music they put on those?)

Those of us who see these CD's and see the cost are somewhat outraged, but just how much time does it really take to do all the organization, planning, image taking, post processing and CD/DVD creation. We all really know this - so take that amount of time, add in transportation, overhead and what your time is worth. It ain't cheap. You want pro work - expect to pay pro prices.

That's always a struggle in making people understand that its more than just showing up and pressing the shutter. People complain about print prices too you know. I guess maybe people can accept paying for something physical more than just data. In the end does it cost the photographer to give the customer the photos that were already post processed for an album, etc on disc after a year? What is the reprint rate after the first couple of months? Will the amount of work you gain by choosing to this offset any profit lost from prints 1yr+ past the wedding?

[PDL]

I don't think its about signing away rights. Work you do for hire is governed by whatever contract you sign. Professionally, every thing I create my company own regardless of the fact that I would normally be granted copyright on the works of art I produce. "pros" working for corporation sign away rights all the time. Its part of the gig. I just want a contract that will provide me the right to make reprints. The photographer retains all other rights, including the copyright and ability to sell that image elsewhere if they like.

Your scenario does not make much sense - the photographer is usually self employed, not some faceless corporation. If you want a contract allowing you to make prints of the photographers copyrighted (it is the photographers by default - quote from
ASMP: Copyright Application Tutorial "You already own it. In most cases, unless you specifically signed away your rights, you — the photographer — own the copyright and the right to license and re-license the image in any way you choose. This is true even if you have not registered your copyright or put your copyright notice on the image. Where registration makes a real difference is when something has gone wrong and your rights are being infringed.") then the photographer must provide a reprint license to the consumer. Doing this is just good business, I do not see any issue with providing the customer with a license to make reprints - but I do see an issue with getting proofs, copying them and stiffing the photographer.

That's always a struggle in making people understand that its more than just showing up and pressing the shutter. People complain about print prices too you know. I guess maybe people can accept paying for something physical more than just data. In the end does it cost the photographer to give the customer the photos that were already post processed for an album, etc on disc after a year? What is the reprint rate after the first couple of months? Will the amount of work you gain by choosing to this offset any profit lost from prints 1yr+ past the wedding?

I don't think you and I are really all that far apart - read the "Features" section at American Society of Media Photographers it looks as if these guys are addressing issues such as pricing, release forms, terms and conditions etc. There are other sections of this site that deal with how to deal with the "Uncle Joe's" of this world i.e. lowballing - some interesting reading.
ASMP: Business Articles
Opportunities and hazards in reprints
From Pixels to the Printed Page
Read those articles - get a feel for the photographers position.

The point is, all kinds of photography are not easy. The photographer is a business person first and a artist second. A photographer primarily supplies a product - images - not just data. Prints are one - most likely the most prominate - product that produces revenue for the photographer. If you want to take away - by default - the primary product of photographers then just get uncle Joe to do it on the cheap. Prints are still the most common way of viewing of "important" images - just how many SD cards, CD/DVD do you have hanging on the wall or sitting on the coffee table? ==== none ? -- I bet you have prints though.

Add into that - Walmart will not print your images ---- bummer.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

[stewart_photo]

I have never said I want everything to be free. (snip)

But you jumped into a conversations where that, at least in regard to the prints, was the topic being discussed. This thread started with a person mentioning how Wal-Mart will not print images without for proof of ownership. This brought in dicussions about copyright. At some point, another mentioned how photographers should only work for labor and expenses, with the copyright/prints belonging to the customer. This led to my messages, which you responded to, describing how much the average photo studio depends on those prints for profit and so on. In that, I've already discussed how fees would have to be raised to compensate (your position).

Therefore, there is little difference in our positions, only in the viability of such a business model. And, while I have reservations, there is no way for either of us to answer to the question of viability without actually trying it (something I have no desire to do, so will digress concerning this). However, there ara additional copyright considerations for the photographer. What you're describing could legally be considered a "work-for-hire" arrangement, with the photographer turning over the original digital files to the customer only adding to an argument supporting that. In that case, the photographs/copyright could indeed belong to the customer (the hiring employer), with severe restrictions placed on the photographer (the hired employee) concerning any use of the photos. I would discuss this (and the RIAA, etc) further, but we're already more than far enough off the original topic.

stewart

[OniFactor]

okay. how does this sound.

the photographer charges $2000 for a base package that includes time, and a certain collection of prints. the photos are posted to an online website where the customer, using a unique ID and password, where they can download low resolution proof files, nothing worth printing, to be able to send to friends and family via e-mail. then, if they want more prints, they can order them through said website, which will kick back some to the photographer, and the rest goes to printing and shipping costs, and the printer's themselves. is this a reasonable business model?

[PDL]

Yes - this is a viable business model. But it depends on what the $2000 covers, how many meetings with the bridal party, how far you have to drive to get to the wedding, how much time you spend on PP. Your time and effort must be worth something.

Plus you have to add in overhead (mileage, gas, computer time, printing costs etc). Then you have to add in something for just you, how much are you worth per hour, including that in front of the computer.

I had a friend who shot a wedding for $700 USD and he figured out that he was ahead of the game about $500 "profit". But, he did not include transportation, leaving is day job early to go to three meetings with the bridal party, showed up late to the wedding (they never sent him a invitation - so he did not know when the wedding started), he got to the venue and there were no electrical outlets for his big flash guns and he spent two nights hand editing the JPEG's that he burned to one (1) CD - not DVD. I sat down with him and figured out that he worked the whole deal for about $2.50 an hour - after including his overhead.

He did have his revernge though. Once he delivered the CD the people started to bicker about the price. He finally got the $700 bucks - he went home and deleted all the RAW images. Three months later he moved out of state. --- Oh = he used to make his own frames, print his own images and sell them for $20 bucks (12x18's). He claimed to make money - if you just add up the cost of materials, his profit per picture was around $2.00 - of course all the time he spent doing the work - he basically did not charge for.

Overhead is the killer - if you are in business, food, shelter, insurance, hardware has to come from somewhere. Photography is a business, if you treat it as a hobby - you will starve.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

[Geekybiker]

Yes - this is a viable business model. But it depends on what the $2000 covers, how many meetings with the bridal party, how far you have to drive to get to the wedding, how much time you spend on PP. Your time and effort must be worth something.

Plus you have to add in overhead (mileage, gas, computer time, printing costs etc). Then you have to add in something for just you, how much are you worth per hour, including that in front of the computer.

I had a friend who shot a wedding for $700 USD and he figured out that he was ahead of the game about $500 "profit". But, he did not include transportation, leaving is day job early to go to three meetings with the bridal party, showed up late to the wedding (they never sent him a invitation - so he did not know when the wedding started), he got to the venue and there were no electrical outlets for his big flash guns and he spent two nights hand editing the JPEG's that he burned to one (1) CD - not DVD. I sat down with him and figured out that he worked the whole deal for about $2.50 an hour - after including his overhead.

He did have his revernge though. Once he delivered the CD the people started to bicker about the price. He finally got the $700 bucks - he went home and deleted all the RAW images. Three months later he moved out of state. --- Oh = he used to make his own frames, print his own images and sell them for $20 bucks (12x18's). He claimed to make money - if you just add up the cost of materials, his profit per picture was around $2.00 - of course all the time he spent doing the work - he basically did not charge for.

Overhead is the killer - if you are in business, food, shelter, insurance, hardware has to come from somewhere. Photography is a business, if you treat it as a hobby - you will starve.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

Wow.. a whole lot of mistakes there. I imagine this was one of the first weddings he did? Signed contract, payment in advance etc would have saved some headaches. I don't know about getting "revenge" though. Even if they were a pita, an angry customer could cause a lot of damage to your rep via message boards, etc. I've made some mistakes in business before where I've accidentally done things for a loss. I chalked it up to a learning experience and tuition paid.

Not really specific to photography, but I know one of the things I've been caught on is not specifying a number of included revisions on work. Some people would have you rework stuff 20 times if you let them.