rachp wrote:
Well, I don't have near the talent of you or your wife so if I get half the results from this lens then I will be happy Just waiting on cameta now.....

You are too modest and too kind, Rach.

I have no doubt that you'll love this lens

cogitech wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
^You are selling your intellectual property outright, not just selling the rights to use your images for a specific purpose, time, etc. - as is custom- but rather giving them a complete rights buyout.

Yes. I am. Our contract states that we reserve the right to use the images for promotional purposes. Otherwise, I couldn't care less what a B&G does with their wedding photos, or what a shop owner does with their photos of shoes or coffee beans, or whatever...

When I hire someone to install a door in my house, I don't expect to pay every time I use the door. When someone hires me to shoot photos for them, they don't expect to pay me every time they use them.

Many people don't even want prints these days, or prefer to get them done themselves. Who am I to refuse that option? The photos are theirs, not mine. I don't even want them. One couple this summer couldn't quite afford 8 hours of coverage for their wedding, but the guy said he was interested in doing all the post-processing work himself. So we sold them an 8 hour "RAW only" package for the price of 6 hours. They were a great couple and we really wanted to work with them, so we figured out a way to make it work. I couldn't care less what he does with the RAW files. In the end, I ended up giving them over 600 fully processed JPEGs and a web-gallery along with the RAWs. That's just the kind of guy I am.

Paul, lets say, the bride or groom just so happend to work for an ad agency and thought to themselves "Hey, that was one incredible shot the photographer made of us during our wedding. I have a huge client looking for just such a shot for this national advertising campaign I'm working on. Gee, I think I could sell him this image for $15000!" The value of that image changes for that use. Would you not feel just a little unrewarded if you learned of such a thing happening - Someone else making money off of your talent and abilities - while you yourself go unrewarded? I completely understand and appreciate your altruistic motives but this stuff actually happens!

Simply stunning.

Tariq Gibran wrote:

Paul, lets say, the bride or groom just so happend to work for an ad agency and thought to themselves "Hey, that was one incredible shot the photographer made of us during our wedding. I have a huge client looking for just such a shot for this national advertising campaign I'm working on. Gee, I think I could sell him this image for $15000!" The value of that image changes for that use. Would you not feel just a little unrewarded if you learned of such a thing happening - Someone else making money off of your talent and abilities - while you yourself go unrewarded? I completely understand and appreciate your altruistic motives but this stuff actually happens!


The possibility of this ever happening with any of my images is very remote (c'mon, let's be realistic). If it did happen, I would be disappointed, of course. I would chock it up to me being completely in-adept when it comes to matters of business and money. Story of my frackin life; but I'm proud to say it doesn't come naturally to me.

Much worse things could happen to me or my family.

cogitech wrote:

When I hire someone to install a door in my house, I don't expect to pay every time I use the door. When someone hires me to shoot photos for them, they don't expect to pay me every time they use them.


So, you are equating the labour of installing a door (because you are paying for their labour in this case) with the creation of art/intellectual property? Hmm.

The second part, YES, they do or, if they don't, are educated to, in the U.S. and likely in most Western countries. So, for instance, your wedding couple would actually be buying the rights to use the pictures you make of them for their own, non-commercial use under the rights model. They would not have to get permission to use the photos for this personal purpose each time they used it. That, of course, would be ridiculous.

cogitech wrote:
[
Much worse things could happen to me or my family.

No doubt but don't sell yourself short!

Tariq Gibran wrote:
cogitech wrote:

When I hire someone to install a door in my house, I don't expect to pay every time I use the door. When someone hires me to shoot photos for them, they don't expect to pay me every time they use them.


So, you are equating the labour of installing a door (because you are paying for their labour in this case) with the creation of art/intellectual property? Hmm.

The second part, YES, they do or, if they don't, are educated to, in the U.S. and likely in most Western countries. So, for instance, your wedding couple would actually be buying the rights to use the pictures you make of them for their own, non-commercial use under the rights model. They would not have to get permission to use the photos for this personal purpose each time they used it. That, of course, would be ridiculous.




I have no doubt that you are right, Tariq. I just have a hard time giving a shit about any of it. It's just not me.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
cogitech wrote:
[
Much worse things could happen to me or my family.

No doubt but don't sell yourself short!

I don't "sell" myself at all. I seem to be incapable of it. We've never approached a photography job with the intent to convince people to hire us. A meeting with a B&G is as much for us to decide if we want to work with them or not. Maybe more so.

Reading that any work done for customers in Canada is automatically considered "work for hire" with the customer having the rights to the images is just stunning to me. I could not work that way.

I am constantly educating my clients on copy rights issues. In the US the photographer owns the rights as the "creator" of the images unless he/she gives away those rights in writing. If you produce images as part of your job then you have no rights, your employer does. A salaried staff newspaper photographer does not have any rights to the images he shoots, the newspaper does. An independent or freelancer owns the rights to production work, wedding work, model work, architecture work etc, etc.

If an architect hires a freelance architecture photographer to shoot his latest building project then there usually is a contract spelling out the details and the grant of rights. This allows the architect to use the the images for the specific purposes the architect needs - and no more. The architect is not allowed to recoup his photography expenses by reselling the images to the building contractor, interior designer, and building owner etc. If the architect wants the power to do all of this then the photographer will give him the extra rights but charge extra accordingly, sometimes 600% of the original creation fee.

If I shoot a wedding I ask my clients to sign a contract. This includes details that the bride can print and share the images with her family etc for their personal enjoyment. I will NOT allow her to sell the images to the florist, caterer, limo company, banquet hall, dress maker, magazines etc. In other words share and enjoy the images but don't try and sell them. I own the copyright to the images in this case.

Very few commercial photographers will release all rights to their work. Its important to understand the issues involved. There have been many, many nasty lawsuits in this arena, but even the US Supreme Court has been consistent in saying that the creator of works owns the copyright unless a contract says otherwise.

The fact that countless shooters who work on the fringes of active commercial photography do not care about these issues is a constant thorn in the side of those who make their living solely from photography. It makes it harder for us to earn a living. The digital age muddies the water even more. I won't go into the topic of what all the countless hacks who advertise on Craigslist have done to the industry.

The bottom line: wether you make $50 or $5000 for taking a photograph it is in YOUR interest to care about your rights as the creator of the image. Doing so will make you more professional and indicate to your client that you value your work and take things seriously.

This is a two sided coin: contracts always include language that protects the client. The client needs to know that the photographer will not quietly sell the images produced for them to their competitors etc. It happens. When dumb photographers do this its called "double dipping." Presenting a contract to a new client can be an awkward moment but good communicators will educate the client on the issues involved: the contract protects both parties and is critical to avoiding conflict down the road.

End of lecture...

Again, I have no doubt that you are completely right, Maximum. I have seen these discussions time and time again, and I know I am on the wrong side.

We should all be doing this "the right way".

But guess what? I don't know how, and I can't afford to hire a lawyer just to figure all that out for me. Even if I did, I wouldn't understand any of it. Kudos to anyone who is willing to put in the effort to understand all the legalese. If it was my sole means of supporting my family and I was making a boat-load of cash from it, I'd pay someone to deal with it all. That's not the case, and it never will be.

I will simply never be the one to sit and educate my clients about copyright. Never going to happen.

The bottom line is, some people are just not cut out to be business people. Some of those people are good photographers. If they end up running their "photography business" poorly, why would anyone be surprised? Moreover, why would anyone be threatened?

cogitech wrote:
Moreover, why would anyone be threatened?



I thin PhotoMaximum addressed that point.

How does my lack of business skills make it harder for someone else to earn a living? Unless, of course, the two of you wish to lump me in with the countless hacks on Craig's List, selling $500 weddings and undercutting the pros. In which case, how could anyone imagine my images being sold out from under me for $15,000?

In other words, if I'm a Craig's List hack, why do I need to protect my images? They're shit, right?

If I'm not a Craig's List hack, and I simply offer very selective, quality service at an affordable price, and I don't get all wound up about rights, who's losing?

With all respect... what happened to discussing the lens?

I dunno, things have spun out of control after Jim B. asked me about my business model (or lack thereof).

I probably should have just kept it to myself.

great lense, I received my and took some test shots. I will post more when I have time to actually go out and shoot.
I sold the Zeiss 85mm f1.4 ZF to get this lense

Paul,

You strike me as a very smart fellow. I know forms, taxes, contracts and all that stuff is not fun. It can certainly suck some of the joy out of photography. But if if you make ANY income from shooting pictures then its worth looking into and protecting yourself. I find that my photography brothers and sisters will learn this the hard way: they avoid these issues while still earning some money from photography. Then comes that day when some client does the nasty: take advantage of them. This wake up call can come in many flavors: invoice hassles, theft, reselling images, unwanted image manipulation, etc, etc. It happens all the time.

But in many circumstances images rights issues can create great awkwardness and grief. Sometimes the client feels the pain and sometimes the photographer gets stabbed.

I used to work with a guy in Connecticut. We used to shoot professional polo together. Dan had an arrangement where he would shoot all the matches during the season. The written agreement was that all the images were to be made available to promote the polo club: press release photos, event programs, and handouts to the players etc. Later that summer Dan was thumbing through one of the big popular national magazines when he spotted a full page advertisement for Rolex Watches. The display photo in the ad was one of his polo action photos. Dan literally freaked as he knew that a company like Rolex would normally pay very high fees to use an image in a nationally distributed magazine campaign. I thought his head was going to explode! Turns out one of the polo club staff had taken some of Dan's pictures into New York City and sold some of of them to an ad agency. The agency had then sold the image to Rolex. Dan was furious as he knew nothing and did not make a dime from the display ad. He had the rights as the image creator on his side and the contract with the club stated what the pictures could be used for. The main point was that it stated that the images could not be sold to outside parties. It got ugly and Dan got an attorney. In the end the club paid him a bunch of money to make the mess go away.

The local ASMP president once lectured me: "charge as much as you can while charging as little as you can." Huh? I did not get it. He explained: you charge a fee that directly matches the client's needs. But put it in writing. If the client needs more scope and freedom with your pictures then you charge more. Its a sliding scale. You educate the client on this. If they are on a tight budget then you do the work that matches their direct needs. If you have a contract they will come back to you if the needs changes down the road. You can then negotiate extra money. I have done this. It works.

I once did some brochure work for a hospital. One of the shoots involved shooting back surgery. It became the cover of the annual report. The surgeon was a hot shot doctor. The hospital later came back to me asking what it would take to let them use the image for other marketing purposes. I negotiated a nice extra fee for work already completed. But the contract clearly stated that this assignment was for the annual report. Later on the doctor pressed the hospital marketing department to give him the hi res files for his own purposes. This doctor was considered a "rock star" in his field and was used to getting his way. The marketing department came to me and asked if it was OK to give this guy the files. I said no way! Who knew what this guy would do with the pictures? I then asked my contact what would happen if this doctor left this hospital to work somewhere else? He would then have the pictures and perhaps his new employer would use the photos produced for his former hospital? They had never considered that. They then told him no, the photographer and the hospital marketing department will not allow it. As it turned out the doctor left six months later...

The basic contract forms are pretty straight forward though. I would seek out your local chapter of media/commercial photography organization and ask them for a form. Professional organizations like the ASMP will gladly give you assistance here even if you are only dabbling with commercial work. They are interested in maintaining standards in this arena. You don't need a lawyer. Most of the battles for standards have already been waged. Things sound different in Canada but each country will have its own system.

Its worth looking into. You are a fine photographer. You may be contacted by a client with a great photo opportunity offering real money. Its nice to know a few details and be ready to negotiate while protecting your interests...

Paul, I am not accusing you of being a cheap Craigslsit hack.

All I am saying is look after yourself and don't trust everyone. Value and protect your images.

Things in this arena may never come up. But one day a cute little bride might sell one of your wedding photos to a banquet hall for real money - without telling you. You will see that image displayed everywhere, and it will create a pain in your gut, knowing what that image is worth to the business that is using it.

Thanks for the advice, PhotoMaximum. I appreciate you taking the time to tell me about some of your experiences in this area. I'm smart enough to know that you are correct on these matters. I just know myself well enough to admit that I won't likely take the necessary steps. I'm generally pretty lazy and distracted by things that I feel are much more important. Nobody's perfect.

Any Canucks reading this who know of a Canadian organization which might be able to make this an easy, affordable process for me, please let me know. Maybe now is the time for me to stop ignoring this important issue.

cogitech wrote:
How does my lack of business skills make it harder for someone else to earn a living? Unless, of course, the two of you wish to lump me in with the countless hacks on Craig's List, selling $500 weddings and undercutting the pros. In which case, how could anyone imagine my images being sold out from under me for $15,000?

In other words, if I'm a Craig's List hack, why do I need to protect my images? They're shit, right?

If I'm not a Craig's List hack, and I simply offer very selective, quality service at an affordable price, and I don't get all wound up about rights, who's losing?



Last I will say on this since it is OT to the thread, sorry guys.


Everyone who attempts to make their living solely on their photography possibly looses!
Simply put, by charging an amount for something that does not reflect either its true cost nor actual value, you are contributing to a false economy and undermining the market. That makes it tough or impossible for someone who solely makes their living from the profession to compete against you. It creates a situation of unfair competition. Some other subsidy, say from your full time job, is actually making this possible for you to do. Perhaps you don't end up paying for the business overhead (licenses, taxes, studio, business equipment, specialized education, etc.) that someone who makes their living as a photographer would bear. So, what you provide does not reflect the actual cost that is involved and that the professional photographer (someone who makes their living solely/mostly off of their photography) would pay. By also not charging an amount that reflects the value of the work to the client, you are also undermining what professionals can charge for possibly the same quality of work(depending upon how good you are).

I know this is OT, but this is Paul's thread and the topic had already veered off course anyway. But this really is an important issue to grasp.

I make my living doing this stuff and its brutal. Working pros are not going to stop folks from earning some side money. It adds competition for sure but its reality.

The better course is to pass on the message: if you are going to do it then do it correctly. Know your rights, know the laws of your land, and act professionally at all times.

Doing so does help maintain standards for EVERYONE.

What does this mean? Well, being more aware might help you buy that cool $1000 lens you long for. Knowing your rights and the value of your work might also keep you from selling your favorite $1000 lens when the roof starts to leak.

Looking at this forum there are many excellent photographers here who could earn a portion of their income shooting pictures. It might be a financial necessity for some or it might just create the means of buying photo gear for others.

Shooting for money and enjoying photography can be a very tricky thing to balance at the same time. Business aspects can be a intrusion and suck the joy out of it. Or it can be very satisfying, knowing that others are actually willing to PAY YOU to do what you love doing. Its different for everyone.

The reason I love this particular forum is that it keeps me interested in unexplored avenues of photography. I love photography but after doing it full time for twenty years you need to invent ways of keeping the "spark alive."