I'm not suggesting that the RAW's are magical, priceless files that should never be given or used, etc. But, let me ask this ... if UP FRONT ... someone tells you that they want all of your raw images AND finished files do you quote them the same as if the only want raw images and they are going to do the finishing ... OR ... if they only specify 'ready for brochure/web'.
IMO, this isn't about the raw files, per se (yes you'll still have them to) ... this is about coming to me AFTER we've agreed to something that I've fully delivered ... AND THEN ... DEMANDING I give you more than we agreed to. If there was NO ADDITIONAL value in the RAW files, then there wouldn't be any pricing differential in the above scenarios. Because there is value differential in raw files vs. finished (even if future edited), it is priced accordingly.
I get the whole negative/chrome/raw thing and how that can be what is required as part of the deliverable ... BUT, when that was understood UP FRONT, it was quoted ACCORDINGLY and yes, you did enjoy the check because you got what you had agreed to.
This is no different than me buying a car and striking a deal and the dealer delivers the car in accordance with our agreement ... THEN, me coming back and saying I demand all the shop manuals and service updates as part of what I'll need to perform upkeep/repair/modifications to the car in the future. Those manuals have ADDITIONAL value that keep me from needing to bring my car back to the dealer (et al) so that I can perform self-service.
There is zero problem with the dealer selling me those manuals (or the OP selling the raw's) as either part of the original deal ... or as an adjunct after the fact, as the manuals (and raw's) are AVAILABLE for purchase (unless the OP says otherwise). But for me to negotiate a deal that does not include them ... and to then come back after the deal is struck and DEMAND that they should have been included is ludicrous, and then to require I provide written proof that regarding them is just plain disrespctful.
The OP can certainly just give them the raw and get them out of his hair or to appease them ... that's a judgment call (give them the pickle) that he'll have to make as to how he wants to deal with them. I just see this as some BS arm-twisting. Sometimes it is better to lose the battle in order to win the war ... this could very well be one of them, but I still see it as very wrong.
How do you think the client would respond if the OP tried to flip some aspect of the agreement after the fact ... he'd be outraged and cry foul, citing contractual obligation as previously agreed to ... why should it be a one-way street.
What a bunch of horse hockey Rusty...OF COURSE ITS ABOUT THE RAW FILES...re-read the the thread and YOUR OWN COMMENTS...sheesh.
Again in over 30 years of providing images that are used in advertising, I just don't get the real problem here.
Would I price a job differently if I supplied processed and raw files or just raws? No. I'm going to price in my processing time either way,
Same with usage. I don't see any clients these days that don't want anything BUT unlimited usage so it all gets priced that way. Quite frankly I'm not interested in chasing clients around looking for different usages.
Oh, I've played that game before with assignment photography and it's simply more trouble than its worth.
I'm not suggesting this is a one size fits all solution. My situation and clients can be far different than someone else.
The bottom line, if it floats your boat, fine with me. There are however other alternatives that might just make more sense.
This is about demanding a change to an agreement AFTER the fact .. raw's or otherwise.
If the agreement was so vague & nebulous that no one can differentiate between whether or not raw's were part of the deliverable ... then lesson learned to all about unspecified agreements ... hardly "horse-hockey"... imo.
Whether or not the OP is REQUIRED to provide the raw's is rooted in the agreement and/or the "work for hire" & "work product" aspects. Whether or not he SHOULD or if he CAN ... that's a subjectvie/different matter.
Whether or not the OP is being "arm-twisted" or he made an "oooops" in his dealing with the client up front (i.e. unclear deliverable expectations between the parties involved) ... only he'll be able to make that call.
RustyBug wrote:
This is about demanding a change to an agreement AFTER the fact .. raw's or otherwise.
If the agreement was so vague & nebulous that no one can differentiate between whether or not raw's were part of the deliverable ... then lesson learned to all about unspecified agreements ... hardly "horse-hockey"... imo.
Whether or not the OP is being "arm-twisted" or he made an "oooops" in his dealing with the client up front (i.e. unclear deliverable expectations between the parties involved) ... only he'll be able to make that call.
It's still a bit of the a moot point. He got PAID for his processed files. What does he lose passing along copies of the raws.
So yea, it IS all horse hockey and perhaps a wee bit of egomania..
DEMANDING a change AFTER the fact ... I'd agree there's definitely some egomania invovled, coming from the other side on this one ... and it's not coming from the president of the company or the OP, as they're both good with the delivered product.
GL to the OP ... as we dissent on what the real issue is on this one.
BTW ... your points are well noted, we are just seeing this from a different perspective. You see it as no value loss by giving the raw's AFTER THE FACT ... I see it as the OP would have quoted differently had he known UP FRONT that the raw's were to be included ... therein lies the value loss that should be compensated for. To my way of thinking, this represents an "undisclosed" and warrants an "order modification". If the OP wants to either NOT SELL the raw's or sell them for an agreed upon amount (even if that is $0) ... so be it either way ... but it still is a renegotiation for the order modification. He isn't 'compelled' to provide the raw's, except by the terms of the original contract/agreement (which appears to not specify) or "work for hire" / "work product" rules.
infocusinc wrote:
Just curious Rusty, can we see what it is YOU sell?
I buy, sell & barter deliverables from, to & with industrial/commercial/government clients as specified by the contract language.
Depending on the language of the contract and/or the "work for hire" aspects involved:
Sometimes I must provide "all"
Sometimes I may provide only "finished"
Sometimes I rmust receive "all"
Sometimes I may receive only "finished"
Sometimes I give "all" even if only required to provide "finished"
Sometimes I receive "all" even if only required to receive "finished"
But ... whenever there is a change AFTER the contract has been agreed to ... neither party has a right to DEMAND anything.
The point here is that a contract is a contract ...
RustyBug wrote:
I buy, sell & barter deliverables from, to & with industrial/commercial/government clients as specified by the contract language.
Depending on the language of the contract and/or the "work for hire" aspects involved:
Sometimes I must provide "all"
Sometimes I provide only "finished"
Sometimes I receive "all"
Sometimes I receive only "finished"
Sometimes I give "all" even if only required to provide "finished"
The point here is that a contract is a contract ...
Are the deliverables of which you speak photographs?
Yes ... as a spin-off of my main products ... typically as a separate agreement.
Whether it is a photograph, a car, or plumbing services has little bearing on the propriety of DEMANDING a change to an agreement AFTER providing the deliverables that were in accordance with the original agreement.
Quite frankly ... I don't have the proper authorization to do so ... per the contracts.
I appreciate the fact that you disagree with my positions & perspectives ... and realize that nothing I do or say will satisfy your challenge.
I've been on both sides of the table regarding this kind of contractual/agreement dispute over the years. I've fought my battles and incurred the scars along the way. I've kicked some butt and I've licked my wounds along the way. People can either realize from what I've written something that they find of merit or a nugget that they can carry forward with them, or they can think it's all "horse-hockey" as you suggest. I would suggest that anyone who doesn't consider this a contractual issue ... simply disregard all my "horse-hockey".
I figured that would be your response ... "non-disclosure" agreements can be quite common in industrial/technical environments. Not all proprietary processes that are documented for technical/internal usage are appropriate for public viewing (i.e. do you show your competitors your "tricks of the trade"). Personally, I prefer to honor my contracts and keep my butt out of trouble ... but "Hey" I'm a dinosaur, anyway.
Except for my most recent client, I don't have the files either. The one client that I do still have the files on is in international litigation regarding the "non-photographic" deliverables (not my portion, thankfully) and I'm in no position to divulge any of the documentation, photographic or otherwise ... particularly as the photography IS evidence related to the deliverables dispute.
I have no qualms about turning over RAW if the client can use them -- has a qualified web designer, graphic designer, ad agency, printer, etc. RAW are needed for PP, and I don't consider myself a qualified PP house -- I leave that to other pros. I take pictures and do enough PP to make them "pretty". But I stop short of layers and combining multiple images for clients. I bill for the PP I do provide, but believe there are more qualified graphics people. And frankly, as with food photography and other studio work, I just don't have the desire or temperment to fiddle at that level.
Turning over any images to clients, especially RAW, is a matter of trust, which is bolstered by high pay. If I can be paid well, I have no problem leaving the images and walking away to the next gig. But normally I still retain copyright and the client has unlimted rights for their own use, but no re-selling or using in "sister" businesses.
I'm not big time and try to stay away from much contract work where you really need to be protected. In over 30 years, I've never been burnt, so the handshake and referral principles have worked pretty well. But again, I don't have that much on the line, and I keep it that way.
I respect anyone that does need to sign contracts, and it is individual choice whether to hand over images, or post on-line.
The only industrial / contractual photography that I've done since returning to photography in recent years has been in conjunction with my non-disclosure work, that's correct. I'm still subject to subpoena regarding my last client/project ... and while I'm NOT under a court ordered "gag order", defense counsel and I are "crystal clear" regarding the liabilities involved.
I've done weddings, portraits, swimwear, etc. ... but that was some time ago and it was film based. And yes, I have turned over original chromes & negatives to others as part of PREPARING for print when they are needed as part of a work in progress ... but I certainly wouldn't do so AFTER the project had already been printed as a completed work. BIG DIFFERENCE, imo ... unless of course you want to BUY them rather than just BORROW them.
I appreciate your efforts here, but I've been nothing but honest in this thread and all my threads. Your free to continue this line of posting, but as FM'ers, I'd suggest that we simply "agree to disagree" rather than put forth so much effort in trying to impune fellow members. I've only tried to share with fellow FM'ers some points & perspectives about how I feel @ the business of DEMANDING alterations to a contract that had been properly delivered iaw the original contract ... that I believe may be of value to others at some time. For some, it'll strike a chord that may help them ... for others, not so much. Readers have to make their own evaluations of what is written ... such is life in the land of cyber-forum.
I believe your challenge of my credibiilty has been served as well as it's going to be. You obviously think I'm all "horse-hockey" ... no need to beat that horse anymore.
Jim's (Gunzorro) point @ turning them over to graphics professionals is probably the fulcrum of this discussion. The OP is being DEMANDED (after delivery) to turn them over to an industrial client that doesn't even know what a RAW file really is ... which is vastly different (imo) from being requested to share them with an AD/team for further workup.
