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\' ... and then come back and say, \"Oh btw, we are going to use it for a national billboard campaign.\"
IMO, this isn\'t about the raw files (per se) ... 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.
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 as either part of the original deal ... or as an adjunct after the fact, as the manuals are AVAILABLE for purchase (so are the raw\'s). 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.
Dec 10, 2011 at 10:47 AM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #10155075 « raw files »
