Printing from a photo cd - is it illegal?

ahillsy

Interesting read this post - I think there are valid points across the board.

When I hired a wedding photographer, I shopped around to find someone who would let me do what I want with the photos. I can understand and appreciate why they want to retain the copyright and protect their work etc, it is their right to do so if they wish. When I was planning my wedding, I got sick of the extortionate prices all types of suppliers were charging - as soon as the word "wedding" is mentioned, it always seems to add on an extra 0 - or that's what it feels like as the expense mounts up!! So when I came to look for a wedding photographer, any that gave low-res copies or imposed inflexible uses, disappeared off the list - it's stressful enough planning a wedding without having to negotiate what you can/can't do with digital copies IMHO - patience can be quite short on supply!

I think it would be much better for wedding photographers to, as standard if digital copies are being supplied, include rights to print/share the photos (non-commercially). To me as Mr Joe Public, that's the natural and obvious thing I'd want for my wedding photos. If a photographer doesn't offer that as standard already, and want extra money for that, then add it to the price. i.e. give a higher quote as standard to include those rights, as opposed to giving a lower quote without those rights. As a client, that is by far the best thing you could do and I'd imagine the vast majority (if not all) of people wanting digital copies are wanting to get some prints themselves/share with people. If the client doesn't want to print etc, you can always then offer the reduced price without those rights. But > 9/10, people will want those rights so just include as standard - make it easy for people, at a time when they're stressed enough as it is!

As I mentioned above, I found an awesome photographer for a highly competitive price - who included the rights to print/share the hi-res photos as standard. I was offered an album.....or the full hi-res images on DVD for the price and I went for the DVD for flexibility. I also know all my friends who have married recently did the same.

Richie-from-the-Boro

ahillsy wrote: »

Interesting read this post - I think there are valid points across the board.

When I hired a wedding photographer, I shopped around to find someone who would let me do what I want with the photos. I can understand and appreciate why they want to retain the copyright and protect their work etc, it is their right to do so if they wish. When I was planning my wedding, I got sick of the extortionate prices all types of suppliers were charging - as soon as the word "wedding" is mentioned, it always seems to add on an extra 0 - or that's what it feels like as the expense mounts up!! So when I came to look for a wedding photographer, any that gave low-res copies or imposed inflexible uses, disappeared off the list - it's stressful enough planning a wedding without having to negotiate what you can/can't do with digital copies IMHO - patience can be quite short on supply!

I think it would be much better for wedding photographers to, as standard if digital copies are being supplied, include rights to print/share the photos (non-commercially). To me as Mr Joe Public, that's the natural and obvious thing I'd want for my wedding photos. If a photographer doesn't offer that as standard already, and want extra money for that, then add it to the price. i.e. give a higher quote as standard to include those rights, as opposed to giving a lower quote without those rights. As a client, that is by far the best thing you could do and I'd imagine the vast majority (if not all) of people wanting digital copies are wanting to get some prints themselves/share with people. If the client doesn't want to print etc, you can always then offer the reduced price without those rights. But > 9/10, people will want those rights so just include as standard - make it easy for people, at a time when they're stressed enough as it is!

As I mentioned above, I found an awesome photographer for a highly competitive price - who included the rights to print/share the hi-res photos as standard. I was offered an album.....or the full hi-res images on DVD for the price and I went for the DVD for flexibility. I also know all my friends who have married recently did the same.

Thanks ahillsy, for your post, your input is much appreciated

Richie-from-the-Boro

Aiadi wrote: »

You are much more restrained (and civilised) than myself sir....... Thanks for persevering in your effort to expose this practice but I think that you should now let go and leave the dogs barking.

Thanks Aiadi, you give good advice my friend. I will when they do ! :beer:

Meanwhile at 2597 read / clicks on this link, only registered users are counted as a click. Apart from the links to other websites & refferrers anyone in the whole big round world can read the groups without logging in, but they can't click of course. So lets be conservative and just as add couple of noughts that's a guesstimate of almost 300,000 in just a couple of days, who are now aware of the practices of wedding photographers, a quarter of a million better informed brides to be. Thanks for the post Aiadi !

lucylucky

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

Thanks Aiadi, you give good advice my friend. I will when they do ! :beer:

Meanwhile at 2597 read / clicks on this link, only registered users are counted as a click. Apart from the links to other websites & refferrers anyone in the whole big round world can read the groups without logging in, but they can't click of course. So lets be conservative and just as add couple of noughts that's a guesstimate of almost 300,000 in just a couple of days, who are now aware of the practices of wedding photographers, a quarter of a million better informed brides to be. Thanks for the post Aiadi !

I hope you don't think that it is just brides to be that read this thread.

Or do you mean that of the 300,00 (your made up number plucked out of the air) 50,000 are not brides to be?

lucylucky

Aiadi wrote: »

Well, you are the one who is a stupid and miserable git. Moreover you do sound like a thief yourself. The whole point you idiot is that we are talking about people who are PAYING for the service you moron.

Nice name calling there!

If people pay for the service including having the copyright assigned to them then fine.
If they do not wish to pay for that then there can be no complaints.

darich

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

PasturesNew,

It's not "" creating a masterpiece in oils "" its a moment in time captured by a mechanical device, The photographer has originated nothing, in fact the original content is created by the bride / groom / family & friends.

The photographer provides equipment and a very mediocre level of skill
The family provide the content
The software and bog standard wholesalers provide the wherewithal
And the photographer claims copyright on the content generated by the family

Don't you get the irony of your own industry ?

did you read this before you posted????
"The photographer has originated nothing"???
So if he's not there, is the photograph still taken? Presumably it is, at least in your world because the photographer has produced nothing.

"software and bog standard wholesalers provide the wherewithal" - what a load of garbage!!:rotfl:
That's like saying Jamie Oliver/Gordon Ramsay etc didn't produce that fine meal - it was the pots that provided the wherewithal.
Or that Elvis Presley couldn't sing - it was the microphone that had the wherewithal.

"photographer claims copyright on the content generated by the family" - more drivel.
The photographer doesn't "claim" anything - it is automatically assigned to him in law. Please define "content generated". I'm sure that since the photographer takes the shot, he's the one generating the content. Try reading this link for some info
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright

Every one is entitled to their opinion - It seems that many prefer to get a professional in to record their big day rather than leave it to a bunch of drunken guests using disposable cameras on tables.

Chris1001

Just for the record - and because there are some people on this thread who are getting rather animated - I would like to say I completely support the photographers who have made an entirely reasonable and well argued case. To those who feel photography is a piece of cake and simply a matter of pointing and shooting, the simple answer is, well, do it yourself. It's not compulsory to employ a professional photographer you know. Talking of cakes, they're pretty pricey too. Weddings eh.... what a rip off!

rrf494g

Weddings are a Rip-Off!

If you let those in the "wedding industry" take control. Weddings must seem to be one of the few areas remaining, where ordinary people are not expected to look for value for money. My experience (three daughters) is that when the word "wedding" is mentioned, venues , events, car hires, photographers all bring out a different rate card and imply that anyone who questions value for money is mean and penny pinching. The trick is to book services for a "family party" then the prices are one quarter of the same service for a "wedding".

Chris1001

Well, they're not cheap, so I agree with you up to a point, though in our household, it's not only weddings where value for money goes out the window. I can think of lots of instances where demands for style takes precedence over substance - holidays and eating out to name but two. But accepting that weddings don't come cheap, and given that you're not going to give your daughter £3,000 to get married in Las Vegas, don't you think the photographer is one of the better value for money elements of a wedding.

rrf494g

I think a photographer is good value if

1. The charge for their time and use of equipment is £300 for a full day (skilled rate, for time and a half on Saturday)
2. All rights to all photographs pass to the customer, and all photos given (full res) on CD/DVD.
3. There is a choice of photographs/albums (optional) at whatever price the photgrapher wants to try to get.
4. The photographs themslves are well taken in a style agreed before hand.

These are similar to the conditions that all other (well paid) skilled craftsmen provide in my area of Yorkshire. Because of the history of photgraphy, the law still places the taking of photographs alongside writing music or poetry. Many photographers try to take advantage of that unususal legal position. If I pay for a skilled man or woman to come to an event I have organised and work for a day. I can reasonably expect that all the fruits of that days labour belong to me. It can dissappoint many people to find out that despite having paid for the day, all that has happened is that the photographer now owns more photos! When photographers are paid employees (eg medical photographers) they can not claim this special legal provision, because the contract of employment makes it clear. But self employed individuals (sometimes) hide behind the legalities to disadvantage the customer.

If the terms and conditions are fulled explained and understood before a photographer is engaged, then everyone can make up their own mind as to what value for money is.