Printing from a photo cd - is it illegal?

wannabepennypincher

rrf494g wrote: »

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.

The hard work for photographers comes after the wedding, some photographers spend days editing out all the shots. There is also the time they spend preparing, meeting with the couple and checking the venue out if they haven't been to see where the best shots are. I'm not a photographer just a B2B on a very small budget as I only just started back at work.

Looking at different portfolio's it became clear to us that some were a lot more skilled than others, some just took the standard posed shots but some photographs were simply stunning. I do consider photgraphy an art and some of the ones we looked at charged more and to us we could tell why. And as artists they deserve to have the right to protect their work. Most people just go and pick the cheapest package possible and expect to save some cash by printing the pictures themselves not realising how hard the photographer works after the wedding has taken place to give you beautiful pictures.

Understanding that my H2B and I resigned ourselves to having family members taking pictures as we couldn't afford the photgraphy we wanted and didn't see the value in paying someone to take stiff posed shots we couldn't print. We lucked out in getting someone starting out to shot the day for free, naturally he will retain copyright as he needs it for his portfolio but we are still getting a high res CD we can print from for our own use.

spud17

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.

So if I come around and unblock your sewer, you'll be quite happy to get rid of the resulting pile of sh** and paper.

darich

rrf494g wrote: »

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.

Up to a point, I agree........but for £300???.....forget it.

It may take a photographer years to achieve qualifications.
The equipment can cost more than your car (and I don't even know what you drive)
You don't pay for the one day - it takes several more to organise, edit, arrange, photoshop, print album.
It's stressful for the photographer.....and the charge should reflect that.

I've shot one wedding with a mate. We met the bride prior to the wedding to discuss. We were also at the rehearsal.
On the day, he was at the bride's house, while I was at the church. I was working from around 1pm and left around 6pm. He was working from around 12pm and left around 8pm.
After that one day, I spent at least another 3 sorting out the photos, removing the poor ones, and arranging the good ones then photoshopping where necessary. My mate than arranged an album, got it printed with around 60images in it. He then met the bride again to hand over ther album.
Total time spent was probably around a week (in man hours).

We charged a grand total of £450...between us.....including the album.....but we retained the digital originals.
We were around £120 out of pocket before being paid because we arranged prints and album prior to taking any payment.

The photographer may only be on site for a day or even a few hours.....but there is much more work going into the package than people see.

If you can find a pro photographer for £300 then either you're lying, or he's not a pro.

Richie-from-the-Boro

In #123 I said, the photographer has originated nothing, in fact the original content s/he claims copyright on is created by the bride / groom / family & friends.

Here are some 2010 costings for the content the photographer claims as his own :

The Event

Rings engagement & wedding 1000
Stationary 500
Honeymoon & first night in hotel 3400
Insurance 100
Stag / Hen nights 350
Flowers 500
Balloons / decorations etc 300
The Service 500
Bride outfit 1000
Hair & beauty 200
Grooms outfit 200
Transport 500
Attendants outfits 500
Reception 4000
Evening drinks / disco 1000
Wedding cake 400
Gifts 200
Photography 2000

The Individuals

In addition each family will have a selection of new outfits / travel / overnight accomodation / gifts to the couple / baby sitters etc, lets say £300 for those who are childless & live local and any amount for those who have kids and need to travel to the venue miltiplied by 100 guests, that's a contribution to the event of £30,000 from the guests.

Add the £16,500 for the event and you get a total of £46,000 that the family and friends have paid to generate the content the photographer records.

The photographer charges £2000, uses your hospitality, does not even pay for food and drink, and they have [ see #25 ] the greed to make sure you get a totally useless CD / DVD of images.

Make sure you do not get stitched up by an unscrupulous photographer, this is the Money Saving Site, they contribute nothing, you originate everything and they want copyright your £46,000 investment

[ #25 Lirin ] "" when I give out CD's I ensure the images are sufficently low-res that anything more than a postcard print will be largely unusable- and they're usually marked as well ""

Richie-from-the-Boro

lucylucky wrote: »

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?

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

Richie-from-the-Boro

darich wrote: »

Up to a point, I agree........but for £300???.....forget it.

It may take a photographer years to achieve qualifications.
The equipment can cost more than your car (and I don't even know what you drive)
You don't pay for the one day - it takes several more to organise, edit, arrange, photoshop, print album.
It's stressful for the photographer.....and the charge should reflect that.

I've shot one wedding with a mate. We met the bride prior to the wedding to discuss. We were also at the rehearsal.
On the day, he was at the bride's house, while I was at the church. I was working from around 1pm and left around 6pm. He was working from around 12pm and left around 8pm.
After that one day, I spent at least another 3 sorting out the photos, removing the poor ones, and arranging the good ones then photoshopping where necessary. My mate than arranged an album, got it printed with around 60images in it. He then met the bride again to hand over ther album.
Total time spent was probably around a week (in man hours).

We charged a grand total of £450...between us.....including the album.....but we retained the digital originals.
We were around £120 out of pocket before being paid because we arranged prints and album prior to taking any payment.

The photographer may only be on site for a day or even a few hours.....but there is much more work going into the package than people see.

If you can find a pro photographer for £300 then either you're lying, or he's not a pro.

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

Richie-from-the-Boro

rrf494g wrote: »

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.

Thanks rrf494g, for your post, your input is more than much appreciated, finally someone can see that the copyright act allows people to claim ownership of something they did not make / create / pay for / contribute to / the content they claim is not theirs to claim, simple in-it ?

Richie-from-the-Boro

lucylucky wrote: »

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?

Make your own guesstimate up, its just that a guesstimate. I thought carefully about my guess and deliberately underestimated it to be fair to people. To help your thread input this calculator may help you decide

Kind Regards, lucylucky

Chris1001

At £500 I would expect some very good photographs of the stationery.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Chris1001 wrote: »

At £500 I would expect some very good photographs of the stationery.

Photographs of .. .. .. I deliberately read three different sites for 2010 estimates / guidelines and the figure was about the middle of !

Thanks Chris1001, for your post, your input is much appreciated