Printing from a photo cd - is it illegal?

patman99

So Ritchie thinks us photographers should not have the right to tell our customers what we can and cannot do with the images we take on their behalf. He obviously does not want us to earn a living.

The reason photographers like to control the printing of images is that in the ever evolving world of photography kit needs to be replaced, the extra cash earned from re-prints of wedding / christening / funeral etc photographs pays for new cameras, lighting and other items.

Richie-from-the-Boro

patman99 wrote: »

So Ritchie thinks us photographers should not have the right to tell our customers what we can and cannot do with the images we take on their behalf. He obviously does not want us to earn a living.

The reason photographers like to control the printing of images is that in the ever evolving world of photography kit needs to be replaced, the extra cash earned from re-prints of wedding / christening / funeral etc photographs pays for new cameras, lighting and other items.

I most certainly do have the right to tell anyone I contract to provide a service what you can and can not do with my images :

- not yours
- mine
- I'm paying you money to take them for me
- I own them not you

You have got it the wrong way round my friend, if you want to reproduce them in any way whatsoever you should be paying me. I generated the content no you. You are just my paid for labour, in the same way as hire any service.

- I hire a plumber to put in a new shower unit - does he have the right to charge for each use ?
- I hire a mechanic to service my car - does he have the right to charge for each use ?
- I hire a plumber to put in a new shower unit - does he have the right to charge for each use ?

Your practices are legal & lawful but that does not make them ethical.

BTW. I hope your October Cataracts op goes well for you

Lirin

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

I most certainly do have the right to tell anyone I contract to provide a service what you can and can not do with my images :

- not yours Untrue
- mine Untrue
- I'm paying you money to take them for me True
- I own them not you Untrue

You have got it the wrong way round my friend, if you want to reproduce them in any way whatsoever you should be paying me. I generated the content no you. You are just my paid for labour, in the same way as hire any service.



- I hire a plumber to put in a new shower unit - does he have the right to charge for each use ? Not an accurate comparison
- I hire a mechanic to service my car - does he have the right to charge for each use ? Also not accurate
- I hire a plumber to put in a new shower unit - does he have the right to charge for each use ? Umm... Again, not accurate!

Your practices are legal & lawful but that does not make them ethical. True, so where's your argument? Perfectly ethical, if you contract a decent photographer and understand what is included in your contract.

BTW. I hope your October Cataracts op goes well for you

As I've said to you before, your argument does not correspond to the leagl practises given to photographers. If you have/had a problem with a photographer, then your argument is with them, not every photographer. If you really feel hard done by, contact a local solicitor or Trading Standards, but if you're going to post, at least try and correspond to the legalities governing photography!

rrf494g

The point is about ethics not legalities.
The point is that that some/many/nearly all photograhers use the legalities to behave un-ethically.

Yes - the law lets them behave this way. No - I and many other potential customers, do not agree with the practice.

Other professional services do not behave this way - perhaps because they do not have the legalities to hide behind.

My personal view is that many photographers do mis-lead customers and deliberately allow the customers ignorance of the law to place them at a dissadvantage.
regards

fitshase

I think people need to take a step back and look at this again. Imagine if a photographer turned up to shoot your wedding with a film camera, would you then demand the negatives from them?

The photos in the album would be as good as digital but you wouldn't find it easy to make reprints. Ask the photographer for reprints and they will charge since it is their business and their livelihood. Would you then demand the negatives? I think not.

When you hire a photographer, you are paying for their skill, their labour and their equipment to produce a set of photographs (and if you think photography is not artistic, you don't know what you are talking about!).

If you ask and pay for an album, you get an album. If you ask and pay for a CD with the photos on, you get a CD with the photos on. You need to make the distinction between the image and the physical media. Just because you have a CD with photos on it does not give you the right to do what you please with them. A CD with images on it of low res are still good enough for using on the computer as desktop wallpaper, Facebook, digital picture frames (one of the main reasons photographers offer a CD is for the growing trend of people having a digital picture frame), etc.

If I came across you (from the Boro) demanding the full resolution images, I would simply give you the digital negatives (which is the raw data file from the camera in the highest resolution possible with no compression. You would then have to purchase the software to open them, adjust/process the image (tweak exposure, correct levels, remove blemishes, convert to black and white, sepia, etc), sharpen the images and convert them to JPEG.

spud17

Surely it's down to the contract, read it, if you don't like it, then get another photographer.

On a slight aside.

A work colleague has a successful side line filming weddings in full HD, through bitter experience he now has a comprehensive contract to be signed, this covers start/finish times, what to film (or not), copyright etc.

He's on a fixed fee, so if the speeches over run, the disco/band turn up late, he's not going to hang around if it goes beyond his agreed finish time and so tough if the first dance doesn't get filmed.

Richie-from-the-Boro

fitshase wrote: »

I think people need to take a step back and look at this again. Imagine if a photographer turned up to shoot your wedding with a film camera, would you then demand the negatives from them?

The photos in the album would be as good as digital but you wouldn't find it easy to make reprints. Ask the photographer for reprints and they will charge since it is their business and their livelihood. Would you then demand the negatives? I think not.

When you hire a photographer, you are paying for their skill, their labour and their equipment to produce a set of photographs (and if you think photography is not artistic, you don't know what you are talking about!).

If you ask and pay for an album, you get an album. If you ask and pay for a CD with the photos on, you get a CD with the photos on. You need to make the distinction between the image and the physical media. Just because you have a CD with photos on it does not give you the right to do what you please with them. A CD with images on it of low res are still good enough for using on the computer as desktop wallpaper, Facebook, digital picture frames (one of the main reasons photographers offer a CD is for the growing trend of people having a digital picture frame), etc.

If I came across you (from the Boro) demanding the full resolution images, I would simply give you the digital negatives (which is the raw data file from the camera in the highest resolution possible with no compression. You would then have to purchase the software to open them, adjust/process the image (tweak exposure, correct levels, remove blemishes, convert to black and white, sepia, etc), sharpen the images and convert them to JPEG.

You said "" you don't know what you are talking about! ""- er ok !

I say :

Hello Ross ! I'm feel sure that Lirin who at least appears to have the capacity to be an aspiring pro might be a little embarrassed to have you fighting her corner. Generally I never fence with a man with no sword and in your case I extend to you just that privilege my friend, by all means argue the legal / moral / contractual but please keep your dignity and don't get into photography [ old school ] or modern skills ! :beer::beer:

Lirin, I may get back to you in the morrow, just got in from a mucky Manchester Airport. Gonna have a few ' falling~down~waters and crash.

fitshase

Ha ha - you make me laugh! You base your comments on my website which has not been updated in a long time, has about 3 wedding shots on it (taken in 2006), has absolutely no recent work on it and all of this coming from the "expert" in photography.

Have you shown any of your work? Of course not - the most critical of people are the ones with absolutely no skill themselves.

Did I say I was an aspiring pro? No. I am an amateur with a keen interest in taking photos. I have had a couple of pictures displayed in a gallery and had a couple of pictures bought to put on canvas. I have friends who have got some of my pictures on their wall on canvas or framed print (none of which I charged for since they are friends and it is not my livelihood). Most of my photos nowadays are of my 14 month old daughter which are taken for pleasure. Have you seen these? No. They are in a private area of the website for family and friends only. I have been comissioned to take photos of friends' babies after they have seen the shots I have taken of my daughter. Some of these have used the shots on cards or had them framed for their house (and since it is not my livelihood, I normally settle for a thank you as payment and the satisfaction that they have a photo I took on their wall).

Have you seen any of the photos I have taken at friends' weddings (while I was a guest and not the photographer)? No. Again, these are in private areas of the website for only them to see.

Based on the wedding shots, I've been asked a number of times to cover weddings. All of which I have turned down as I do not want the stress or the workload associated with shooting a wedding. I admire wedding photographers for their creativity (which is needed to stand out from the others but of course you would disagree and say photography requires no creativity as it is only mechanical) and hard work in recording someone's special day the first time with no repeats and producing the shots that make the albums memorable. People don't seem to understand the work involved in shooting a wedding and producing an album and merely think they turn up, take some photos, print them and take your cash. You seem to be one of them.

You seem to be quick to rubbish people's work and paint the whole industry of photographers as merely mechanics who point and click with no thought, skill, morals or ethics. You don't class photography as art yet as someone mentioned before, it is like painting with light. If it is not artistic, let's see some of your photos and compare them to the pro's.

Your rantings seem to be caused by some sort of event in your past with photographers which you seem to be unable to get over. You offer "comparables" which are not accurate and still think that just because someone takes a photo for you makes you the owner of everything to do with as you please.

I'm sure that if you went to a photographer for a wedding asking for a price they would say, "certainly, that's £x". When you then demand the copyright, high res digital images, etc, they will say "certainly, that will be £y". Standard terms and conditions for any wedding photographer (and I know this because I am married and looked around extensively for a photographer), all state they retain the copyright unless you wish to purchase it which will be extra. Some offered to sell you the printing rights as an alternative to the copyright but again this was extra. They all gave a breakdown of their cost and they all gave a price list for prints / CDs (with a note that they are for viewing on a computer and not printing), etc. To say it is immoral, unethical, unlawful is just wrong.

Again, I go back to the photographers of old using film cameras - would you expect the negatives after the wedding photoshoot?

Freddie_Snowbits

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

To others reading this thread :

- there is no law on the subject

Utter Codswallop.

Copyright remains with the photographer. Those photographers out there that give away the images on a CD are asking for trouble.

Next.

Lirin

The most succinct reply yet!

Richie- 'capcity to be an aspiring pro'? Um- No. I've been doing this for 12 years now. Condescending attitudes are the last resort of a desperate man. Thanks for your thinly veiled comment- I'll take it as a compliment.