THSCC Forums

Define "good enough" - to some people, that standard is set pretty high. To others, if you can recognize the person in the picture and tell what they're doing...

One thing that used to bug the shit out of me was when I was shooting film & I would sort out the good from the bad. If I didn't tear up the bad prints, my mom would take them out of the trash and keep them. Even show them around at work or whatever, and tell everybody that her son took those.

Of course, most of my "bad" shots were better than anything those people had ever seen, so I got a lot of praise anyway...

I'm going to print this thread out & give a copy to each of my relatives who keep telling me I should "go into business" with my photography.



I'm out of this thread...

"Bitches."

- Dave Chapelle as Prince

See, to me, this photographer is employed by the people paying him for the duration of the wedding. Hence, they own the images.

If I contract a plumber to fix a running toilet, see how he fixed it, would I be in copyright violation if I fixed my other toilets the same way at a later date? No, because his fix is my poperty once I have paid for it and if I decide to copy it on my other toilets, I can. Why is photography any different?

I guess this is why many people (myself included) feel like wedding photographers are rip-off artists taking advantage an emotional event where people will be less inclined to not pay for something.

_________________
Rich
http://www.v8mongrel.com/

Well, thanx for the discussion. I feel like I've learned a few things. I also didn't mean to offend anyone, and appologize if I did.

Mods, please lock or delete this thread.

_________________
2001 Honda S2000 - SOLD
2012 Boss 302
2003 BMW 330i

It seems that we may be missing Kevin's comment that wedding photographers also use a contract which states that the photos are theirs.

Rich, if you signed a contract with that plumber that he owns the toilet after he fixes it, well, I guess we should all read the fine print.

We're in a capitalistic economy - if you want to own the photos that the wedding photographer takes, make sure to get one who will let you own them (ie in the contract). Sure you may pay more, but I bet there are people out there who will do it.

Caveat Emptor.

Mike <- leaning towards Kevin's "side" now that I understand the law better.

_________________
Mike Whitney
whit32@gmail.com, 919-454-5445
V10, V8, V8t, I6, I6, V6, F4t, I4, I4, I4, I4, I2, 1, 1

Maybe I read the law link wrong. I think that it said that in the case of visual art, giving someone a copy does not constitute giving ownership or the ability to make a copy for his private use. I think that is ridiculous when done in light of the plumber example.

_________________
Rich
http://www.v8mongrel.com/

I just had to come back to this and say "thank you" for the plumber example. That was almost as funny to me as Chris Brown's "funniest post ever"

Wow this one went wild.

I should have said something about copyright in my first reply.

Photography and arts that can be recorded in some format or another (basically anything but dance, oddly enough.) are subject to quite strict copyright law. There's lots and lots of case law and controvery going on throughout the IP community now about this. The DMCA law is a strengthening of copyright law that gives near total control to the copyright holder.

The photographer has the right to do whatever he wants and limit your use of the images taken in almost any manner. The fee Michael paid was basically an appearance/materials fee that happened to include a set of proofs. The proofs likely have a stamp on the back saying something like "copyright the photog 2004, unauthorised duplication or sale prohibited."

To look at corbis.com or one of the other stock photo agencies to see just how expensive it can be to buy full rights to a single image. I've seen images for sale with amazingly variable pricing -- from $20 for a lo-res version for web use on a low traffic site to $100,000 for exclusive use as the core of a multimedia marketing campaign.

--Kevin H.

_________________
2003 WRX (again!)

As an Artist/Designer, I own the copyright on all my jewelry designs. I retain the rights to all designs. I would not be very "happy" to find that a customer had purchased one of my pieces and then copied it or had it copied "for their own use". There is the added factors of the artist's vision and craftsmanship that come into play when you are talking about copying a piece of art.
A few years back a very well known sculptor was sucessfully sued for copyright infringment because one of his sculptures was based on a photo taken by someone else without the photographer's permission.
It is also a poorly known fact that the creator receives a de facto legal copyright on any original work of art the moment it is first publicly exhibited or offered for sale, even if no paperwork is filed or copyright notice is attached to it. For example it is illegal to use a picture posted on the internet even for your own use. This is the legal platform used by the recording industy to shut down the file sharing websites.

_________________
SPIN or WIN!
there's no glory for going slow.

I think things are spirited, but not out of hand. Someone let me know if they feel otherwise.




Ok, I totally understand and agree (from a legal point of view) with what Kevin is saying. I think the real problem is that regular people just don’t understand how this works. How many times will a person hire a professional photographer (or anyone that creates copywrited work) in their entire lifetime? I am guessing once, maybe twice if at all. So people just don’t have experience with this.

We live in a “service” world. We pay person X to do task Y. If that involves “creating” something in the process, well then I should “own” it. People (myself included) would assume and expect that a wedding photographer would be providing a service and not creating “art”. Sure you want it to look good, etc. but you are paying someone big bucks to take photos of you and your family, so of course you would expect that you should “own” the rights to the photos.

I think that a good wedding photographer would not just have the customer “sign the form”, but also explain what it means. They should explain what service they are actually paying for so that there is no confusion later on, spell out the fees for prints, negatives and digital originals, etc.

Oh, my wife and I eloped and avoided this entire mess.

_________________
Richard Casto
1972 Porsche 914
2013 Honda Fit Sport
2015 Honda Fit EX
http://motorsport.zyyz.com
Money can't buy happiness, but somehow it's more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than a Kia.

You hit the nail on the head. There are a lot of not good wedding photographers out there.

--Kevin H.

_________________
2003 WRX (again!)

So, if a sculptor finds a photo that is being used as an advertisement (ie money generation) with his/her sculpture in it, they can sue the photographer?

On that same note, if the people who made Michael's wife's wedding dress happen to find these pictures, they could sue the photographer? I know that may be stretching it, but depending on your definition of "visual art", it may not be too far fetched.

_________________
In need of car.

Heck, here is another one...

I hire an architect to design a custom home for me. Just like the sculpture, jewelry, photos, etc. the architect owns the design. Can I take photos of my house?

_________________
Richard Casto
1972 Porsche 914
2013 Honda Fit Sport
2015 Honda Fit EX
http://motorsport.zyyz.com
Money can't buy happiness, but somehow it's more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than a Kia.

Me, me, me!!! (raising hand)

No, you cannot - unless you have the architect's consent. I know of photographers who have been sued over this...

Kevin, I hope you don't feel like we're picking on you. I'm just trying to get a grasp of how deep this goes. I do agree that your understanding of the law is correct.

Okay, so take any given wedding photo that's taken in a church. In this photo, there could be, a custom dress, custom jewelry, pictures hanging in the background, a church alter, whatever else. All of which were designed by someone, and which make up the "moment" that you have captured in your photography.

Are you responsible for getting permission from all of those people before taking the picture and reselling it? From my understanding of the current law, any one of those people could pursue a legitimate lawsuit, if permission is not given.

_________________
In need of car.