Matt Round writes on his weblog about how strange it is that many wedding photographers retain ownership of negatives (or high-res originals, in the case of digital photography) and charge clients for additional prints. Indeed.
The photographer who’ll be documenting my upcoming nuptials includes all negatives in his general fee.
Oh, and is it just me, or does “nuptials” sound like a dirty word?
We explained to several potential photographers straight up that we did not want prints from them at all — we could get better ones done ourselves, and that we just wanted a DVD or CDs with the originals that we could use as we please. 2 of 3 photographers wouldn’t hear of it, the third, cheerfully, said “I really just enjoy taking the pictures anyway”. Seemed like the right one for us!
I work for a photographer, but I can see both sides of this. I think that the reason some people find this practice so unusual is because they don’t realize that a photographer is usually two businesses in one: A photographer and a photo printer. To make a living they try to balance customer costs of both sides of the business.
Imagine these two pricing scenarios for a photographer:
1) If the photographer includes the negatives in his general fee, he has to increase that fee a great deal because he has no way of knowing if the customer will buy ANY prints.
2) If the photographer does not give the customer the negatives, he can charge a lower general fee because he knows that the customer will be purchasing prints from him.
Which method ends up being more economical for the customer really depends on the customer… if they’re likely to buy few prints, method 2 would probably save them money.
Right now is a scary time for professional photographers. Every household has a digital camera and a photo printer. I hear customers in our studio every day talking about ordering one print and then making additional copies at home or at the corner drugstore. Most people don’t realize that this is illegal and that’s terrifying to a photographer who makes most his money from selling prints.
I think it’s likely that upfront fees are currently on the rise as photographers try to figure out a new business strategy in today’s digital world.
That’s nothing, in Australia it’s even better:
If a professional photographer is contracted to photograph a private occasion (for example a wedding), then the client owns copyright in the images recorded. However, unless the client has specifically purchased the physical film, this is owned by the photographer.
So, the photographer is allowed to keep the film, but must keep it safe and allow the client access to it; and the client is not allowed to have the film, but can do what they like for the images.
This said, many commercial photographers require a contract to be signed, which includes a copyright assignment clause (to the photographer). Some photographers, generally not those with the highest reputation (not that means they’re bad), will include negatives (and associated copyright) but you really need to shop around.
For those interested, the Australian Copyright Council has some fact sheets available. In my opinion, Australian copyright is completely stuffed!
It’s always seemed odd to me as well. I understand why, but don’t think it’s ever a good idea. Sure they want to make money now, but in 20 years when I want a reprint are they still going to exist? I think they need to simply stop maintaining ownership of the prints, it’d actually take a lot of the complixity out or thier job.
But secondly, make sure you not only get the negatives/files, you also need a signed release saying they relinquish all rights to the photos to you before you can legally make copies.
My sister is a photographer, so I can kind of see this from both sides. On the one hand, a photographer is an artist (which is true if they are actually good). On the other hand, it is your wedding. The last wedding I went to, the photographer had a policy that he just shot the wedding, gave you the negatives, and was done with it. It was much nicer for him since he didn’t have to deal with your print orders or any of that crap and he still charged an arm and a leg. But there are still 2 sides…
The concept of “ownership” in all its wonderful aspects needs reconsideration. Greed and self-centeredness are destroying our world.
When my cousin and her husband got married, they avoided the situation entirely by asking my dad and myself to take the photos for them. We then gave them the negatives.
My wife and I got married in 2001 in Beverly Hills, CA. We actually negotiated with a local photography company to redesign their Website, in exchange for wedding photography. It turned out amazing. They gave us about 400 hard copies of our photos in a beautiful binder, and ALL of the negatives.
My firm completed their Website shortly after our Wedding, only to find out that they didn’t want to use it … even though it was an outstanding site. 🙂
Just thought I’d share that.
Good luck!
Tino
Nuptials does indeed sound like a dirty word, especially if you misread it as nupitals (noo-pit-ulls)
I found out about this oddity the hard way. The photographer that took my wedding photos in 1990 (in Oklahoma) completely botched the job. Of four rolls, maybe 1 1/2 were usable. We received a very small book of proofs, and a sincere apology. Natch we weren’t too happy.
So I paid the photography studio a visit. They were still very sorry. Now, was I ready to order prints?
Under the circumstances, I explained, I would need the originals/negatives, would let them keep the photographer’s fee, and be on my way. Best way out of a bad situation, no hard feelings.
“Mmm, that’s not how it works. We can’t do that.” Then they offered to take more shots, if we wanted to stage them.
I rarely get angry, but was just about ready to start breaking things. They wouldn’t budge, and in fact scolded me for asking. “It’s just not done. Ask any photographer.” Okay, fine, I didn’t know how the system worked, thanks for the lesson, but they completely screwed-up so this was a special case. No go. I still can’t believe it.
I’m sympathetic to the business demands of professional photography, but the fact is that if a customer wants to buy only the photographic effort, photographers should be able to price it. The really odd thing about the ones I dealt with in 1990 was that, in their minds, they were standing on sacred principle. Their whole model was built on my having to do business with them in perpetuity. That’s obviously gonna go down harder and harder in a digital age.
Photographers need a new model. And consumers who don’t know how the game is traditionally played had better ask a lot of questions.
LQ
My uncle is going to be photographing our wedding in a couple of weeks. he’s just getting started in professional photography, and he made it clear to us when we discussed the details of the sort of photos we will want to have taken that he will be taking a lot of photos (all digital), and he will be giving us the copyright on them. I was happy to hear that, but at the time, I was not aware that this can be a major issue, and a major expense. It’s definitely nice to have a relative who is willing to do this for us, as I’m sure we’ll think of some creative uses of our own for the photography. It makes me feel even more grateful to him when I hear these kind of stories about what the “real world” of wedding photography can be like.
I have to agree with Allen. It is a very scary time for professional photographers. It’s become so easy to duplicate or alter photos that i sometimes wonder how professional photographers can make a living of it. I see the copyright dilemma you are discussing to be a bit like open source software. If the photographer does not either charge more for negatives, or keep copyright on the originals, then the pictures and his or her work can be used and changed without him or her making any money off of it. They would have to depend on donations for their work, which in the world of home digital cameras, would rarely happen. This is not saying that i think the open source software is a bad thing, but the concept of it does not work for everyone.
On another level, a photograph is a piece of art. Perhaps with the growing amount of photographic technology available to everyday consumers, we have begun to take for granted the thought that we can do it ourselves. But professional photographers do what they do for a reason, and if they have made it at all they are good at it. They will do a good job, or they should own up to it. True photographic art should be appreciated. If one just wants snapshots of a wedding or other event for documentation, it’s easy, but by paying a photographer you are not only paying them to take pictures you are paying them to capture your special moment in the best way possible.
My favourite words that sound dirty but aren’t are “sconce” and “caucus”
Why don’t I just rent you my gear and you can get the best man to shoot the wedding. If you want the negatives and a signed copyright release you pay more, its as simple as that. You don’t have to have a professional photograph your wedding, and digital makes little difference to me, copyright theft is still copyright theft. You get what you pay for, wedding photographers do not get hired every day and have large overheads to cover. The fact that some hack photographers act less than professionally only confuses things. The issues here are real simple.
Unlike plumbing, or fitting carpets, photography is seen as something that to some extent anyone can do. In some ways that may be true but what you hire a professional for is imagination and consistancy. In other words, short of an act of god, they deliver the goods and the goods are far better than anything you could have done yourself. That costs, it always has and always will, and whether you pay up front or via print sales is a mere detail.
The rationale behind the traditional pricing structure is of a similar spirit, you pay for a professional level of work, and that includes the prints. Also, what is the point of having the negatives if you cannot legally print them? We all know that will not stop people doing it anyway, but like any sort of copyright infringement it runs the danger of pushing the producers of the work out of business. So next time you go to that photographer on main street, he may not be there anymore, closed down or moved into an area of photographic work were copyright is respected.
I recently moved from London to California and although weddings were not my main business I had done a good few in my time. I made a point of tracking people down and handing over all wedding negatives before I left, and I know many other photographers who would have done something similar. This is a storm in a tea cup.
I have a site that is an Application Service Provider for Photographers called Instaproofs (even validates as XHTML 1.0 Trans. w/CSS Layout). Digital photography and the advent of “good enough” photo reproduction is definitely changing the landscape. End customers are looking for any way to rip their Photographers off. I predict that in the coming years we’ll see more Photographers releasing rights to their work.
The extremely high end ones probably won’t have to change, because they are well respected and serve a clientele who are more willing to let the Artist do his thing, but anyone going after the middle to low range clients out there are going to be handing over rights, trying to make up the difference by shooting more weddings. This may or may not raise up front prices. It could simply be lost revenue for Photographers.
This isn’t good news for my business because our whole model is based on buying reprints. If the photographers will price the reprints low enough, we make tons of sales. If they try to get their standard pricing (very high markup) they don’t make hardly any sales at all.
Pete Lasko: This isn’t good news for my business because our whole model is based on buying reprints. If the photographers will price the reprints low enough, we make tons of sales. If they try to get their standard pricing (very high markup) they don’t make hardly any sales at all.
I think you’ve put your finger on it, dude.
Photographer: one who takes photographs, collects a fee (I waive mine, usually), and moves on. The whole idea that an invited contractor can hold intellectual property rights to an event I’ve created is absurd. Absurd. Photo-finishing at 30 times market? That’s over.
Or maybe not. Maybe folks will pay double for a new car if the salesman promises to come over the house and wax it every week, forever.
Consumer-variety professional photography wants a closer relationship with me than I have with my dentist and most family members. In a world where photo-finishing has been commoditized for twenty years, I’ll live without it. And be no worse off.
LQ
I just think there needs to be a better system. I’ve been trying to make reprints of my in-laws wedding photos to do a full scrapbook as a surprise for their 25th wedding anniversary. Boy was I surprised when no one would reprint the photos for me. His parents did not get a release signed from the photographer and he’s been dead for ten years. So what options do I have now? The photogrpaher is gone, his company is shut down, and I doubt his next of kin have saved and archived negatives (nor would we even know where to track them down without blowing the entire surprise 25th anniversary party). I understand the copyright laws, but after 20 years, can’t people get reprints? I’m not sure what I’m going to do now. Any ideas?
The simplest way would be to educate everyone you know, that they need to hire a photographer who would agree to give up all claims to the negatives in writing. You may not land such a photographer immediately, but eventually you’ll track one down who does. Hire him.
TBH, this affair seems eerily similar to Microsofts flawed licensing system for XP. Its the photographers saying, ” You don’t own those memories. I do. You just get to license them from me.”
My brother-in-law is a professional photographer and would tell you in heartbeat that people who appreciate professional wedding photography as art and a ‘timeless heirloom’ simply don’t have any issues with who owns “the originals”, as long as they get a copy at some point.
The issue for the artist of providing the negatives up front is also one of artistic integrity. 30 cent prints from Walmart don’t come close to the prints from his lab. I’ve seen comparisons. He found a lab on the other side of the continent, they send him electronic calibration files, use the paper he likes, have special cropping software, and they charge for all that. The results are stunning.
Pretty sure after one year he gives all the digital high res files to all clients who order “full album packages”.
If you order “Coverage Only” the high res files are an additional $1000 IIRC.
The bottom line is, if you want an experienced pro to show up at your wedding with $40,000 or more worth of equipment backing him/her, and you want him/her to be that experienced pro with an artistic eye who runs their own business, you’re going to have to pay for it one way or another.
If you don’t value that then, well the other end of the spectrum is to just put disposable cameras on everyone’s dinner table and collect them at the end. If you like redeyes and flashpops and shots of people in mid-sneeze that is. lol.
I think the issue is simply this, the ones who are worth it (great) are well worth it and all should include the negatives after they have been properly compensated for all their work. The ones that are no better than your rich uncle with his huge camera glued to auto-mode are the ones who cause all the strife. And the ones still stuck in a film-based business model I guess.
P.S. Andrea, I’m certain a copy of his death certificate would solve your problem, however inconvenient.