Rights to images on CD

[Terry Zorich]

I'm a part-time wedding photographer; I've done perhaps 70 weddings since 2002 (and probably 3-5 per year from '92-'01). For wedding photography, I simply choose a figure for my base photo sevices with which I'm be happy. (Currently it's $1500.) For that amount, I shoot, edit, and deliver an image catalog with all 'selected' shots from the wedding (not every shot I took; I weed out the boring/bad ones), and finally, high resolution JPG's on CD-ROM, with a copyright release.

I also (pre-)sell albums to about 95% of my clients; most of them select an album during the initial consultation. The albums range from $550 to about $1100. I do not have any desire to spend my days placing print orders; nor do I think it's ethical to charge $40 for an 8x10. I want to shoot, edit, make an album, and move on to the next client.

Going back to the early 90's, I have always included negatives (and now "digital negatives") with wedding photography packages. My stance is the photos SHOULD belong to the happy couple, not the photographer. I use this as a selling point, and my clients love it. In many cases it helps me to earn business.

Obviously my thoughts on this subject are not popular with other photographers. To be blunt, I don't mind...this is business, and I run my business the way I need to.

[PhilipKach]

Originally Posted by Terry Zorich

Obviously my thoughts on this subject are not popular with other photographers. To be blunt, I don't mind...this is business, and I run my business the way I need to.

We all need to find a business model that works for us and use it. We should make no apologies to our collegues for doing it differently.

As long as we are ethical to our customers, provide them the services that they paid for, and don't condemn other business to our clients....

To H*** with what other photographers think of us!

To me, your business model is the only way to survive the digital age. However, if others still want to use the old business model, that is their right. Many continue to make a good living using it. I will not criticize.

I am basicly out of the wedding business and focus on portraits. There isn't as big a demand for the digital images. Still I will provide them after the initial printing for a modest fee. (Basicly the fee is for taking time to prepare and burn a CD.)

I don't lose sleep about illegal copyright infringment. My customers never do it.

The reason, I give them a copyright release!

Philip

[DougAxford]

Terry, I don't think anyone is criticizing your views - however - the original question relates to a family portrait, not a wedding.

Many of us go shoot & burn for weddings but are resisting this for portraits. There was a thread a few months ago here on this subject and the end result (as I saw it) was that customers generally are reluctant to spend the money most good portrait photographers would want for full rights on a family portrait. Personally, I would want at least $500. since my smallest family portrait orders are in that range. In our area sitting fees go from 0 to 75. Hard to swallow the difference until it becomes more wide spread as weddings have.

Doug

[Terry Zorich]

I suspect that as "shoot and burn" becomes more prevalent in the portrait business, the solution will be to reduce your price, and look for more clients to make up the difference. Like you said, hard to swallow...

[DragonflyDM]

I definitely make most of my post-shooting income selling the images to the client. However, be clear that I do not sell the copyright, I sell the printing rights. My clients are able to make personal copies all they want...but I hold the commercial copyright for any other purpose.

[Curtis Cunningham]

Thanks Joshua. Your point has been something that for the most part has been assumed till now. I'll make sure I put something in writing.

Question though. I've just been hired by a local mining company to cover an open house of theirs next week, and all they want is the images on a disc. Does your point about the type of usage still apply to corporate clients as well?

For this particular job, I don't see the images being the type that I'd be able to sell. Certainly though I can see using them as sample images in my office/on the web.

As we've also agreed on the terms for this job, it's too late to go back and change wording etc. However it's a pretty laid back atmosphere up here and so I don't see a problem with just reminding my client that I reserve the right to use the images for display/marketing purposes.

[DragonflyDM]

it is definitely more important for corporate clients than it is private citizens to be totally clear who retains copyright and what their terms of use are.

If you give them copyright and not "limited right of use" you have given the image away totally to the client. In many cases you have also given away your right to use the images yourself if the wording of the contract is not exact.

Be sure your contract has a "limited right of use" in it with the terms of that use stipulated.

Not being a lawyer, I can not tell you if your agreements will be exact, but in most states a signed written agreement is binding even when written by lay people. As a business, you may want to take a one time trip to a lawyer in your state that deals with small business contracts and have him look over all your agreement documents one time to see if you are giving yourself full protection. It is not necessary to have a lawyer draw up a contract each time you have a job.