Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[doug vagedes]

Isaac, Now I know and will certainly do that next time.  Thanks for pointing that out.

[BotchedExperiment]

My wife has been a professional photographer for 12 years, and has many friends who are also in the business.  Every legitimate (not just some guy someone knows who has a camera) professional photographer I know of has a contract that has prominantly displayed the fact that the photographer owns all rights to the photos unless a specific and seperate copyright release contract is singed between the photographer and the client. 

For commercial work, my wife has always had the client sign the copyright release with her and then the client pays an extra fee for the copyright release and my wife hands over either the entire photo shoot's worth of images (more expensive fee for the copyright release) or specific images selected by the client (less expensive).

I'm not an attorney, and I really don't know anything about copyright law, but the above statement does represent common practices among professional photographers.

[jacobusjay]

The photographer may say that he is selling the copyright, but realistically the consumer is paying for the photographs.  If the photographer, limits the photographs or use of the photographs, he must say so before the photos are taken and paid for.

If you asked me if I wanted to buy the copyright, I would ask you what that meant.  I don't think that the copyright without the photos is worth anything.

If you think it is, try selling the copyright without any photos.

[Isaac]

If you asked me if I wanted to buy the copyright, I would ask you what that meant.

[jacobusjay]

This is a legitimate question because a copyright has no commercial value unless it is attached to an intellectual property.

To deem all photographs as having intellectual value is stretching a point.  In most cases the intellectual value would be provided by the subject, not the photographer.

[BotchedExperiment]

My wife has been a professional photographer for 12 years, and has many friends who are also in the business.  Every legitimate (not just some guy someone knows who has a camera) professional photographer I know of has a contract that has prominantly displayed the fact that the photographer owns all rights to the photos unless a specific and seperate copyright release contract is singed between the photographer and the client. 

For commercial work, my wife has always had the client sign the copyright release with her and then the client pays an extra fee for the copyright release and my wife hands over either the entire photo shoot's worth of images (more expensive fee for the copyright release) or specific images selected by the client (less expensive).

I'm not an attorney, and I really don't know anything about copyright law, but the above statement does represent common practices among professional photographers.

It's a copyright RELEASE, not a sale of a copyright.  The client may already have a print of a given picture in their posetion, but upon payment for the copyright release, a negative or digital file is given to the client.

[BotchedExperiment]

Isaac, I'd like to understand what you mean about intellectual property possibly having no value.

As for a photo potentially having no value as intellectual property, I don't know enough about copyright law to really comment, except to say that a photo has value as intellectual property if someone is willing to pay for its unrestricted use (that's the way photographers define it anyway).

This is different (uh, I think) than its use one-time as a product hanging on someone's wall.

So, for example, my wife has taken pictures for book covers that have sold hundreds of thousands of copies. 

Isaac, are you saying that a patent has value as intellectual property even if there is no product/license, etc. associated with the patent?

Thanks,

Botched

[Isaac]

Isaac, I'd like to understand what you mean about intellectual property possibly having no value.

I think you meant to address this to jacobusjay.

[JSonnabend]

The problem with this discussion is that Jacobusjay's views are formed almost entirely by his perception of who is the weaker of the two parties to a transaction (i.e, who he perceives to be the "underdog").

If we were to embellish the facts so that the wedding was financed by some big-shot corporate type, and the photographer worked for days setting up lighting, selecting appropriate film, arranging composition, only to have the wedding sponsor start selling copies of the resulting prints for thousands of dollars, then Jacobusjay would rationalize a position to rally behind the photographer.  Thankfully, that's not how the law works.

- Jeff

[BotchedExperiment]

Isaac, I feel much better.

I wonder if my inability to read is going to be a problem in my career in IP law?

[jacobusjay]

Botched said,

"If we were to embellish the facts so that the wedding was financed by some big-shot corporate type, and the photographer worked for days setting up lighting, selecting appropriate film, arranging composition, only to have the wedding sponsor start selling copies of the resulting prints for thousands of dollars, then Jacobusjay would rationalize a position to rally behind the photographer.  Thankfully, that's not how the law works."

You are putting words in my mouth. 

Actually I believe that the judge should be fair to both points of view.  The weakness of the photographer may or may not be a consideration in the judge's decision.  I said "consideration", not "mandate".

I do believe that the photographer is being sneaky if he springs an additional charge on the consumer after the job is done.  The consumer, who may be unaware of this trick, is right to feel cheated.

[still_studying]

Botched said,

Er, that was JSonnabend. 

[jacobusjay]

Was he admitting to a corporate bias?

[doug vagedes]

Thanks all for the feedback and interesting debate.  I think I will negotiate the rights up front next time.