YES! That's what we're saying!!
I know...but I like to whine about it anyway
I was referring to the ones on the other thread, that were posting the insane prices paid for photography, just for the record, I didn't mean it demeaning in any way. We spent about $2,500 for our entire wedding and honeymoon, that includes the plane trips to UT to get the dress, the cost there was $250 vs. the exact same dress here for $3,500 and yes the dresses were exactly the same, from the same manufacturer, we never told the different shops about each other and they gave us the manufacturer's name, address and phone number and the other difference was that if it needed modification the place in UT would have only charged about $50 vs. $250 here in California, turned out it didn't need anything though (there were other reasons we went as well, but all wedding related)"those people"
sorry about that, back to the main point.......
Oh, yeah, I agree completely. My point on this is that these "photographers" as they call themselves seem to be just cast members at Disney. Sure, they may be photographers, but they aren't contracting the work for themselves, so these photos (I would think) effectively belong to Disney. For the prices people are saying, I would think that Disney could give these people the rights to do with them as they please. Now if they were photographers that are in business for themselves (and not Disney employees), that is different. It's their company, so they can do what they want with the negatives/originals. That is their way of making a living. In this case though, it seems as though they are just Disney employees.
Is this making any sense?
i didn't go through all 80 pages btw, just some of the wedding ones). that's fine if that is ok with the customer but they got what they paid for. if someone is getting $$$ for photos it's because people are willing to pay that, either cause they do great work, or that is the going rate in the area or because like in the case of disney, that's the option if you want your wedding there and those photos of your wedding. i would assume it's contractual so it should be in the contract what you get right?of course not
personally i have never considered disney to do anything at "bargain" prices so i would expect them ( if they "own" the photographers, ie they are their employees i would guess they own the rights to what they take) to make as much on everything as they can. that's the disney way, why would a wedding ( that is way expensive at disney from what i have seen to begin with) be any different
and not to be mean but really usually you get what you pay for...if someone wants to hire their 12 yr old cousin to take photos for $20, you probably are going to get photos worth $20. so while the $300 photos are cherished moments for the party who bought that photo set, i don't think most would think they are great shots in a technical sense(for example lots of time the faces were in shadows, posing was off etc and i'm not even a wedding photographer
i just know i would have asked for samples of the photographer's work, asked what was included in the package etc before i shelled out a few thousand . that is only being a good consumer.. not checking that stuff out makes you the loser in the deal but you still should go by what is legal.
PrincessBride010103,
I see you are sticking around our board. Watch out or you will get sucked in and can never leave!!! We will have you spending thousands on a new DSLR in no time.
Kevin
He's not kidding! I ran into one of the photography boarders once and had a brand new S3 by that afternoon!
could be but if the photos were good, you might want to at least keep the 1/2 that has you looking fantastic
could be but if the photos were good, you might want to at least keep the 1/2 that has you looking fantastic
Oh, yeah, I agree completely. My point on this is that these "photographers" as they call themselves seem to be just cast members at Disney. Sure, they may be photographers, but they aren't contracting the work for themselves, so these photos (I would think) effectively belong to Disney. For the prices people are saying, I would think that Disney could give these people the rights to do with them as they please. Now if they were photographers that are in business for themselves (and not Disney employees), that is different. It's their company, so they can do what they want with the negatives/originals. That is their way of making a living. In this case though, it seems as though they are just Disney employees.
Is this making any sense?
