Professional Photo Ownership

[kdibattista]

Haven't read all the responses so I may be repeating. I have my professional wedding pictures that are from 5 years ago. I tried to take them to a local store to get an enlargement and was told no. My problem is that the photographer is no longer in existence and I can't get ahold of him to get permission. So... I'm outta luck I guess. It stinks.

So, while I agree that the photographers should retain the rights I do think there is a gray area.

 

[Tamarap]

I intentionally picked a photographer for my wedding who will give me a complete set of 3"x5" optimized proofs - every single picture taken, probably about 2000 pictures - plus discs with optimized high-res, and she will release all of her rights to the photos.

It's still costing me a fortune, but it'll be worth it to avoid the gouging and infuriation involved with copying photos.

Our wedding photographer had a similar deal: complete set of 4X6 proofs and all of the negatives. We were free to make copies of whatever picture and size we wanted.

 

[bicker]

My problem is that the photographer is no longer in existence and I can't get ahold of him to get permission. So... I'm outta luck I guess. It stinks.

Yes. It used to be that failure to protect a copyright constituted forfeiture. That law changed in 1988, so that now copyright protection is assured for the copyright holder regardless of notice and regardless of how vigorously they protect their copyright over the course of time.

 

[kdibattista]

Also wanted to add that my first choice would have been to pay the photographer for the enlargements and extras and we went to the local store after the fact.

 

[4cruisin]

I usually follow rules and laws with out any problems but on this issue, I disagree to a certain extent. We take a cruise every year and the photos cost us a fortune. I have one that we took on the cruise and I had to purchase the 8x10 before I could purchase any smaller sizes. At the time, I had already spent a fortune on other photos so I did not want to get any more copies of this particular photo. Now, I really want to make a 4x6 or 5x7 to display as the 8x10 is just too big. I don't see any reason why I should not be allowed to make a smaller copy of the original 8x10 that I paid a small fortune for just because it is "copyrighted".

I understand there has to be a limit on the copyright thing but I don't feel I should have to pay an arm and a leg for copies of something I have already paid for.

 

[bicker]

I don't see any reason why I should not be allowed to make a smaller copy of the original 8x10 that I paid a small fortune for just because it is "copyrighted".

Because it's the law, and beyond that, it is the respect the person who sold you the 8x10 print deserves for the work that that person has done for you. You didn't have to purchase the 8x10 print. You didn't have to go on the cruise, even. Your choices carry with them your obligations.

It spooks me when I think about how some of my customers might be thinking the same thing of the copyrighted software I design... <shiver>

 

[Charade]

Haven't read all the responses so I may be repeating. I have my professional wedding pictures that are from 5 years ago. I tried to take them to a local store to get an enlargement and was told no. My problem is that the photographer is no longer in existence and I can't get ahold of him to get permission. So... I'm outta luck I guess. It stinks.

So, while I agree that the photographers should retain the rights I do think there is a gray area.

If I were in your situation, *I* would buy/borrow a scanner and copy/print them myself.

 

[Charade]

Because it's the law, and beyond that, it is the respect the person who sold you the 8x10 print deserves for the work that that person has done for you. You didn't have to purchase the 8x10 print. You didn't have to go on the cruise, even. Your choices carry with them your obligations.

People use capitalism as an excuse to justify their decisions to break copyright laws. If those reprints DIDN'T cost an arm and a leg, they'd probably pay for them.

It spooks me when I think about how some of my customers might be thinking the same thing of the copyrighted software I design... <shiver>

Are you "gouging" your customers??

IMO, there's a huge difference between what the market will bear vs. what's a generally accepted reasonable price. We can pretty much exclude the miscreants that will not pay for *any* extra copies of their kids school photos, wedding photos or cruise ship photos.

 

[4cruisin]

Because it's the law, and beyond that, it is the respect the person who sold you the 8x10 print deserves for the work that that person has done for you. You didn't have to purchase the 8x10 print. You didn't have to go on the cruise, even. Your choices carry with them your obligations.

It spooks me when I think about how some of my customers might be thinking the same thing of the copyrighted software I design... <shiver>

I do have respect for the person that took my photo and the cruise line that gets it's cut of the cost. That's why I paid over $20 for each 8x10 I purchased to the tune of about $220 plus all the exta reprints that I paid for on the ship. However, you cannot tell me that $20+ for an 8x10 photo is not an inflated price. Yes, it is my choice to cruise and my choice to purchase the 8x10 photo. However, it is not my choice to be gouged or nickel and dimed for every purchase I make. There is nothing wrong with me making a copy of a photo that I already paid for. The cruise line will send me a release so they can't be too worried about it.

 

[bicker]

People use capitalism as an excuse to justify their decisions to break copyright laws.

It is scary to think that there are people out there who misunderstand capitalism that badly.

If those reprints DIDN'T cost an arm and a leg, they'd probably pay for them.

I know I'd buy a lot more CDs if they were $5 each. However, they're not.

Are you "gouging" your customers??

Gosh no. AFAIK, we're losing money pretty badly, actually, practically giving the software away. The problem is that folks just don't like to pay for anything they cannot touch with their hands.

IMO, there's a huge difference between what the market will bear vs. what's a generally accepted reasonable price.

There is no question that buyers will always want to pay less and sellers would always want to charge more. "What the market will bear" is the "reasonable" price precisely because it perfectly balances those two oppositional forces.

 

[bicker]

you cannot tell me that $20+ for an 8x10 photo is not an inflated price.

Of course I can. It may not be worth that much to you, but it is clearly worth that much to the person selling it. Your option, as the buyer, is to not buy, or counter-offer and then defer to the sellers decision whether to accept or reject your counter-offer.

However, it is not my choice to be gouged or nickel and dimed for every purchase I make.

Of course it is. I cannot even imagine what basis you would say that if you choose to buy something that it is anyone's choice but your own.

You don't like it -- that's not the same thing.

There is nothing wrong with me making a copy of a photo that I already paid for.

Yes there is. It is against the law, and morally wrong. That's what this whole thread is about.

The cruise line will send me a release so they can't be too worried about it.

They send you a release specifically because there is something to worry about. The release is a formal granting of the right to copy to you. It signifies, officially, that you weren't entitled to make copies, and now you are entitled to make copies. In other words, the right for you to make copies was granted by them, not by your purchase of the original print.

 

[ead79]

It is not ethical unless you own the rights to the photos. For our wedding pictures, after we ordered our initial set of prints and our album, the negatives and rights to reproduce the pictures became ours. The photographer can send a letter on his/her company stationary to explain that so you can get reprints made.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I do have respect for the person that took my photo and the cruise line that gets it's cut of the cost. That's why I paid over $20 for each 8x10 I purchased to the tune of about $220 plus all the exta reprints that I paid for on the ship. However, you cannot tell me that $20+ for an 8x10 photo is not an inflated price. Yes, it is my choice to cruise and my choice to purchase the 8x10 photo. However, it is not my choice to be gouged or nickel and dimed for every purchase I make. There is nothing wrong with me making a copy of a photo that I already paid for. The cruise line will send me a release so they can't be too worried about it.

It is the price.

When you purchase the new best seller hard back and drop $30-$50 for it....are they price gouging? No they are not. They placed a price on their "craft" and those who want it will purchase it.

You would never dream of photocopying an entire book to give to a friend would you?

ETA: I know it may not seem like it, but $20 for an 8x10 is about market rate where I am at...more so for the posh photography studios.

 

[4cruisin]

Sorry I can't stay and play but I'm off to that evil empire Wally Mart to make illegal reprints of copyrighted material.

Tah Tah.

 

[Charade]

You would never dream of photocopying an entire book to give to a friend would you?

.

If it were easy they would but because it's impracticable it's probably not done often. If it were "Books on tape or CD", it's probably done much more often then copying a 500 page best seller.

That is unless your a monk in an abby toiling endless (it's ok to take a nap every once in a while)...

 

[bicker]

And the more convenience offered by advancing technology makes it more practicable for the "they" Charade refers to to violate copyrights, the more us honest people have to be subjected to more inconvenient measures applied to fight such piracy.