photographers rip off or not ? on the Peoria.com Forums - Page 5

Fifty Dollars is represented as $50 with the dollar sign in front of the number. Generally when you see something after the number you view it as cents. There ya go.

@froggy


I certainly have not said you or anyone should work for nothing. If you'd read, I said people should be compensated for their time and equipment and I even said perhaps the rate should be higher.

Can I say I actually kinda agree with Pock? Follow me here. The nameless, faceless, unknown at the time future Mrs. Chef Kevin and I get married. We hire a photographer who takes pictures of the event. How can the photographer hold the copyright to me and the Mrs. Without us, there is no picture. I can understand being compensated for the work before, during and after the event (because very few can understand that better than me) and have no issues with that, but holding the copyright to pictures of me? I grimace.

The photographer holds the copyright because they created the work using their equipment, time and training. You paid for limited use of that copyright--I.e. using the pics on Facebook, making prints to give to family, framing them in your house, etc. Some photogs will transfer the entire copyright to you and all the pics. Some won't.

Most photographers will have you sign a model release up front that says you understand you have limited copyright use but they own the pics and can do with them what they wish (within limits). Most just use them in their portfolios and blogs/websites but some will also sell them to the stock houses to make a little more money, especially if they're "specialty" photos--like you dressed up as a chef from the 30s or something. My kid has modeled for a local stock house and we signed the model release for that up front. She also got compensated up front for it.

Copyright law is tricky at times.


Added: something to think about--Monica Lewinsky was plastered all over the news because one photographer had one photo of her. He made tons of money off that one pic and the story was huge. Bet he was happy he hadn't signed away the copyright to all those pics!!

(http://digitaljournalist.org/issue9807/editorial.htm).

* This message has been revised.

Just so you know, this is copyright violation and you will be subject to a lawsuit.

Very true.

@diezelmom303, why don't you post the sheet, or website so we can know what the heck you're talking about.

@froggy Now that I'm done jogging, I can give a proper response.

I will almost put money on it, Chef isn't copyrighting every dish.. is that even possible? Again; no one said anything about not being paid for their work, the context of this thread was having to "purchase" a disc with pictures on it and rather or not it reasonable or a ripoff. .

You what?!?

I'm certainly not above helping someone, and profit certainly isn't the foundation of my moral code. I've helped many many people without asking for anything in return.

As for being cheap; if that is what you were trying to say, I don't know who you've been talking to, certainly wasn't my employer.





* This message has been revised.

@Pock:
Are you serious or are you just trying to stir siht? If photography isn't an art, is like to see you produce results that top notch photogs produce.

@Pock:

You must think highly of your photographic abilities. I'm not afraid to admit that I don't like portrait work. I've been studying photography and involved with it for 8 years and I think portrait work, especially using studio lighting, is some of the most difficult. If I were given the same exact studio equipment as a highly talented portrait photographer under the same conditions, I would be extremely surprised if I could set up and produce as good of a portrait as the more knowledgeable photographer, and I know how to use my camera. Most times I shoot in full manual mode and never in full automatic mode. There's more to it than point and click the shutter.

The idea that you can stand next to an top notch photographer is a pipe dream on your part...

I will almost put money on it, Chef isn't copyrighting every dish.. is that even possible?

@mizzouman_2000:

Ah, but mizzou, is that art or is it talent? Just because a photo is awesome, does that make it art? Or is it an awesome photo because someone with real talent and ability took it?

Believe me, I get what all of you photographers are saying and the only thing that disturbs me is if I get married, someone else holds the copyright to the photographs of MY day.

As for copyrighting recipes. There are only a few things, and I can't remember what they were, that I found little or nothing when I did a Google search. So, if I put these and other things I created in a cookbook with a copyright, who says someone can't switch up a few ingredients, modify a cooking method and plate it differently and call it their own? If I look through all my cookbooks, I bet I can find 20 recipes for cream of potato soup which are all copyrighted.

@mizzouman_2000:
There is no doubt talent is involved, it isn't the only profession that demands a bit of creativity in the work place. My barber has to have some talent, creativity, training, experience and equipment to cut hair, but they aren't copyrighting my head.

@mizzouman_2000:
I'm completely serious. I have reservations about the copyrighting of family photos, primarily my children. It isn't art, well they might be.. but I hold the copyright to them.

Sure, someone can copy and modify your recipes, Chef K, but no one can copy it exactly and claim it as theirs. That's the beauty--and the curse--of copyright. And plenty of folk guard their recipes with their life. One dish that is incredible is the Peas and Peanuts from a place in some small town in Michigan called the Embers. I even believe they've gone out of business but they still guard that recipe so everyone else can come close to recreating it but it never does seem to taste the same.

I use plenty of lighting "recipes" that other photographers put out there for their photos but even so, I don't come close to recreating the photo they originally created. Mine might look similar but it's definitely not the same, yet it's mine and subject to copyright.

Chef K, if you ever decide to get married, hire a photog who is willing to transfer the copyright over to you. Heck, for the right price I'll do it.


P.S. Art is all subjective but the fact that it was "created" rather than copied and pasted is what matters.


* This message has been revised.

Copyright is sure to stir the pot, no matter what the forum, heh. We have similar threads frequently on a sign forum I visit and it's always a debate.

My thoughts: Photographers copyright their photos because they generally cannot ask the price they wish for the time they spend prepping, taking photos, modifications, proofs and eventual print. Mostly this is just because it is difficult for a semi-professional photographer to maintain enough steady business to turn a hobby into a business. So, they retain the rights to any future copies of the images in the hopes of making residuals through additional print sales, which may or may not pan out.

I have seen people pay ridiculous sums of money for what amount to average pictures taken in creative spaces or locations. **Edit: Or a ridiculous amount of photoshop filtering.
On top of the $500 sitting fee, they pay crazy fees for prints that were made at the Walmart photo lab in most cases.

I'm not knocking photographers, particularly those that go out of their way to shoot unique and out-of-the-way locales and instances. However, I'm going to agree with Pock that it's complete BS when a photographer retains copyright to portraits, especially when collecting exorbitant sitting fees. Right to use it in a portfolio is certainly fair though.
When I got married, I made it very clear to the photographer that I would be owning the master images and would not be paying anything additional for prints in the future. I think we paid $700, including the over 10 CD's of full-res images.

* This message has been revised.