Just give me the photos and nobody gets hurt...

DynaSport

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
3,018
Real Name
Dan
My wife was meeting some friends to do a bit of scrapbooking today, and she wanted to use some pictures from my son's wedding. I took my G5 to my son's wedding reception and took some photos, and my son also had two professional photographers taking photos during the ceremony and at the reception. He bought the rights to the pro's shots and they provided them on a couple of CDs and my son sent me copies of some of the photos.

So, anyway, my wife and I sat down at my computer this morning and she picked out 41 of the photos I took and 45 of the pro's photos and I uploaded them to Walgreens and ordered prints. When my wife went to pick them up they wouldn't give them to her. They said they needed a release from the photographer. So, my wife being a good and honest person told her that some of the shots were from a professional, but my son had purchased the right to print them and the rest were taken by her husband. They made me go up there and bring my camera and sign a form saying I was the photographer. Then I had to pick out which ones I took and they let me buy them. They held the others until I can get some sort of proof that I have rights to print them.

I understand all that. I guess I was flattered that they thought my shots looked good enough that I needed to sign a release before they would give them to me. I admit that I was wondering what they would say about my G5 when I took it in to show them the camera I used. I guess it's a good thing I didn't use a GM1!

Oh, so now I'm looking at printers again. I used to print my own photos, but with the cost of ink, I found it cheaper to just get them from Walgreens.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
Your copyright rules must, in some cases, be diametrically opposite to those in Australia (from the Australian Copyright Council):

For photos taken on or after 30 July 1998, the general rule on ownership depends on the purpose for which the photographs were taken:

• if the photos were taken for “private or domestic purposes” (such as family portraits, or wedding photos), the first owner of copyright in them is the client, unless the photographer and client agree otherwise; however

• if they were taken for any other purpose (e.g. commercial shots), the photographer will be the first owner of copyright, unless the photographer and client agree otherwise.
 

brettmaxwell

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2012
Messages
358
It's good that they're checking up on these things. It's strange how they subjectively decide what is professional, but more strange that they wanted you to bring your camera, as if that proves anything.
 

DynaSport

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
3,018
Real Name
Dan
It's good that they're checking up on these things. It's strange how they subjectively decide what is professional, but more strange that they wanted you to bring your camera, as if that proves anything.
I think it is simply an attempt on their part to cover their butt without really doing anything. I think the only thing of significance was that they required me to sign a form saying I am the person who took the photos.
 

DynaSport

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
3,018
Real Name
Dan
Your copyright rules must, in some cases, be diametrically opposite to those in Australia (from the Australian Copyright Council):
I don't claim to understand the laws. Before the digital age my experience with photographers was that you purchased your prints from the photographer and they kept the negatives. If you wanted more prints, you had to go back to the photographer and buy them. Now that everything is digital, some photographers are selling the files on a CD to the client and they can print what they want when they want. I suppose each photographer must decide what business model they are comfortable with and they can get clients to agree to and write their contracts accordingly. I think in the U.S. the photographer can do it either way, sell prints or the file.
 

bassman

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
1,052
Location
New Jersey
Real Name
The Bassman
I had a related experience. I listed my E-M5 for sale on eBay, and they refused to load the pictures I had taken because whatever software reviews the uploads decided they were stock images. While I was flattered (I think), it was annoying that after working hard to make good looking images, they turned out to be too good.

I wound up compressing them more and they passed the test for being low-enough quality.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
In the past, for Australia at least, negatives were the property of the photographer, but transparencies were the property of the client. It boiled down to what was considered the 'final' product, you couldn't really view a negative, but you could view a transparency as a final product. Digital changed all of that, but Australian copyright rules changed before digital really became mainstream and reviewed what was considered reasonable.

I always charged for everything up to and including post-processing and gave the client the finished JPGs (they could have the RAW files as well), the printing was up to the client. I could do that as well, but it wasn't mandatory. To me, that was a far better business model than trying to up-sell prints and hope to make up what would be discounted in the shooting, as was the case in the earlier days. I followed the architect model where I charged for my time, knowledge, experience, and designed and created the plans, and the client could choose the builder etc.
 

Canonista

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
673
Location
Southern California
Under U.S. Federal copyright laws, the photographer has ownership over the images. The only exception is where the photographer that created the images does so under a "work for hire" arrangement.

See: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

When our company engages photographers, we always require that it be under a "work for hire" engagement so that we have complete control over how the images are processed and used in advertisements and social media. We pay a little more for that right, so both parties are satisfied with the arrangement.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom