Paying as little as possible for everything is the way things work now. The reason that editors used to pay reasonable rates for photos, is the same reason workers across industry used to get paid regular wages, with pensions and other 'red tape'(ie no zero hour contracts, no unpaid interns, unfair dismissal laws etc) because Unions were strong enough to stand up to the greed of the captains of industry. Whilst poor people's wages have to be driven down to make them work harder, the people at the top won't get out of bed unless they get obscene amounts of money. I'm saying your attitude is as dinosaur-like as the music industry's response to MP3s, because things change. Eventually the music business learnt how to make money out of downloading (although only after Apple had sewn up the opportunity). Today people who have a studio shoot want to treat the results like pics they took themselves, so the people who offer that product will gain customers. Personally I don't have time or inclination to police my photos. It's my right to give them away if I want to, and where I do, I normally give a license for people to do what they like as long as their use/abuse is not for direct commercial gain.magpie1No not an argument similar to "home taping" apart from the copyright erosion the 'Dutch Auction' principal of ever descending charges comes into play, if somebody offers what she does for £55, then does she come down to £50, then its £45, then £40-----?
But the relinquishing of copyright etc. devalues the entire process for everyone and the approach is one of the reasons why its easier for copyright eroding legislation to be proceeded with and buyers such as press agencies drive fees down.
ATVLONDONBlimey, for once I actually agree with Stolen on something. Makes me want to post more on here now. Happy Days
Photographers are generally far too precious with their images especially when they have little commercial value beyond the money made on the initial shoot.
If the photographer has paid the model money for a shoot, what right do models have, in this meaning, "have their cake and eat it"? The photographer pays, the model wants more by wanting photos? If the model pays, the it is understandable that they would want photos for their portfolioATVLONDONI've noticed a few threads on other sites whereby Photographers are complaining about copyright issues and how their watermarks are being removed by models using them on their portfolios. I just wanted to mention a young lady I know who photographs mainly babies and young children at her home studio. She is very busy and her success is due to the fact that she takes about 40 images, places them on a CD for the customers to print and manipulate as much as they want. She doesn't care how many copies they make or what they do to them. She has made the money she wants from each sitting. She charges about £60 for an hour sitting. I couldn't believe it when she told me she doesn't have any issue with the images being used anywhere else.
I have to agree. Generally the photographers who are most precious about heir images are the ones who,s images are worth nothing anyway. If you hold the copyright of an image then you can dictate the terms of the licence and if enough money is on the table, that may include sighning away all rights to future sales and usage. I think the photographer mentioned in the OP has a very sensible business model.RedCheckerShe's made her money and is happy with that, and if that business model works why should she shoot herself in the foot with potential future customers by being an arsehole regarding enforcing her right as copyright owner. Photographers are generally far too precious with their images especially when they have little commercial value beyond the money made on the initial shoot.
I agree! Also, there are many commissioners that insist on assignment of copyright. It's a job, if someone wants to pay me £500 a day to photoggraph something they tell me to on the condition that I assign copyright. So be it.
Indeed, I'm photographing the interior of a newly refurbished shop for the owner, those pictures will have zero value to me beyond the initial sale, so the woman can do pretty much what she likes with them after that. Most commercial jobs fall into that category.
I retain copyright as a matter of course, but she can do what she likes, I'm not going to make any more money out of it.
if they ask for it, I don't make a big deal about it and give it to them.
I don't make a big deal about it if a client requests copyright. I just educate those who don't know what the difference is between copyright and usage rights. Once this is explained most opt to go down the cheaper route and purchase the latter.
Not only is copyright the oil of our generation, to paraphrase Mark Getty, but it is currently also the birthright of our children and it should not be thrown away without fully thinking through the potential consequences.
Well I hope you "Educate" them in a slightly less patronising way.
Also, if you are going to quote me (almost), quote the entire portion that's relevant.
If you choose to offer your shots cheaper via usage rights as compared to transfer of rights, that's entirely up to you.
There is no right or wrong here. There is sometimes a value to the difference between the two, most often there is not.