B
Brown Coat
Guest
I'm a little bit appalled and distressed to find that photographers retain the copyright over images they take. Meaning, despite paying for someone to take the photos, the photographer ends up owning the goods; and I have to pay him/her more if and every time I want copies.
So this question comes in two parts. Firstly to find a photographer who is a professional, but also allows the client to retain copyrights.
Secondly, to send out the query on when this practise became acceptable. I mean, if I hire someone to carve a chair for me, I don't have to pay him every time I sit in it.
It seems that many of the responses I've seen on here explain that the photographer has to make a living, and they make extra money by forcing their clients to pay overly large fees for prints. But how is this an excuse? It's a reason, but it doesn't give them the right to do it.
So here I am.. questioning whether I'll be able to find a wedding photographer worth his/her salt, who wont also screw me over with copyright issues. What am I paying for..? Surely it's not so the photographer can increase his assets.
In response to Forlorn Hope; this is part of the problem.. the assumption that my paying for the time and skills of the photographer doesn't also grant me the result of that time and effort (which I'm paying for). I could name any number of professions where you pay for a service and get the resultant goods. What makes photography different in that they get to keep the fruits of the work? Creative expression and expertise also apply to a great number of professions also...
For a wedding, I just find it highly immoral that someone thinks they can keep images of me and my loved ones and use it for their personal gain.
I just cannot get past the idea that I'm paying for someone so they can increase their assets, and demand more money from me when I want a copy of a picture of my wedding, my family, my wife... it's an insult when it's explained that it's not only acceptable, but encouraged.
I should apologise if this sounds obtuse. But my social injustice meter is redlining...
Response to Larry: thanks for the reply. I do appreciate and respect that there's a lot of skill, expertise, and equipment that goes into photography. But it really sounds like you're saying that because of the digital age, people are learning to do things themselves (regardless of quality), and you've upped your prices to counter this, so they don't get away without paying you something extra.
And chances are, if photographers need to charge more for people to have the rights to images of themselves, the customers may just opt to have their uncle bob (who's not so good at photography) to take some photos. Then they can digitally edit them and print them at will; because it seems they may not notice the difference in quality that professionals do notice.
So this question comes in two parts. Firstly to find a photographer who is a professional, but also allows the client to retain copyrights.
Secondly, to send out the query on when this practise became acceptable. I mean, if I hire someone to carve a chair for me, I don't have to pay him every time I sit in it.
It seems that many of the responses I've seen on here explain that the photographer has to make a living, and they make extra money by forcing their clients to pay overly large fees for prints. But how is this an excuse? It's a reason, but it doesn't give them the right to do it.
So here I am.. questioning whether I'll be able to find a wedding photographer worth his/her salt, who wont also screw me over with copyright issues. What am I paying for..? Surely it's not so the photographer can increase his assets.
In response to Forlorn Hope; this is part of the problem.. the assumption that my paying for the time and skills of the photographer doesn't also grant me the result of that time and effort (which I'm paying for). I could name any number of professions where you pay for a service and get the resultant goods. What makes photography different in that they get to keep the fruits of the work? Creative expression and expertise also apply to a great number of professions also...
For a wedding, I just find it highly immoral that someone thinks they can keep images of me and my loved ones and use it for their personal gain.
I just cannot get past the idea that I'm paying for someone so they can increase their assets, and demand more money from me when I want a copy of a picture of my wedding, my family, my wife... it's an insult when it's explained that it's not only acceptable, but encouraged.
I should apologise if this sounds obtuse. But my social injustice meter is redlining...
Response to Larry: thanks for the reply. I do appreciate and respect that there's a lot of skill, expertise, and equipment that goes into photography. But it really sounds like you're saying that because of the digital age, people are learning to do things themselves (regardless of quality), and you've upped your prices to counter this, so they don't get away without paying you something extra.
And chances are, if photographers need to charge more for people to have the rights to images of themselves, the customers may just opt to have their uncle bob (who's not so good at photography) to take some photos. Then they can digitally edit them and print them at will; because it seems they may not notice the difference in quality that professionals do notice.