From: Thom Mitchell (tjmitch@ix.netcom.com)
Date: 09/03/02-02:54:57 PM Z
As to asking permission to photograph a property, depends on whether or not
the building is trademarked or copyrighted, also whether or not what he/she
is photographing is publicy viewable from public property. (this only speaks
to the laws of the USA as I was taught them) This means a 1200mm lens with
2x teleconverter on your 35mm camera has been found to be unreasonable and
an invasion of privacy (think Ron Galella and other paparazzi) but a 300mm
on your 8x10 from the sidewalk is just fine. However some buildings are
copyrighted by the architect or the company commissioning them, which means
you can take a picture of the building, you just can't sell it. This is a
very new interpretation of the law and is still being battled in the lower
courts. It directly conflicts with existing case law. It'll be interesting
to see how it comes out.
The rule about being publically viewable is what lets the media fill the
airwaves, newspapers and magazines with images, even of specific people. Use
in advertising gets tricky. Consult a lawyer whom specializes 1st amendment
or intellectual property issues. The law is ever changing especially if that
image is created electronically because copyright edcontent has certain
protections afforded by the CDMA, not that I agree with it. The CDMA is what
is letting the record industry sue Napster and other file-sharing programs
because they "are violating" copyright law by pirating. This same act is why
before long if the RIAA has it's way that all cdrs will have a $.50 us levy
per cdr because they could be used to pirate music. So if you give your
client a physical print it has less protection from illegal reproduction
than if you deliver that same file to him as a jpeg or tiff. I don't
understand the difference either.
It sounds like this is a simple transaction, why don't you charge him a
price for the actual prints that hang (not neccasarily your cost in
materials but something of the value of your piece) and give him permission
to use specific prints in specific ways that you both are happy with. That
way you don't price yourself out of a job and you get free publicity. Also
maybe you could negotiate payment in kind by displaying your prints in his
office/store that you would rotate with the seasons and would be for sale,
if you want.
Finally don't ever give up a negative without thought (or unless you've
made a full-res scan). Giving the negative implies that that person owns the
photo and all rights to it free and clear. Now if you take the pictures and
have no use for them, by all means do it, but remember he will be having
your work printed and can crop, alter, change, whatever suits him. I've
freelanced in the past and have given up negatives because It was a simple
headshot for a little money, I've also paid someone to take pictures at my
wedding and he gave me prints (5x7) of every image and the negative and
priced accordingly. He forewent income by not charging for reprints but he
also elimated lots of hassles. Digital images do have implications that have
not been fully thought out yet. Good luck and remember it's always nice to
have someone like your work enough to give you money for it. Congrats, Thom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Xosni" <xosni@gega.net>
To: "Jeff Sumner" <jdos2@mindspring.com>;
<alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: working for a client?
> Jeff,
> But how can you make money off reprints if it's his property that you are
> photographing? Don't have to ask for permission to sell that?
>
> Xosni
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Sumner" <jdos2@mindspring.com>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 4:54 PM
> Subject: Re: working for a client?
>
>
> > It depends on what your client wants. There's a heated discussion over
in
> rec.photo.equipment.medium-format about this exact
> > thing.
> >
> > What it boils down to, for me, is that if I give away my negatives I
lose
> the right to make money off reprints. If the client wants the
> > negatives, I have to guess (figure) the likelihood of them wanting
> reprints and how much I'd make from them and add that into the
> > price of the shoot.
> >
> > Since it isn't my profession, I usually just include the negatives with
> the "photo credit" caveat, if the customer wants them. I
> > increase the price a bit. I don't have an archival storage facility that
> can handle all the negatives I would collect.
> >
> > JD
> >
> > On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 08:41:45 -0500, shannon stoney wrote:
> >
> > >Somebody asked me yesterday to make some large format photographs of
> > >his landscaping work so that he can use them on his website and make
> > >some large prints to hang in his office and garden store. I was
> > >going to charge him a small hourly fee and let him pay for the film
> > >and processing and give him the negatives to have prints made; and
> > >maybe I would scan them for him also. My partner has hired
> > >architectural photographers before, and he said that he thinks the
> > >normal thing is for the photographer to keep the negatives and have
> > >prints made for the client. Would it be better to do it that way, or
> > >give the guy the negatives? I've never done anything "for hire"
> > >before so I'm not sure how to proceed.
> > >
> > >--shannon
> > >--
> >
> > JD
> > 2001 Moto Guzzi V-11 Sport
> > 1999 Triumph Trophy (Shop Bike) 1200
> >
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/02-03:47:08 PM Z CST