From: Baird, Darryl (dbaird@umflint.edu)
Date: 09/03/02-04:22:43 PM Z
I'd just like to echo, ...er, support Thom's information and advice.
Very much on target. In a previous incarnation I was an architectural
photographer for architects and designers. The law really started to
change in the 80s.
I don't know if any photos or art is ok to sell commercially without
some sort of release or permission.
-Darryl
> ----------
> From: Thom Mitchell
> Reply To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2002 4:54 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: working for a client?
>
> 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