Customers want image cd's

[johng]

We have a number of customers who have asked for their digital images on cd. Sometimes if they spend a lot we give them a copy, but recently more and more customers are asking for them. We also have a relationship with a local development company and they have reported that customers regularly ask them to print copies of our photos for them or to print photos from the cd's we gave out.

Obviously because of our relationship they said no, but does anyone else give/sell customers cd's of their photographs? Do you copy protect them somehow? Any advise would be appreciated.

[EricvZ]

I don't know what images you produce ... but are you giving your customers your full sized copies on a cd then?

If it was my work i try to protect it from being reproduced ... i would only put images on cd sized 640x480 or smaller, those can be viewed easily on screens but are worthless when it comes down to get a good print from it. Then also i would have my sign on them, even on the small ones.

Think your development company is one to hold on, he helps you to protect your business, very kind if you ask me.
Do you have a contract with your customers? You might put a line in their thats says they cannot have the images because you own them (you made them). Put another line in their that says your work is protected under copyright and reproduction is not allowed.
Otherwise you could always make them an offer to get copies for a reasonable price ...
Just my thoughts ...

[johng]

Currently we reduce the quality of the images so that they look crap printed or charge huge prices for good quality images to try and put customers off.

Just wanted to check if anyone had any better solutions.

Thanks for the advise.

[Dabrowski]

I'm not understanding the situation. If you're photographing something for a customer, don't they become theirs? I'd feel downright silly if I did a wedding for someone and told them they couldn't reproduce at will (no procreation pun intended). Even if I was doing stock photography for a company's website, they are their pictures. Obviously, you can make whatever deal you want, and they can agree to whatever, but in my opinion it would work the other way around--take wonderful photographs and give them exclusive rights, and if there are ones that really stand out, ask them if they would allow you to use it in other galleries or offered it for print sale.

But then, I'm not a career photographer, so that may be the difference. (Plus, I come from the open-source programming community:)).

[Janika]

Welcome! You can always burn the original files on a CD for them and hold back the edited versions for yourself. This way their prints would never look the same as yours. You can also give them the original photos resized to like 800x600, so they can look at them as a slideshow and you hold on to the full size and edited images, especially to the edited and optimized ones. Now days folks can take their files to a photo place and they can do basic enhancements on them like brightness, rotate, red eye, etc. However on a smaller size image no matter what they do, it'll look crap, unless they get it printed in 4x6 or smaller. Just my opinion...

[brucep]

In film days, wedding photographers would (at the very least) rubber stamp the copyright on the proof prints, then someone came up with a fluid that would remove the stamp without damage to the photo (@#%!!).

In Photoshop, you can batch process the (small) proofs with your copyright info right on them. You could also give them 72dpi proofs. You want to sell as many prints as possible, so you want them to be able to show them to everyone they know... they might buy prints. That's also a good reason to make lo-res proofs on the web.

The whole key in this is that the customer be fully informed (and understand) before you take the photos, that (at the price you're charging) they get a specified thing. That might be three hours of shooting time, a (non-reproducable) proof album of no fewer than 200 photos and 24 8x10 photos in thus-and-so kind of album for a specified price.

When I did portraits, I'd have my 6cmx7cm negs processed into 35mm slides, and the family would attend (or host) a slide show where I'd project the proofs onto stretched canvases (starting a size larger than they'd originally figured on). The customers knew this in advance, and made an event of it, and didn't expect to have proofs in their hands.

I used to do high school senior portraits almost at cost, knowing the photos would be so good their relatives couldn't resist buying lots of prints. One package of proofs took ages to come back ("yet another set of step parents had it"). Eventually the proofs came back and they ordered the tiniest package in the contract. Then I heard from everyone in town what beautiful enlargements they'd been given from this student! Clearly I'd been ripped off. So now I'm wary.

If your customers want a CD, gladly comply so they can show them around, but way back at contract time they should know the CD won't have reproducable photos.

[lucian]

I produce a CD with images on it for proofs and for weddings using Flip Album, an electronic album software.

Portraits: After shooting I provide an electronic album (no hard copy proof). Depending on the customer's wants I normally provide proofs that are the finished image but at a lower resolution. I can make the CD non-functional after X number of views or X-number of days or on a particular date. I normally render the CD non-functional after 14 days. I do not give original files, negatives or finished files of portrait work. I will give an un-copiable electronic album and hard copies.

Weddings: I do mainly small weddings, mostly GIs. I shoot film. I give them an electronic album and for the most part I pick the photos to go in it. I also give them all the negatives and a CD copy with all the scans. I allow the CD to be copied. For my situation this works well. I raise my price a bit to cover the loss of reprints but not a drastic raise in price. Since most of my customers are GIs they transfer after a year or so. This is a good situation for me and them especially since they can make any prints/quantity later and I don't have to keep a large stock of album covers, mattes, inserts, etc. And I usually get quite a few referrals which are better than no referrals.

[JimL]

I can see wanting to maximize your income but when it comes to Wedding and school photos I think I would offer a price that included the disk but excluded printing in books or other type publications as the standard and a lower price that would only give them the printed photos. In the case of student photos I wouldn't think the photos were worth anything after 3 months anyway so money obtained for the disk should be money in the bank. A lot of people can't afford but the one set of pictures and any kid these days can color scan a photo and send the file to Kodak for copies.
Given the recent events in this country with storms and fires I would think that offering a data storage for your wedding photos would sell good and could bring in annual fees. Of course you would have to actually store them and be able to retrieve them. :-)
Times have changed and there is no going back. If Sony can't protect its' movies and songs from a 12 year old with a computer I don't see why you would think you can do any better.
JimL

[lucian]

There's no doubt in my mind that where there's a will there's a way. I realize that if someone is determined enought to hack the CD they will in all likelihood be able to do it. As a lock only keeps an honest man honest the same holds true for making the CD non-funtional after a specified time period or rendering it read only.

I can only hope that if someone really wants to hack the CD they really have to work at it.

[MoboHaji]

lucian, can you post instructions on how you disable a CD on a certain date?

[ap.]

Keith,
I'm guessing the slideshow software lucian uses includes a date flag, so the program auto-quits after that time and refuses to play. You can't make the actual CD expire, that would require a universal change to everyone's CD drive or operating system.

It's definitely a delicate balancing act between ease of use for your customers and your ability to make a living. As others said, best to tell them up front so there are no surprises and provide a range of options.

[brucep]

If you put the preview photos in Flash, you could ActionScript it to query the computer's date and even show an "approaching expiration warning" and then "refuse" to play later. Customers probably wouldn't think of changing their computers' dates, and they couldn't repro from Flash (except a poor screen capture) anyway.

[MoboHaji]

I tell them up front they can use the photos for X amount of time, but have not real way to enforce that. Having the CD stop working will not guarantee that, but might help some. Just thinking of it as an option.

[lucian]

Keith:

I use a commercial software - FLIP ALBUM. There are three levels, standard, suite and pro. I use the PRO version and have a commercial license with it so I can sell my product.

After compiling the album you tell the software to institute security features, if so desired, then tell it to "MAKE CD". It then creates the appropriate files and puts them in the directory you choose.

Next is to open your CD burning software, add the four files, then burn CD.

The completed disc has the application on it. Therefore the customer does not need any additional software. It is plug-n-play. You can add music, change book covers, pages, backgrounds; have sound for the flipping pages; tell it to auto-flip and specify how long an image stays visible (all pages the same duration) before changing to the next; create slide shows from the album and specifiy the duration of each slide (all slides same duration)

I've been using it since Jan 2003. It's gone through several upgrades. There is also a Users' Forum that has been quite helpful. As with most software I have it'll do more than I'll ever have a need to do. (Limited imagination on my part).

www.flipalbum.com

www.flipforum.com

P.S. I don't sell it - just use it.

[MoboHaji]

Thanks for all the info.

[Zaitzev]

I hate to say this but any program you can get to disable the software someone else can get a copy of to enable it. I know joe blow off the street isnt gonna search the net for a program to save whatever you charge to make prints but just keep in mind whatever you can lock someone else can unlock. There are people out there that will do just about anything to save a dime :-(

[brucep]

Even Flash can't open a .swf document. The working document is a .fla and can be edited by anyone, but what I put on the web (or the Flash portrait preview show for CD) can't be "hacked." Locks are for keeping the honest people honest anyway, I guess. With my (un-tested) idea of presenting the previews in Flash on a CD, they could change the date on their computer to still "qualify" for the preview show, but would still only be able to get 72ppi images from a screen capture.

[toulauri]

Instead of offering just an image cd, try including a proof cd in your packages that they can choose their prints from. Then, on the [very small]proof images put your normal copyright on it, but also put a transparent "proof" across the image. That way they can still easily see the image, and share with family, but can't easily print it. Most people who know how to clone probably won't go to the trouble of trying to clone the word out, and if they want a print they will have to come to you to get it. To answer the question about photographic ownership, the photographer always owns the copyright on the image. You have taken an artistic image of a person, family, etc, and you should get credit for that. Having someone else print that image is just the same as an artist making a painting, then having some else reproduce it and gain money from the artists efforts. A lot of effort is put into creating a good image, and you shouldn't be cheated out of the rewards. Hope this helps and I'm not just mindlessly rambling, as I have a tendency to do. :roll:
-Gina

[ap.]

Even Flash can't open a .swf document. The working document is a .fla and can be edited by anyone, but what I put on the web (or the Flash portrait preview show for CD) can't be "hacked."
Actually, you can get content out of a SWF file if you find the tools. I've done a fair share of Flash development, sometimes you lose your source file and need to access old assets. As with anything digital or online, if you don't want it public don't give it to the public.

[sfaust]

I think the point being, mom and pop have no clue how to unlock or grab the content from a slideshow or flash file. I would also venture most of their customers aren't computer savy enough to do so. Its probably 98% secure, but there is always a chance he may sell to a developer than will easly unlock the images.

[brianpowers27]

Why do people really want the CD. Do they want proofing or slideshows? Before I went pro I wanted prints. I might suggest building the proof CD into the price and offer the retouching on all files for an additional cost. Set it up so you make the money you might have made off of reprints. People will most likely come back to you if you do good work, and you can act as their liason for making great prints. Many people can order mediocre prints but us as the experts will help make truly great prints.

Keep in mind that it is possible to be sued for losing negatives or digitals without a good liability release. The great thing about giving away the CD is that you are releasing the liability when you have them sign for the CD.

When you give them the CD it doesn't mean you can't have rights. You are giving them limited reprint rights. They wouldn't be able to sell these images.

[Landis]

These days, this is a big problem, especially for portrait and wedding photographers. When my daughter got married this past year, the deal I had with the phtographer was that I got a DVD with all the full size images, because I wanted to be able to print out photos myself. My daughter will have him do the Bride/Groom album, as he does such a great job at that. My wife and I are happy with our 4x6 photos we put in an album. Using the Contact Sheet automation with Photoshop, I did the photos for all the family members in about 15 different sets. I'm sure the photographer charged me accordingly for all this.

If you have not made the agreement AHEAD of time that you control the photos, then it's perfectly proper to give them a CD with all the images on it at "Zo Size - 800 pixels on the widest side" or slightly smaller, say 600 pixels. That way, they can't go get decent prints made anywhere and have to come to you for them. As always, it's best to discuss these things ahead of time. If they want the full size files, then be sure to CHARGE THEM ACCORDINGLY, knowing you won't get any of the print orders.

[JimL]

One of the better ways that I've heard of to keep people from copying prints is to crop them close to the heads of the subjects at a non standard side ratio. If they then try to print a 4x6 (2:3) for example they either have to print it very small or accept odd borders. Sounds odd but it keeps people from going to the drug store for a photo because the in store printers will cut the heads off of a close crop photo file and most people dont know how to figure what size borders to put around to make it come out right.
JimL

[WildViper]

Perhaps this is for a whole different topic, but no-one here(except one) seems to bring about the point that the client has "hired" you!!! They have paid money for you!!!! It is their pictures. They have full rights to it. Not you!

I do not understand the thinking behind holding on to the originals. If you make money off reprints, you should be in the reprints business!!!!!

I have my sister's wedding coming up. I met with few photographers and told them all at first that the pictures are ours and not his/hers. If they didn't like that idea, well, move on.

When you take a picture of a product for a company, I would like to see you trying to hold on to the originals...there you have no say cause the company will just move on and you would loose out.

This day and age, get with the program....get off your egos and stop trying to make a nickel a print when you can just charge a little bit more upfront and be done with it.

If I am paying you, I will NEVER accept that you own the pictures. Yes, if you do it for free, sure....but not when I pay you.

[sfaust]

Perhaps this is for a whole different topic, but no-one here(except one) seems to bring about the point that the client has "hired" you!!! They have paid money for you!!!! It is their pictures. They have full rights to it. Not you!

Perhaps they just know you are in error. I don't know where you live, but photography here in the US..... :shock:

If you look at all those images on the covers of magazines in the newstand, its interesting to note that 90% of them, a guess but would be generally agreed upon by those in the industry, are leased from the photographers. Regardless if the magazine hired the photographer and paid all the expenses of the shoot. Thats just how the industry works.

The photographers own the images and 'lease' the rights of the magazine to use it for a specific period of time, usually 1 issue or 1 year, including the use on web pages, etc, and they pay a very nice sum to do so (typically a few hundred to a thousand or two).

A magazine cover may cost the magazine 5 or 10 thousand to shoot it after paying the models, stylist, photographer, etc, but they still don't own the image nor have any right to publish it again without re-leasing it from the photographer again. Further, the photographer is generally allowed to use the image for stock libraries, lease it to other buyers for magazines, advertising, etc. Unless the image is leased on an exclusive basis, the photographer can lease it, sell it, transfer copyright, etc, at will. This is what copyright is all about, and its well established in photography, music, written word, works of art, and so on.

Thats just how photography works in the US, and how the laws were written regarding copyright. You can find more info on it from many sources by searching for usage rights, copyright, etc, with photography as a keyword. It doesn't matter who pays for the image to be created, the copyright always defaults to the photographer unless specifically transfered in writing, or they are working under a signed work for hire agreement.

So no, they don't own the images, or the rights to those images. Regardless of how you personally may feel, you are dead wrong.


When you take a picture of a product for a company, I would like to see you trying to hold on to the originals...there you have no say cause the company will just move on and you would loose out.

Commercial photographers (myself included seeing how I am one), do this day in and day out. The majority of commercial photographers in the US, and the companies that hire them work under this framework. Yes, we always keep the originals. Yes, we charge the companies usage fees. yes, they come back to us later when the rights expire to lease them again if they need it. Yes, they shake our hand and say thank you for creating such a lovely image at the end of a project.

In the low end of the industry, sure there are companies that won't pay usage fees. There are also photographers that will give away their work just for seeing their name published in a magazine or on a companies brochures. And there are companies that will hire student photographers to save a buck. But thats not indicitive of the industry any more than saying the wedding photographers work for $500 and give away their negatives just because there are those that do exactly that.

[Landis]

Cheers, Stephen. Well said and absolutely correct. WildViper lives in Corona, California, so it says on his profile. I know two wedding photographers who shoot the wedding, work the images and give the couple a CD or DVD with all the images, simply because they don't want to hassle with the headach of prints. They charge a Premium Price, knowing they won't get any of the printing profits. In my daughter's case the photographer does a lot of business with the organization where my daughter works (she hires him) and it was done more as a favor to us.

[brianpowers27]

It is also important to mention that many people do not want to pay a large sitting fee for photographs that they are not sure they want. It is not uncommon to have a very low inital fee and then higher reprint costs. This benefits the customer since they are able to buy what it is they truly want.

It is impoortant as it is with any contract aht when a customer buys a photographer's services they understand what it is they are buying. You wouldn't buy a music CD and assume that you own the rights to resell the music... Also, most photographers have the knowledge necessary to be able to provide an apporpriately edited professional quality print.

[sfaust]

I also agree with you on the low sitting fee. If the photographer is good and delivers what their client wants, they get paid throught print sales, and both the client and photographer are happy. If the photographer doesn't 'deliver the goods', the client isn't out the funds, and the photographer only get a menial paycheck. It creates a good incentive for the photographer to listen to the clients desires, and try to deliver exactly what they want or more.

Isn't that sales based on comissions! :-)

[brianpowers27]

As photographers we pretty much do what the market demands. If the market demanded we not do digital we wouldn't do digital. Ifr the market demands negatives we would give negatives. But at the end of the day we are in way similar to professionals of all types. We need to make a aliving somehow.

[Janika]

If I want to provide images on a CD, but I don't want them to be able to print large prints, than what size is ideal for this, like 800-pixels on long side?

[brianpowers27]

probably 600 on the long side

[Janika]

I don't want them to be able to print larger than 4x6...

[Landis]

John, that should be a good size of 800 pixels. It will give them a good size screen image, but not enough to do a quality print.

[Janika]

Good, Thanx Landis. Also can I download some sort of program that would resize images in a folder, like a few hundred pictures at a time?

[Landis]

If you use Photoshop Bridge / CS2, there is an automation that will allow you to batch images. It will take you a few minutes to set up an action to do it, but that's easy to do. Make sure you duplicate your folder BEFORE running the batch action. Have all your images orientated the same way (landscape). I would just use the action I have set up for doing Zo photos:

Image Size @ 800 pixles wide
Sharpen > USM @ .2, 300, 0
Save
Close window

Highlight all the images in the folder and run the Batch......Burn to CD and done.

[Janika]

I gotta try this at home. Open "Photoshop Bridge" separate, or it is in PSCS2? :? I need an idiot-proof walk thru on this! lol

Thanx Landis! :-D

[sfaust]

800 on the long side, 72 dpi, jpeg compressed to about mid quality level works well. They might bet a half way decent 4x6 print, but anything larger looks pretty bad.

[neilp]

Another tool I use to batch process a resize like this is irfanview, it's free for personal use and is quick to process something like this.

http://www.irfanview.com/

You can also apply a sharpen etc before it saves the image. Also you can resize to say "800 on longest side". I've found the problem with recording actions etc is that it may not work so well when you've got mixed orientations or different sized source images (e.g. if you've cropped an image).

Neil.

[Janika]

Ok, here is how I did it:

Created a copy of a folder with images I want to resize
Opened PSCS2
Opened an image
Opened the action palette in PSCS2
Clicked "Create new action at the bottom
Name action to "Resize_small"
Clicked record
Resized image
Sharpened image
Saved image in medium quality
Closed window
Stopped recording
Clicked file / Automate / Batch
Select action = "Resize_Small"
Browse to folder under Source folder
Clicked Ok

At this point it resized them all in the selected folder...
Glad I figured it out, but Landis gave me the main idea! lol

[Landis]

See, John, that isn't so hard. You did it exactly the right process. As an added benefit you can now use that same action to resize all your horizontal images for the Zo. I have that action named "Zo Horizontal" and have another one for "Zo Vertical" which I do at 700 pixels high, simply because most monitors have a hard time showing the full image if it's 800 pixels high.

[ap.]

I've found the problem with recording actions etc is that it may not work so well when you've got mixed orientations or different sized source images (e.g. if you've cropped an image).
Neil, if you have an older version of Photoshop there's a handy option under File Menu > Automate > Fit Image. But it won't change the DPI, you'll have to add a step in your action for that using "Image Size" and only changing the dpi value.

[brianpowers27]

Definitely... Use the fit image. It will handle both orientations... Good stuff.. very easy.

[sfaust]

I just thought I would throw this in here for those interested in how usage works, various pricing, etc. Here are two prices and usage rates for the same image used differently (image size, placement, industries, circulation, etc.). This is typical licensing terms and pricing from a middle of the road stock agency. They are also non-exclusive prices. If Newsweek decided to run this on their cover, and wanted to make sure no other competing magazine would run the same image, they would license it exclusively. The price could easily be three to 5 times more than that listed here. They might even put an exclusive on all similar pictures from the same photographer if it was an image they felt was important enough to do so.

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/4132885-lg.jpg

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/4132884-lg.jpg

[jgreve]

:shock: Wow...thats a big difference!

[brianpowers27]

5423x3400? That is one big image. Is that 16 megapixels native>?

[LIGHT]

I want to thank you all also for all this info!

What about protecting images with watermarks?... is this enough for a cd-copy of full res photos, or is it too easy to edit out to jack and reproduce? I love the flip album idea and will look into that more, but because I'm now going real pro with my photography, I need to know as much as I can about protection so that I can avoid getting ripped off easily. I realize it will happen, but I also see that I can prevent a lot by being prepared for it.

are there any topics posted yet about copyrighting/trademarking images?

[brianpowers27]

If the watermark is good enough to prevent theft it usually detracts from the viewing of the image. It is easy to clone or crop out a small watermark and a large one just looks tacky.

[sfaust]

A watermark that runs across the image in an area with lots of detail will thwart most people efforts. Cloning high detail areas is very timeconsuming for experienced editors, and will give fits to less experienced ones. If they also go to the trouble of cloing out a watermark on a web resolution image, well, so be it. There would probably never order anyway if they would work that hard for a web res image. I just consider it a present for them :) If you watermark around the edges, its very easy to crop it out. I do that when I am not as concerned about someone taking the images.

But if they do crop or clone it out, its much easier to prove iwillful intent to infringe in court since they edited out the proof or copyright watermarks. You don't do that by accident, and its hard to say "I didn't realize the image was copyrighted after spending the time to edit it out! In this case, well I consider it a present for myself once I file for infringement :)

[brianpowers27]

That is a good potin SFaust. Is there a quick way to do a lot of photos with a tasteful watermark? I try to do things in batches to keep time down but without batching the watermark to the edge it seems like the watermark will end up in a less than tasteful area. Any suggestions?

[sfaust]

Yes. Watermark factory 2 will take a whole selection of images and watermark them for you. It will even do the resizing and compression (not from RAW) to save even more steps. You can embed things like the file name to allow the client to use it for selection, camera, exposure info, EXIF, etc. Very nice little utility. You can save multiple saved layouts for different purposes and apply one or all at will.

---> http://www.watermarkfactory.com/default.htm

Typical disclaimer...dont own, no affiliation, not a family member, aren't sleeping with owners daghter, not a boss, etc :)

Here is a sample



http://gallery.photo.net/photo/4145689-md.jpg

[Eskarel]

Usual disclaimer, IANAL.

The basic issue here is who owns the photos. Which basically comes down to one of two things, the details of your contract and whether what you do counts as "work for hire". If you contract says you retain all rights, then you retain all rights. If your contract doesn't specify then it comes down to work for hire.

In the case of work for hire, the party doing the hiring owns whatever you made. Photography has some protection because judges not to view art as work for hire, and photography is sort of art, but it's not a guaranteed protection.

I would suggest however that if someone gives you $X to take photos of their wedding or their daughters wedding, or take their portrait or any other activity which involves them "hiring" you to perform a task, you're skating on thin ice. With a good lawyer I could probably quite easily determine that someone doing these things was performing work for hire and not only demand the originals, but block you from using those images for any other purpose whatsoever including advertisement.

Morale of the story, if you want to keep the rights to the images and charge for reprints put it in your contract, if you don't you're just asking for trouble. This is the beauty of a contract, so long as the contract is presented at the beginning, with a few restrictions you can set things up pretty much exactly as you want.

[sfaust]

This shows the differences in copyright between Australia and the US.

In the US, the photographer always owns the copyright from the time of exposure! If there is no contract, the photographer is the owner as granted by law. This seems exactly the opposite of what you are saying exists in Austraila. You would have a very hard time in court proving work for hire without a written contract signed and agreed to by both parties no matter who hired you.

The only way to enter into a work for hire scenario is with a written agreement that specifically calls out work for hire. Even as an employee of a company, the photographer and employer must enter into a written work for hire contract, or the photogrpher will still own the copyright. In some states, when working under a work for hire agreement, the company must provide employee benefits to the photographer. There may be some exceptions to all this, but for the most part thats how it works here.

I can't agree with you more about having everything spelled out up front. Times, costs, copyrights, ownership, expenses, etc. If its written out and agreed to its hard to argue for something different. If its not written out then its open for interpretation or further negotiation. On my commercial work, if I don't have a signed contract, I don't shoot. I've been burned before, but not again.

[Eskarel]

Was actually quoting how things are or were in the US. As I said phtography is a bit odd cause it's art, but you do have to be careful of work for hire.

[sfaust]

I just assumed by your location that you were referring to Australia. And you know what they say about assuming :) My bad!

However, that said, in the US you need a written agreement by both parties to enter into a work for hire arrangement. No agreement, no work for hire.

[Eskarel]

True, but depending on the wording of your contract it can be a bit dodgy, and if you don't have a contract then you're just asking for trouble to start with. Regardless of the law I'd say if you spell out exactly what you're offering and at what rates in the contract you sign then you're always safe whereas if you don't you could be in trouble.

[sfaust]

I totally agree that a contract is a must with everything spelled out and agreed to. It should also have a phrase stating that the photographer is an independent contract, which helps preclude a work for hire arrangement. It should also be very specific on what rights are being granted, and which are being retained.

And if you don't have a contract (god forbid), the next best thing is no contract at all as it guarantees you won't be a work for hire and you will retain your copyright. Signing a contract you haven't read, or one that was quickly put together and not reviewed by a lawyer could easily compromise your rights. But no contract also opens up all sorts of other issues (payment, terms, expenses, delays, re-shoots, etc). So your rights may be protected, but not your checkbook :(

[Dreamer]

Hello Everyone

I haven't been on here for a while due to "morning" sickness which lasted 3 months :) but I'm over it now and I'm so busy catching up. I have been pursuing a career in photography for the last year and a half and 80% of the work I did was to build my portfolio. I got image releases for those and gave a CD to the models for their own use, some of them are actors and are using it to promote themselves. The other 20% is what I have a question about. I've done portraits of children, corporate headshots and headshots for actors and models. All of these are for commercial use by the client I suppose. Should I start to copyright these? I read Stephen's thread that everythign should be copied. The arrangement I've had so far is they pay me a fee and I give them a CD. I feel bad telling them they can't duplicate them, is that what copyright means?, they can't copy them if I submit them for copyright protection? I've always heard that its the property of the photographer because they created the image. Some bands sell their photos at their gigs, how should I be handing this side of things?

[HappyBunny]

If you give your clients the images, then you'll need to also provide them with a release that allows them to use your images, and define the terms of those usages. Your images are already copyrighted by you, but if you give full release to clients, then you'll need to charge for that, which should be a hefty fee. It's okay to turn over those images, as long as you define use and charge for it. And be very specific in defining use, ie, can they submit those photos to contests, stock photo agencies etc.?

Yes it is the property of the photography and the photographer's right to define usage.

By the way, I'm seeing more and more portrait photographers offering a digital cd as an option, but they're also charging accordingly for it. Many clients are asking for this option, but you'll also need to disclose that you cannot guarantee how the image will reprint without your involvement in the reprinting process, and that you cannot guarantee that the vendor the client uses will print the image properly. Clients will ask for it, because more are, and you don't want to not offer the option to them.

Just protect yourself by disclosing everything in writing and make it clear to your clients.

[sfaust]

I agree with charging them a lot for a CD of all the images from a session for portraits, weddings, etc. And its very easy to justify. If they were to order one image from each image at say 11x14, it might cost thousands of dollars. So the value is very high. When you tell them they are getting 500 11x14 at $2 each, thats a steal compared to $55 each!

From there, you can ask them, do they really want or need 500 11x14's? Aren't they buying a lot of images they will never print and use? Wouldn't it just be easier to order what they want, rather than trying to buy everything when they are only going to use a few for prints?

I do the same type of logic with my commercial customers that want to get buy outs, which is basically, all usage, everywhere in the world, forever. I tell them it will be expensive, even if I only charge them 20% of normal rates. Then ask them do they really need book rights in Belgium, magazine rights in Africa, greeting card rights in Canada, and so on. From there, I can usually determine what they really want, and charge them accordingly.

Its the same principal with portraits, weddings, etc. I wouldn't consider giving them all the images for less than about 2 times what your average re-print orders are, including order 1-5 years down the road.

[wingedpower]

lucian, can you post instructions on how you disable a CD on a certain date?http://www.wingedpower.com/go/zogal_42023.jpg

Hmm.. I highly doubt a software solution to try to set an end of life on a cd will work. You can never really permenantly disable the CD anyways, not with any sense of reliability at any rate.

The problem with giving people a CD of printable images are twofold:
- Many development/print places have now decided to not print images if they look too professional, not without a letter from the photographer stating that the individual has the right to do so... and even then, some of them are a bit cautious of this. Don't know if this is a widespread occurance, but some of my relatives in SoCal have reported this happening to them.
- If you give them crappy images to print from, what would the point be? They still can't print the images and at worse, feel cheated. They will have wasted their money for the time and materials to print.
- If you just give them the full sized images, then you are depriving yourself of future revenue(potentially).

One solution I've seen and make use of from a local photo studio, when I have my family photos done, is to buy the right of the images on the CD. I don't get the raw files, but I get printable JPEG(s) up to 8x10. I pay either $$ per image or $$$ for the session, or if my purchase package is large enough, the images are included in the deal or for a reduced fee. This comes with a limited copyright to reproduce the images for my own personal use.

I think that is a decent solution that lets everyone come out winning. You, the photographer, don't release all of your rights and the consumer gets the right to print for their own use with files that can actually produce prints... but not as nice prints as they would get from your labs.

Just a thought.

Wing.

[zeeman]

Times have changed and there is no going back. If Sony can't protect its' movies and songs from a 12 year old with a computer I don't see why you would think you can do any better.
JimL

One of the biggest truth I've heard these days :-P

[andkiich]

And don't forget too, that the 12 year old didn't crack DVD copy protection because he wanted a black market run on movies....he did it because no one would makea good reliable DVD player for Linux. He wanted to do it on his own, but he didn't have access to a DVD development kit. So he figured out how to crack the encryption to make the DVDs play on a computer running Linux.

Not really relavant to the whole stream of the post...but just thought I'd throw that in there for those who wanted to know.