# Copyrights



## amolitor (Sep 11, 2012)

I understand that it is common practice for professionals to reserve copyright to themselves. Copyright, if purchasable, is an Extremely Expensive Option.

Why is that? How do you, as a professional, turn that copyright into additional money?

(I do actually have some idea, but I am curious as to whether that's still true, and if there are other avenues of revenue that I don't know about)


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

Well, for one this article is a great example The $18,000 Wedding Photograph | The Photographer's Business Coach

You are giving away your right to that image in any way. No website, no advertising, no showing a client in any way, shape or form. NO claiming the image when it shows up on a billboard. The new owner can then turn around and sell the image to anyone for anything and you are SOL. They can license it over and over and over again for a fee to as many people as they want and never have to mention that you took the photograph.  
The owner of the copyright can do anything to the image they want and claim it as their own. 
You are going to pay me a whole lot to take my work, make it something else, let alone call it your own with no credit needed to me as the creator of the base layer.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Sep 11, 2012)

I do the same in my business. If I design something for you, I hold copyright. This frees me to use the design again, and sell it (typically with slight changes).
If you want a one of a kind, never to be produced again, you have to pay for that privilege. To remove a design from market, means I no longer have the potential to make money off that design again, thus the extra fee.

Rarely have I resold a custom design, without significant changes. I do get asked the question though, and few wish to pay for an exclusive.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 11, 2012)

Well, you could certainly retain certain rights, for advertising and promotional work and so forth.

You can't get the $18,000 paydays, to be sure, but are those common enough events? The article gives me no idea if this is a "less likely than winning the lottery" event in which case, so what, or if it's actually somewhat common. If it's semi common, then it makes perfect sense to retain copyright, of course.

Bitter, I think you make unique objects, no? Retaining copyright there makes perfect sense to me. As if you were making art photographs, and so on. It's specifically the pros that are shooting for hire, essentially, that I am interested in. Wedding/Event people, product photographers, those kinds of folks. You're making photographs that are, mostly, meaningful and interesting only to the people who hired you to make the photographs.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Well, you could certainly retain certain rights, for advertising and promotional work and so forth.
> 
> You can't get the $18,000 paydays, to be sure, but are those common enough events? The article gives me no idea if this is a "less likely than winning the lottery" event in which case, so what, or if it's actually somewhat common. If it's semi common, then it makes perfect sense to retain copyright, of course.
> 
> Bitter, I think you make unique objects, no? Retaining copyright there makes perfect sense to me. As if you were making art photographs, and so on. It's specifically the pros that are shooting for hire, essentially, that I am interested in. Wedding/Event people, product photographers, those kinds of folks. You're making photographs that are, mostly, meaningful and interesting only to the people who hired you to make the photographs.


The 18K payday isn't everyday by any means, However licensing and showing things on small scale is. 
If you give up COPYRIGHT you give it all up. If you limit what you give up you aren't giving up copyright.
I DO NOT, under any uncertain terms want anyone to change my work in the slightest.


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 11, 2012)

Limited usage rights are sold often.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Sep 11, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Bitter, I think you make unique objects, no? Retaining copyright there makes perfect sense to me. As if you were making art photographs, and so on. It's specifically the pros that are shooting for hire, essentially, that I am interested in. Wedding/Event people, product photographers, those kinds of folks. You're making photographs that are, mostly, meaningful and interesting only to the people who hired you to make the photographs.



True, but the same holds true for anything somebody photographs, be it a wedding, or a birthday. If somebody wants a particular image bad enough, to buy exclusive copyright to it, they will.  I don't see this happening with a client you shot the wedding for, but for somebody who wants that image for other purposes, such as advertising.

I see them as the same thing.


----------



## orljustin (Sep 11, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Well, for one this article is a great example The $18,000 Wedding Photograph | The Photographer's Business Coach
> 
> You are giving away your right to that image in any way. No website, no advertising, no showing a client in any way, shape or form. NO claiming the image when it shows up on a billboard. The new owner can then turn around and sell the image to anyone for anything and you are SOL. They can license it over and over and over again for a fee to as many people as they want and never have to mention that you took the photograph.
> The owner of the copyright can do anything to the image they want and claim it as their own.
> You are going to pay me a whole lot to take my work, make it something else, let alone call it your own with no credit needed to me as the creator of the base layer.



He didn't sell copyright.  The buyer licensed it for two years:
"the client and photographer (with consulting help from myself) finally  settled upon $18,000 for two years of exclusive and unlimited national  (as opposed to worldwide) usage"

It's a pretty crappy image, and now that it's out there, someone will likely pin it on Pinterest, which is fine and dandy, and then others can use it in their blogs or wherever they like.  So much for "exclusive".


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

orljustin said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > Well, for one this article is a great example The $18,000 Wedding Photograph | The Photographer's Business Coach
> ...



I didn't say he sold copyright, that is why you DO NOT sell copyright-so you can sell and license an image in that fashion. Pinterest is a problem unto itself with copyright. 
It's a love hate situation.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Sep 11, 2012)

Any photo could make money if you market it for editorial use (or advertising if you have the model/property rights release signed ). Lets say you get paid a few thousand dollars a month shooting weddings. You can then take those photos and sell usage rights to bridal magazines, newspapers or magazines doing stories on anything wedding related or marriage related. You can even sell usage rights to photography magazines. Its really endless and dependent on your motivation and quality of shots. They aren't all going to be $18000 paydays, but you could easily make $50-$500 for interior shots (it varies depending on whether its 1/4 page, full page, etc.) and more for the front of back covers. Pick up any magazine you can think of and pay attention to how many images are in it. Each one of those image uses is an opportunity for a photographer.  The question should be, "why would you ever want to give up your copyright?"  Every image is unique. It may not be interesting or groundbreaking, or even good in terms of quality, but its technically unique.


----------



## orljustin (Sep 11, 2012)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> Any photo could make money if you market it for editorial use (or advertising if you have the model/property rights release signed ). Lets say you get paid a few thousand dollars a month shooting weddings. You can then take those photos and sell usage rights to bridal magazines, newspapers or magazines doing stories on anything wedding related or marriage related. You can even sell usage rights to photography magazines. Its really endless and dependent on your motivation and quality of shots. They aren't all going to be $18000 paydays, but you could easily make $50-$500 for interior shots (it varies depending on whether its 1/4 page, full page, etc.) and more for the front of back covers. Pick up any magazine you can think of and pay attention to how many images are in it. Each one of those image uses is an opportunity for a photographer.  The question should be, "why would you ever want to give up your copyright?"  Every image is unique. It may not be interesting or groundbreaking, or even good in terms of quality, but its technically unique.



You go selling shots of your clients weddings to magazines, newspapers or anything else without their permission, and I guarantee you won't be having clients for long.


----------



## KmH (Sep 11, 2012)

You know here in the US copyright is owned for the life of the photographer, plus 70 years. The additional 70 years is so the photographer can leave their copyrights to their heirs.

That's how artists like Elvis, Johnny Cash, and Ansel Adams can still make money after they die.

Many don't realize that copyright is actually an extensive bundle of rights that can be licensed piecemeal, and those rights can be licensed over and over again. 

You can only sell your copyright once.

The other factor is you never know when photos you have made might become worth a lot of money.

A case on point - A photographer in Kentwood, Louisiana did high school senior photos for Jason Allen Alexander. Later, in 2004, Jason, now in his early 20's, married a childhood friend that also had lived in Kentwood. They were married at the Little White Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas. The wedding was famously annulled just 55 hours later. His childhood friend was the pop singer Britney Spears.

Those high school senior photos of Jason soared in value. Bunches of publications and other media outlets badly wanted photos of Jason. Cha-Ching!!!!!


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

orljustin said:


> GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> 
> 
> > Any photo could make money if you market it for editorial use (or advertising if you have the model/property rights release signed ). Lets say you get paid a few thousand dollars a month shooting weddings. You can then take those photos and sell usage rights to bridal magazines, newspapers or magazines doing stories on anything wedding related or marriage related. You can even sell usage rights to photography magazines. Its really endless and dependent on your motivation and quality of shots. They aren't all going to be $18000 paydays, but you could easily make $50-$500 for interior shots (it varies depending on whether its 1/4 page, full page, etc.) and more for the front of back covers. Pick up any magazine you can think of and pay attention to how many images are in it. Each one of those image uses is an opportunity for a photographer.  The question should be, "why would you ever want to give up your copyright?"  Every image is unique. It may not be interesting or groundbreaking, or even good in terms of quality, but its technically unique.
> ...



A model release is included in every contract I have except the rare occasion when I shoot for a certain set of family friends who are famous names. And those I refuse to sell no matter whether they sign a release or not because of a respect I have for my friends.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Sep 11, 2012)

Would YoBenny be upset to learn he doesn't get copyrights with his jewelery purchase?


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Would YoBenny be upset to learn he doesn't get copyrights with his jewelery purchase?


MOST DEFINITELY!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Sep 11, 2012)




----------



## orljustin (Sep 11, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> A model release is included in every contract I have except the rare occasion when I shoot for a certain set of family friends who are famous names. And those I refuse to sell no matter whether they sign a release or not because of a respect I have for my friends.



So, no respect for your clients or their special day.  Nice.  I'm surprised you get any clients.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

Most clients are more than eager for me to submit their images anywhere they could possibly be featured. I have only once had a client balk at it for a wedding. Her reasoning-she was heavy and didn't want anyone to see anything she didn't like. She did sign a release for a select set of images she felt were flattering. 
Clients expect to see real weddings. I can't show a wedding that doesn't have a release.
If a client thinks they have the possibility of showing up in a magazine, blog, billboard, etc. they are excited at the possibility of being the next "model." 
Portrait clients are over the moon that they might be used in any advertisements for the photog or for others. There have been a few who don't want to release their child's photo under 18 years and that's totally understandable. No problem.
It's standard practice to get a model release on every client. If I couldn't use images in any way I need to I'd then be paying models and prices would go UP.

As for the no respect where on earth do you get that? I sure as hell won't be using the underwear shots of the bride. I am not about to sell something that isn't flattering to my client. That would be disrespectful. However I have a respect not to sell anything that isn't harmless and flattering to the client.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Sep 11, 2012)

LeeK, we all have our schtick. That's his.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 12, 2012)

Guess he isn't working as much in this industry as the rest of us. It's common practice. And probably doesn't know much about human nature. If you tell a bride you submit to the wedding blogs she's doing the happy dance trying to re-design some things in hopes she'll be displayed there or in a bridal magazine.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Sep 12, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> A model release is included in every contract I have except the rare occasion when I shoot for a certain set of family friends who are famous names. And those I refuse to sell no matter whether they sign a release or not because of a respect I have for my friends.




^----------This


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Sep 12, 2012)

orljustin said:


> So, no respect for your clients or their special day.  Nice.  I'm surprised you get any clients.



What is disrespectful? I don't know any bride who wouldn't be flattered to have one of her wedding photos featured in a bridal magazine. Furthermore, if they willfully sign a release, there is nothing shady going on. They are free to not do business with the photographer and go elsewhere. However, with that said, most photographers use their brains and exercise good judgement as MLeek points out. After all, a little common sense goes a long way.


----------

