# Asking a photographer for their RAW files...



## splproductions (Oct 31, 2016)

So I'm planning my own destination wedding (Kauai), and I'm looking up photographers in the location I'll be going to.  Would it be super offensive/weird/inappropriate to ask the photographer if they would be willing to provide me with the RAW image files from the shoot?  I'm going to be hiring the best photographer I can find, and I'm sure their work will be awesome, but I'd love to be able to make any artistic/stylistic changes later on down the road if I wanted to.  Maybe 10 years later the style of photography that I'm into is different and I want to do my own Lightroom/PS processing.

Any thoughts on this?


----------



## zombiesniper (Oct 31, 2016)

I'm no pro but I highly doubt you'll get the raw files. 
Some do find it offensive to ask. Others don't want questionable editing techniques being associated with them plus probably about a dozen other reasons I can't come up with.


----------



## splproductions (Oct 31, 2016)

I used to be a music producer/engineer and I had a client ask me for the files (individual tracks, etc), and I know I wasn't too keen on giving them the files for the same reason (what if they mix the track and it sucks - I don't want my name associated with it) - so I can see the point there.


----------



## Light Guru (Oct 31, 2016)

Expect to pay extra for them. A LOT extra for them. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Trever1t (Oct 31, 2016)

it would be inappropriate and if they'd even consider it would be astronomically cost prohibitive. 

Now that said you might politely explain you are an aspiring photographer and inquire, but don't be surprised by a flat and or jovial no.


----------



## Vtec44 (Nov 1, 2016)

I'm a professional wedding photographer.  I have no problem if the clients want the RAW files as long as they pay accordingly for them.   So, when you ask, do let them know you're wiling to pay extra for the RAW files.  Keep in mind that getting the RAW files and owning the copyright are two different things.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Nov 1, 2016)

Just make it a condition of getting the job.


----------



## tirediron (Nov 1, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> Just make it a condition of getting the job.


I think that might seriously limit the number of potential photographers you could engage.


----------



## Wildcats160 (Nov 1, 2016)

Can I ask why providing RAW files would be _more_ expensive?  It seems like it would be cheaper since the photographer wouldn't spend any time processing them.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Nov 1, 2016)

Wildcats160 said:


> Can I ask why providing RAW files would be _more_ expensive?  It seems like it would be cheaper since the photographer wouldn't spend any time processing them.


Exactly and before anyone says 'but they could mess up a raw file and it would be something with my name on it that looks bad', they can do the same with a JPEG file as JPEG files can be edited post-production also to be made to look quite bad.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Nov 1, 2016)

tirediron said:


> Advanced Photo said:
> 
> 
> > Just make it a condition of getting the job.
> ...


Naturally it will, however the ones eliminated will be the ones who would cause problems by arguing about it when the customer asked for the raw files after the shoot.
And really, those are the ones you would want to eliminate.


----------



## Frank F. (Nov 1, 2016)

splproductions said:


> Any thoughts on this?



The better the photographers the smaller the probabilty to get the RAW.

It is highly unusual. The best you can get is a TIFF ... which you can convert back to RAW with a Software like Capture NX 2 if the photographer shoots Nikon


----------



## Frank F. (Nov 1, 2016)

splproductions said:


> Any thoughts on this?



The better the photographers the smaller the probabilty to get the RAW.

It is highly unusual. The best you can get is a TIFF ... which you can convert back to RAW with a Software like Capture NX 2 if the photographer shoots Nikon.

The RAW is the life line for any pro to prove that we are the originators of the work. RAW is proof in court!


----------



## Advanced Photo (Nov 1, 2016)

A file will have the date of the shoot and exit data even a .JPEG is proof in court.
Also in a court of law a document by itself is only hearsay unless it is accompanied by direct testimony by the author of the document in which case it is the testimony that is considered and not the document itself.


----------



## sscarmack (Nov 1, 2016)

I've given out RAW's once, only because thats what the client wanted and they paid. So who cares, less work for me plus more money. No brainer


----------



## Frank F. (Nov 1, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> A file will have the date of the shoot and exit data even a .JPEG is proof in court.
> Also in a court of law a document by itself is only hearsay unless it is accompanied by direct testimony by the author of the document in which case it is the testimony that is considered and not the document itself.



Sorry, I cannot speak for the US law. I only learned how judges see it in Germany. They say: The owner of the RAW owns the "original world", while the owner of the JPEG only owns a "dedocted work" .. so if two people claim to be the source the one who can produce the RAW wins. Another thing is signed files as in the WB encryptions certain Nikon cameras offer. Then the photographer can produce not only the RAW but proof of ownership of the originating camera body too.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Nov 1, 2016)

Frank F. said:


> Advanced Photo said:
> 
> 
> > A file will have the date of the shoot and exit data even a .JPEG is proof in court.
> ...


That's interesting I have never heard that I wonder what would happen in a case where two or three or four people all showed up in court possessing a raw file because raw files are not magic and can be copied. I also think it's interesting that they would assume that a document which could have been created falsely would have precedence over testimony of eyewitnesses to the contrary.


> Another thing is signed files as in the WB encryptions certain Nikon cameras offer. Then thephotographer can produce not only the RAW but proof of ownership of the originating camera body too.


If this is true this would assume that no photographer has ever sold an old camera body that's no longer used and it would also imply that anyone who buys an old camera body would then also own the rights to every photo that had been taken with it previously.

Could you post a link to where you found that information please?


----------



## tirediron (Nov 1, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> A file will have the date of the shoot and exit data even a .JPEG is proof in court.
> Also in a court of law a document by itself is only hearsay unless it is accompanied by direct testimony by the author of the document in which case it is the testimony that is considered and not the document itself.


I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on television and I did NOT stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, BUT... I do know that there are no absolutes in court.  EXIF data is easily manipulated.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Nov 1, 2016)

tirediron said:


> Advanced Photo said:
> 
> 
> > A file will have the date of the shoot and exit data even a .JPEG is proof in court.
> ...


Exactly. The court considers the credibility of the witnesses and decides based on a preponderance of evidence. More witnesses means more evidence. The court would also consider the photograph as possible evidence but it has to be supported by Witnesses and a credible witness at that. If the person has been in court 20 times that year with fake photographs, that's going to be considered in the testimony. Generally speaking, a document with no testimony to support its authenticity is considered hearsay and is inadmissible.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 1, 2016)

tirediron said:


> I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on television and I did NOT stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, BUT... I do know that there are no absolutes in court.



Even if the judge stays at the Holiday Inn Express the night before?

Hmm....


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 1, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> Wildcats160 said:
> 
> 
> > Can I ask why providing RAW files would be _more_ expensive?  It seems like it would be cheaper since the photographer wouldn't spend any time processing them.
> ...




because a raw file is basically a rough draft. its not a picture in-of itself. its just data.
anybody that knows even the basics of post production photography knows that there is a HUGE difference in the
amount of processing that can  be done to a raw file compared to a jpeg, making a jpeg FAR less desirable than the raw file if  your intent is to do  your own editing.
the finished jpeg is the photographers end product.

if you pay me to take pictures for you, then you are paying for MY end product.
if  you want the raw file, that means you want MY end product, AND someone elses end product. maybe yours, maybe another photographers, who knows. the point is, if you are expecting to get TWO end products, then you are going to have to pay for it, and if I took the pictures, then
I expect to be compensated differently if you want files that will presumably be used for future works other than my own.

im not saying i wouldnt sell the raw files to a client, im just saying I wouldnt give them out for free. or cheap. 
in over 10 years of professional photography, me and my wife have never given raw files to a client.
other photographers mileage may vary.


----------



## Vtec44 (Nov 1, 2016)

Way too many Internet lawyers.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Nov 1, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> Way too many Internet lawyers.


lol yep, and not enough people understand the laws they are required to abide by. And, to make things worse, according to the law, ignorance of the law is no excuse.


----------



## Vtec44 (Nov 1, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > Way too many Internet lawyers.
> ...



To be honest, I don't think anyone on this forum knows the laws well enough.  We just act like we do because it's the Internet.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Nov 1, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> Advanced Photo said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...


Or in general, not just on this forum.


----------



## Wildcats160 (Nov 1, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> Or in general, not just on this forum.



Out of curiosity, are you an attorney in real life?


----------



## Wildcats160 (Nov 1, 2016)

pixmedic said:


> Advanced Photo said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcats160 said:
> ...



Ah, I got it.  I've spent too much time in the world of being paid for my time only.


----------



## Frank F. (Nov 1, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> Could you post a link to where you found that information please?




I can do some research and point you to German court decisions and comments on "Urheberrechtsfragen", but I do not know how good your German might be to understand the details.

Currently I work on a book on climate change and need tmy time for that. 

Yet, if you drop me a message I can connect you to a lawyer that wrote one of the best books on "Urheberrecht für Fotografen".

I know him personally and he might be willing & able to answer your questions in English.

All the best

Frank


----------



## Advanced Photo (Nov 1, 2016)

Frank F. said:


> Advanced Photo said:
> 
> 
> > Could you post a link to where you found that information please?
> ...


Just a link will be fine. I speak and read German. No need to spend a lot of time on this and a link will be a lot faster and easier for you. It does seem odd that a court will give credibility to a possibly faked image file than a person's testimony even if it is then substantiated with the testimony of several other witnesses to the original photo being taken, but some countries are a bit backwards I suppose.


----------



## Frank F. (Nov 1, 2016)

https://www.amazon.de/Recht-für-Fotografen-Ratgeber-fotografische/dp/3836225808

This is the book I was referring to. Very well written, comprehensive and current by Wolfgang, whose every day business this is.


----------



## Frank F. (Nov 1, 2016)

Beweis und Vermutung der Urheberschaft an Bildern - Recht am Bild

Wie beweise ich, dass ein Foto von mir ist?

Urheberrecht und Fotografie - Tipps zu Meta und Exif Daten


"The ownership of the original work (Negative or RAW) is the strongest base indicator of the ownership of the copyright"


----------



## Advanced Photo (Nov 1, 2016)

I was asking for a link to the law that says a RAW file is given more weight in a German court than direct testimony of a credible witness, not a book on Amazon about the rights and limitations of photographers to take photos. Something like this:


> Title 17, Chapter 5, Section 504 of the Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws states:
> 
> (a) In General. — Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either —
> 
> ...


Source
I don't think that law exists anyways so I'll just let it drop.


----------



## Frank F. (Nov 1, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> I was asking for a link to the law that says a RAW file is given more weight in a German court than direct testimony of a credible witness, not a book on Amazon about the rights and limitations of photographers to take photos. Something like this: I don't think that law exists anyways so I'll just let it drop.



No, I do not think such a law exists and I cannot remember I ever said that. The court decisions are quite clear: If you want to claim your copyright have you negative or RAW file ready. That is what I said. Everything else might be "added in translation", sorry for that


----------



## Advanced Photo (Nov 1, 2016)

Frank F. said:


> Beweis und Vermutung der Urheberschaft an Bildern - Recht am Bild
> 
> Wie beweise ich, dass ein Foto von mir ist?
> 
> ...


Ok, the 'strongest base indicator" and the final word on the matter is not close to the same thing. Anyhow, it was fun debating with you, no hard feelings.


----------



## Frank F. (Nov 1, 2016)

PS: Wofgang Rau is not "a book on amazon". He is a real world lawyer dealing with these questions for his clients every day. That is why he is invited to teach, that is why he wrote the book.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Nov 1, 2016)

But the link was a book on Amazon. That's what I was referring to.
Anyhow, I understand what you are saying, and it's probably best if you own the raw file to bring it with you to court for the hearing, but I don't see it as the end all of the case.
That was my contention.
It's just silly anyways since neither of us has a case pending it's all conjecture. Judges can do odd and funny things and find in strange ways, that's why we have appeals.


----------



## Frank F. (Nov 2, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> It's just silly anyways since neither of us has a case pending it's all conjecture. Judges can do odd and funny things and find in strange ways, that's why we have appeals.



Absolutely. Any measure you take to insure your rights only increase the probability you might win. It might even not fit into your plan of life to waste any of your time in court. That is what Elon Musk said basicly on why he decided to give away the patents of Tesla: "Patents are just a lottery ticket and you might win in court or not." -- That is also why my business model as a photographer is to sell my precious time not copyrights. I want to spend my time creating things not fighting wars.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 2, 2016)

Frank F. said:


> Sorry, I cannot speak for the US law. I only learned how judges see it in Germany. They say: The owner of the RAW owns the "original world", while the owner of the JPEG only owns a "dedocted work" .. so if two people claim to be the source the one who can produce the RAW wins. Another thing is signed files as in the WB encryptions certain Nikon cameras offer. Then the photographer can produce not only the RAW but proof of ownership of the originating camera body too.



I dont know a lot about computers, but there is this thing called "copy and paste".


in case you're not reading between the lines:  If i were to give someone a RAW file, I wouldn't delete my copy of it.  Now two people have the same RAW file and could both go to court with it.  Now what?   You would also write a bill of sale when you sold them the file and made them sign a license agreement... I wouldn't throw that away either.


----------



## Frank F. (Nov 2, 2016)

If there is a clearly written contract, there is rarely a problem. If the contract & conditions are unclear...

...or if someone pulled a file from the internet & used it and you write them a bill and they say it is not his picture, you need to go to court and proive that it is your work.

***

Interesting point raised earlier: What about signed files and you have sold the equipment in question?

Difficult. Like to see a case in writing.


----------



## DanOstergren (Dec 13, 2016)

If you were to ask me, I would hand them right over for the right amount of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Maybe I should add a few more $$$ for good measure.


----------

