Originally Posted by Polwart
it always struck me as odd that I've paid 'you' to take the pictures for me and yet 'you' retain ownership. If I pay a contractor to design a component, write software etc in my professional life I (the company) always ensure that I (we) own the IP that is created. Indeed if I paid you to take commercial pictures I would try to insist the same. I have no problem identifying and crediting the "author" but I don't see why I should pay to get something I paid you for creating in the first place, unless that was some sort of special deal for a discount which it rarely is.
There are different pricing structures normally in place amongst photographers. The retaining of copy right on images stems back to the days of film and reprints but still stands today. Most profit for a business is in larger prints or the continued use of the image. The actual price charged for taking the picture, post production and ensuring the print comes outright isn't really a companies bread and butter. The image then has to work for them.
If the the photo and the copyright are to be sold then the fee would increase.
I did allot of work with musicians who used the shots for promotion (flyers, agent portfolio's, posters) which I did at a price where copyright went with them but the image was still credited to me.
Weddings ar a different ball game. I was allot more relaxed than a most wedding photographers I've known. I would do the prints and hand over copies of full rez photos' to the couple to do with as they wished. But with a warning that they may not get the same results in thier prints as the prints I had done for them. As all my equipment is has the same colour profiles and colour calibrated to the printing company I used.
What really gets my goat is when the pictures are used and credited to someone else but not used for commercial use. And I think relaxing the laws would make it harder to get websites to take the images down. I always have proof as I have library's of RAW files.
If say you took one of the pictures I posted on here a long time ago and used it for your desktop or anything else I take it as a compliment. I know the PPI is to low for quality prints of any size. But if you took them and stuck your name next to them ........
Really it's curtsey if you save an image of the net and then put else where on the net, to then give credit to where that image comes from. But in reality that wont happen.
Forgive me if I'm waffling on as I've got a baby boy screaming down my ear and typing with one hand
this is probably really common sense. Under the current rules its very unlikely that you will sue me for using one of your pictures without permission unless I am profiting from it (and its unlikely you would get awarded any signifcant royalty even if you did - because I would expect the court to penalise me based on the benefit I gained).
The rest of it was just waffle! Although if they are planning some sort of "Permofming Rights Society" equivalent for the photo industry I think that would be bad.
Unless I am mistaken this is part of an overhaul of copyright law which it is claimed would also see a relaxation on sharing digital music amongst friends etc. I wonder if your views on copyright protection for music are the same as for photos?
Well as a failed person who hung around with musicians (drummer) I do side with that industry but think it's getting a little to over the top and needs to ground itself.
That's the longest post I've ever done on RIbnet and I'll be fecked if I'm reading through it. So any mistakes or stuff that doesn;t make sense please send an email to TeethingLittleShit@babybollox.com