The Government is planning to give away our rights to copyright protection on our photos.

Let's stop them: sign the No. 10 Petition:-

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%253A%252F%252Fpetitions.number10.gov.uk%252Fcopyrightreform&h=46aec90dadd62bbd5d65437df8273378&ref=mf

NoClue , Photographer  posted on 23/02/2010 10:35:06   Posted 28 times

Located:Braintree,Essex, UK
Member Since: 09/03/2009

Could you help explain this one for me, the petition implies the Govt. want to allow any image taken to be ripped off, legally, and used by anyone? So basically all stock photography sites for example will be unable to charge for work anymore.

Have I got that right?

M

DragonLady , Digital Retoucher  posted on 23/02/2010 11:41:19   Posted 934 times

Located:London,London, UK
Member Since: 07/11/2008

Yes! That's exactly right.

They are justifying it by say it's only for non commercial use. They have to be stopped, or this will just be the start and we'll end up losing all our rights.

NoClue , Photographer  posted on 23/02/2010 12:48:06   Posted 28 times

Located:Braintree,Essex, UK
Member Since: 09/03/2009

Quoting post from NoClue
Yes! That's exactly right.

They are justifying it by say it's only for non commercial use. They have to be stopped, or this will just be the start and we'll end up losing all our rights.

Actually been googling and found this:

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=870489

According to that it says they would be getting photographers to license images. So if I took your image and used it for a non commercial purpose I do not need your permission. However if I put it on my site and then put say adverts on there I would be in breach and would need to pay you a license fee or pay for usage.

It also says a wedding photographer for example should allow the family to distribute the images to friends and family for free. The word 'should' is key, there is no mandatory issue here but just something they want to look at.

Personally when you consider wedding photographers charge into the £1000's I think it is poor that redistribution rights are not given as standard. If I was a photographer I would offer this to beat the competition personally. (People will pass them onto their friends and family in this digital age anyway and you'll never know, you might as well add on £100 and say that gives you full redistribution rights - just my view). So this is happening anyway and will not effect you either.

The only change is that if someone is not getting any commercial gain from the image they can use it without your permission. You're going to hate this but I agree. I think it is terrible that a photographer has the right to photograph me in the street, automatically gets copyright to that image and I do not and now in this age can plaster me all over the internet.

As the internet has sprung up the law does need a rethink to accomodate this new ability to mass publish work without regulations. This law still does not stop you doing this (which I think is wrong) but does mean I could also take the image of me without your permission and put it on the web as well where I want it to be If I should wish as long as I make no commercial gain.

The big impact I can see is TFP work becomes non negotiable. The model you photograph will be allowed a copy of all images for free and can use them to promote herself as long as she does not sell them or use them on commercial sites. She no longer needs your permission.

What do I think of the above situation, I love it and I hope this does become law. Remember this is not stopping you using your work for commercial gain, just allowing the model in question to use it as well for free (she still cannot make money from it without your permission). She is in the image so why shouldn't she. It seems finally they are looking to take into account that yes you are the author but that model also played a part in that final image and should also have a right to it.

I am sorry photographers, your days of your cake and eat it may be numbered. No wonder so many signed the petition and are unhappy.

You may be thinking, 'hang on I do portrait work of people with their families, they pay for those photos per image they like'. Not to worry you just change your fee system to a more transparent one. Now you charge them in advance for the shoot slightly more, so instead of £25 for the shoot then £10-£15 per image, you charge say £150 for the shoot and say that is for x many images. They get all those images regardless and can reproduce as many as they wish as long as non commercial.

So actually, this will not effect you in any major way and I see no reason why a photographer will not continue to make money.

One issue I think this potential law has (it will be a long time for this to actually pass so do not fear), is when I take your image and then edit it. Would this be allowed under this law or must I re-use it exactly as it was originally. I think this must be addressed in this law. Best solution would be you have to state that it has been edited from the original otherise someone may destory your image with photoshop work and then stick your name at the bottom implying you did this.

Which raises another issue, in this law now that I can take your image and use it for non commercial reasons do I have to credit you when I use it. I think you should have to credit the author which has an added gain, your images will be used far more than before and you get a lot of free advertising.

Ok bracing myself for the tirade of angry photographers that I am for this law.

M x

DragonLady , Digital Retoucher  posted on 23/02/2010 13:32:37   Posted 934 times

Located:London,London, UK
Member Since: 07/11/2008

well, I am a wedding photographer as well and those that "charge 1000s" are few and far between.

Plus, that "1000" includes the cost of all the initial meetings, pre-wedding photo shoot, the actual entire days shoot (not an hour here or there - most good togs will be at a wedding for 8-12 hours!), travel, all post production, the cost of prints, quality album (which can be £100s for top quality).

Then you have to consider equipment costs, Public liabilty insurance, professional indemnity insuranc, etc, etc, etc.

Why should I then give away my photos for free as well? If our couples want to buy didigtal copy of all the photos we sell the disc for £595. Otherwise they and their families can buy individual prints.

Do you give away the rights to all your designs and retouched images?

NoClue , Photographer  posted on 23/02/2010 20:31:00   Posted 28 times

Located:Braintree,Essex, UK
Member Since: 09/03/2009

when I work with a model, I automatically give them the right to use the image for self promotion anyway (terms of my model releases), so yes, I agree a "Model" should be able to use the image.
After all they are professionals that make a living from their image.

I know very few quality togs that charge £25 for a portrait session.

Our lifestyle sessions start at £250. If we bumped it up to include all the pics we'd have to charge silly amounts that no one would pay. Then we'd all be out of business and the industry would collapse.

NoClue , Photographer  posted on 23/02/2010 20:35:12   Posted 28 times

Located:Braintree,Essex, UK
Member Since: 09/03/2009

I think people should sit and wait and see what happens. According to a post on the Master Photographers Association forum - by someone who does know what they are talking about, there is a lot of poor and innacurate information being published about the new proposals.

As for the TFP issue. Its not a problem. You clearly state in your 'contract' that you both agree to prior to the shoot the usage terms of the photographs.



www.calvert.biz

Quoting post from NoClue
well, I am a wedding photographer as well and those that "charge 1000s" are few and far between.

Plus, that "1000" includes the cost of all the initial meetings, pre-wedding photo shoot, the actual entire days shoot (not an hour here or there - most good togs will be at a wedding for 8-12 hours!), travel, all post production, the cost of prints, quality album (which can be £100s for top quality).

Then you have to consider equipment costs, Public liabilty insurance, professional indemnity insuranc, etc, etc, etc.

Why should I then give away my photos for free as well? If our couples want to buy didigtal copy of all the photos we sell the disc for £595. Otherwise they and their families can buy individual prints.

Do you give away the rights to all your designs and retouched images?

Hi,

I apologise if my wedding photographer charging £1000's was innaccurate. I have been to 3 weddings in the last year and the photographers there charged actually more than £1000 for the day. It may just be my friends have expensive taste I do not know?

All the issues you mention that justify the cost is fine (I'd still like to see a break down when the prices are as high as I have heard) but the costs incurred are covered, so when it comes to the shots themselves include it in your initial price (as it should be) up front.
 
The disc after at £595 is a good example of what I do not like, you were paid a huge amount for the lead up work, then you charge £595 to burn a disc. Do you feel that is acceptable?

Disk cost, £5, time to press burn 2 seconds, actual burn time 10 minutes. That's £590 labour charge having already been paid for all the lead up work and the days shooting. So yes, I think you should give away the images at this point for free or for a small charge like £20 for your time to burn the disk and post it.

As for me I charge by the hour of work to work on an image and do not hold copyright. I don't charge you more every time you press print .

As Calvert stated this potential rule has a lot of holes in actual implementation but I do like the goal they are setting out to achieve.

I would ask Calvert to assist, could you copy and paste what was said so we can see as I am struggling to find more information on this subject from trusted sources.

M x

DragonLady , Digital Retoucher  posted on 24/02/2010 13:30:35   Posted 934 times

Located:London,London, UK
Member Since: 07/11/2008

Quoting post from DragonLady

Hi,

I apologise if my wedding photographer charging £1000's was innaccurate. I have been to 3 weddings in the last year and the photographers there charged actually more than £1000 for the day. It may just be my friends have expensive taste I do not know?

All the issues you mention that justify the cost is fine (I'd still like to see a break down when the prices are as high as I have heard) but the costs incurred are covered, so when it comes to the shots themselves include it in your initial price (as it should be) up front.
 
The disc after at £595 is a good example of what I do not like, you were paid a huge amount for the lead up work, then you charge £595 to burn a disc. Do you feel that is acceptable?

Disk cost, £5, time to press burn 2 seconds, actual burn time 10 minutes. That's £590 labour charge having already been paid for all the lead up work and the days shooting. So yes, I think you should give away the images at this point for free or for a small charge like £20 for your time to burn the disk and post it.

As for me I charge by the hour of work to work on an image and do not hold copyright. I don't charge you more every time you press print .

As Calvert stated this potential rule has a lot of holes in actual implementation but I do like the goal they are setting out to achieve.

I would ask Calvert to assist, could you copy and paste what was said so we can see as I am struggling to find more information on this subject from trusted sources.

M x

"just burn a disk"

But Margret.. It's not the simple process of burning a disk... Its the infinate reprints that the buyer is then allowed to make.

If they were to come and buy 10 A4 prints to give out to family members and a few larger ones, say on canvas, for their own walls... Then this is a hugh chunk of a wedding photographers earnings.

To break it down to "its only 5p for a disk" is ridiculous simplicity.

To go back to your "£1000" intrigue...

Take into account that many of the contemporary wedding albums, alone, start in the region of £400*.  Add to that the hours spent at the actual wedding, last one I did I started at 9am and finished at 1230am. Also then account for around 10 hours** editing and album design and a wedding package of £1000 would, pretty much, be break even.  So the "real" profit is gained from aftersales, the prints that you suggest be burnt to a disc for a pityful £20.

I can see "Uncle Tom's" all around the country becoming extremely busy in the coming months, as all the wedding professionals pack up as working an average 25hours+ on a clients wedding for £20 isnt going to keep a roof over their heads.



*obviously there are cheaper albums available... package prices reduced accordingly

**varies dependant on the style of album and amount of post production requred per image per album.

Quoting post from AMPhotographique

"just burn a disk"

But Margret.. It's not the simple process of burning a disk... Its the infinate reprints that the buyer is then allowed to make.

If they were to come and buy 10 A4 prints to give out to family members and a few larger ones, say on canvas, for their own walls... Then this is a hugh chunk of a wedding photographers earnings.

To break it down to "its only 5p for a disk" is ridiculous simplicity.

To go back to your "£1000" intrigue...

Take into account that many of the contemporary wedding albums, alone, start in the region of £400*.  Add to that the hours spent at the actual wedding, last one I did I started at 9am and finished at 1230am. Also then account for around 10 hours** editing and album design and a wedding package of £1000 would, pretty much, be break even.  So the "real" profit is gained from aftersales, the prints that you suggest be burnt to a disc for a pityful £20.

I can see "Uncle Tom's" all around the country becoming extremely busy in the coming months, as all the wedding professionals pack up as working an average 25hours+ on a clients wedding for £20 isnt going to keep a roof over their heads.



*obviously there are cheaper albums available... package prices reduced accordingly

**varies dependant on the style of album and amount of post production requred per image per album.

I understand the view point however I think the issue is the way you do the charging. To the every day Joe and your customer it looks like £590 for a cd to be burnt.

So when you say £20 isnt going to keep a roof over their heads for 25 hours plus work this is not what I am implying you do.

As I did not want to over waffle I kept it simple but as you stated my point was 'rediculous simplicity' (which I accept) I will give a detailed answer below:

I would break it down as follows:

My hourly rate, say you consider your skills worth £50 an hour. Then the client knows the longer you are at the wedding the more you cost, this covers the 'I am at a wedding for a long time' issue. As far as I am aware all businesses that charge hourly rates do so for this reason.

So this last job you say you started early 9am to 12:30am, 15.5 hours work = 50 * 50 = £775

Remember when you calculate your hourly cost you should apportion all your costs such as your equipment, travel etc into that so the hourly cost will cover all of this.

Now the question of post production work and charging for this is questionable. If you are not very good at getting a shot right out of camera you may spend hours and hours on post production, should the client have to pay more for your deficiency?

Nonetheless if required tell them that there is a charge for post work services, such as special effects, framed image effects etc and this is x amount per image they want done in fancy effects. This could add a nice earner onto individual images.

Printing Service - I would then offer a large print service and if you are doing this in bulk you should get competitive discounts. So you'll start making money off the large prints.

For a CD burned copy I'd charge what it is worth to do that actual task, about £25 admin costs (and that still makes you some profit for it).

For a printed book of the images, again you should be able to get a competitive discount and can make a profit per book designed and charge for the design work etc. You include in this the £400 you quoted here as the book cost and this can be bought as a separate after.

None of the above requires charging per image so this is why I think it is the payment structure that is the issue, change this slightly and I think it will be fine. I actually think you may make more money with this transparent structure than the current one.

Of course the disc means they can go and get this all done themself, but you'd offer it cheaper because of your competitive rate, i'd offer a bulk discount if multiple family members want one to give more incentive to go to you and ultimately more of these will be purchased. On average weddings can have 25-30 close family guests all of which would be more inclined this way.

Say you make £25 profit per designed book, say each take 5 a4 prints and you make £5 profit per print, thats (25 * 30 guests) + ((£5 * 5 books) * 30 guests) = £1500 profit . Say only half go for it thats still more at £750.

Rather shadows the £500+ for one disk. So I believe you'd make more money with this system and sell to more guests than the current system.

In the current pay structure if you get lucky one family member buys the disk (all the weddings I attended none bought the disc) and then distributes it, you make nothing on that ditribution. Even worse they just buy some prints, scan them and distribute them and you make even less.

With my above structure you can charge the initial meetings for free which looks better for you and you can advertise yourself giving out far more services.

So this law if it comes in will effect you only in that you need to make a new business structure which I actually think will do better for you.

This is just a quick guide of how I would change my pay structure to account for the new law if it comes in but I hope it shows there are viable alternatives.

M

DragonLady , Digital Retoucher  posted on 24/02/2010 16:26:30   Posted 934 times

Located:London,London, UK
Member Since: 07/11/2008

Quoting post from AMPhotographique

"just burn a disk"

But Margret.. It's not the simple process of burning a disk... Its the infinate reprints that the buyer is then allowed to make.

If they were to come and buy 10 A4 prints to give out to family members and a few larger ones, say on canvas, for their own walls... Then this is a hugh chunk of a wedding photographers earnings.

To break it down to "its only 5p for a disk" is ridiculous simplicity.

To go back to your "£1000" intrigue...

Take into account that many of the contemporary wedding albums, alone, start in the region of £400*.  Add to that the hours spent at the actual wedding, last one I did I started at 9am and finished at 1230am. Also then account for around 10 hours** editing and album design and a wedding package of £1000 would, pretty much, be break even.  So the "real" profit is gained from aftersales, the prints that you suggest be burnt to a disc for a pityful £20.

I can see "Uncle Tom's" all around the country becoming extremely busy in the coming months, as all the wedding professionals pack up as working an average 25hours+ on a clients wedding for £20 isnt going to keep a roof over their heads.



*obviously there are cheaper albums available... package prices reduced accordingly

**varies dependant on the style of album and amount of post production requred per image per album.

Agreed.

Undercharging for selling images on a disc is a huge mistake made by some photographers. As a photographer, you sell images for a living. If you give an electronic copy of your images to a client at a knockdown price, you will lose money because the client can make multiple copies of the images and you don't get a bean for that. Subsequently, you should charge a premium to reflect the loss that you will incur.  

I primarily do family portraits and if a client wants electronic copies of the images, I charge around £99.00 per image with a minimum order of 5 images. My feeling is that if you sell your images cheap, you obviously don't value your skill and expertise much. Not to mention the fact that cheap prices attract poor quality clients. 

I know some photographers who charge a minimum of £3k a wedding - and they are fully booked. Why? because their work is outstanding and worth every penny. They dedicate a lot of time and only use the best materials. If you want quality, you have to pay for it.
 
As for copying/pasting what was said on the MPA forum, sorry, no can do, its a private forum. But if you join the MPA, you can see it for yourself and take advantage of what the MPA can also offer.. 

www.calvert.biz

Quoting post from DragonLady

I understand the view point however I think the issue is the way you do the charging. To the every day Joe and your customer it looks like £590 for a cd to be burnt.

So when you say £20 isnt going to keep a roof over their heads for 25 hours plus work this is not what I am implying you do.

As I did not want to over waffle I kept it simple but as you stated my point was 'rediculous simplicity' (which I accept) I will give a detailed answer below:

I would break it down as follows:

My hourly rate, say you consider your skills worth £50 an hour. Then the client knows the longer you are at the wedding the more you cost, this covers the 'I am at a wedding for a long time' issue. As far as I am aware all businesses that charge hourly rates do so for this reason.

So this last job you say you started early 9am to 12:30am, 15.5 hours work = 50 * 50 = £775

Remember when you calculate your hourly cost you should apportion all your costs such as your equipment, travel etc into that so the hourly cost will cover all of this.

Now the question of post production work and charging for this is questionable. If you are not very good at getting a shot right out of camera you may spend hours and hours on post production, should the client have to pay more for your deficiency?

Nonetheless if required tell them that there is a charge for post work services, such as special effects, framed image effects etc and this is x amount per image they want done in fancy effects. This could add a nice earner onto individual images.

Printing Service - I would then offer a large print service and if you are doing this in bulk you should get competitive discounts. So you'll start making money off the large prints.

For a CD burned copy I'd charge what it is worth to do that actual task, about £25 admin costs (and that still makes you some profit for it).

For a printed book of the images, again you should be able to get a competitive discount and can make a profit per book designed and charge for the design work etc. You include in this the £400 you quoted here as the book cost and this can be bought as a separate after.

None of the above requires charging per image so this is why I think it is the payment structure that is the issue, change this slightly and I think it will be fine. I actually think you may make more money with this transparent structure than the current one.

Of course the disc means they can go and get this all done themself, but you'd offer it cheaper because of your competitive rate, i'd offer a bulk discount if multiple family members want one to give more incentive to go to you and ultimately more of these will be purchased. On average weddings can have 25-30 close family guests all of which would be more inclined this way.

Say you make £25 profit per designed book, say each take 5 a4 prints and you make £5 profit per print, thats (25 * 30 guests) + ((£5 * 5 books) * 30 guests) = £1500 profit . Say only half go for it thats still more at £750.

Rather shadows the £500+ for one disk. So I believe you'd make more money with this system and sell to more guests than the current system.

In the current pay structure if you get lucky one family member buys the disk (all the weddings I attended none bought the disc) and then distributes it, you make nothing on that ditribution. Even worse they just buy some prints, scan them and distribute them and you make even less.

With my above structure you can charge the initial meetings for free which looks better for you and you can advertise yourself giving out far more services.

So this law if it comes in will effect you only in that you need to make a new business structure which I actually think will do better for you.

This is just a quick guide of how I would change my pay structure to account for the new law if it comes in but I hope it shows there are viable alternatives.

M

Utter patronising rubbish.


Ofcourse all fees factor in all business costs...

The editing is not to cover any deficiencies... simply things like dropping to B&W etc take seconds.. other more "arty" effects may take longer... Im not refering to taking out blinked eyes to cut and paste eyes from another shot to cover for the inevitable unavoidable duff shot.

And how the hell does selling one disk for £25 to the B&G equate to a pot of gold money spinner??? Why would all the other guests buy it when the B&G can just email them the file?

When "the average Joe" (your words not mine.. i'd never refer to a paying client in such derogatory terms) asks about the purchase of a disk, they are FULLY briefed on the pricing and reasoning behind it... a disc with over 800 images on it has its price based on the fact that if they were to buy 800 prints it would be considerably more. A mute point, however, as sellin on the "negatives" isnt in my business model.

You either have no regard for your interlectual property, nor anyone elses, or you truely do not have value on your work.

Quoting post from AMPhotographique

Utter patronising rubbish.


Ofcourse all fees factor in all business costs...

The editing is not to cover any deficiencies... simply things like dropping to B&W etc take seconds.. other more "arty" effects may take longer... Im not refering to taking out blinked eyes to cut and paste eyes from another shot to cover for the inevitable unavoidable duff shot.

And how the hell does selling one disk for £25 to the B&G equate to a pot of gold money spinner??? Why would all the other guests buy it when the B&G can just email them the file?

When "the average Joe" (your words not mine.. i'd never refer to a paying client in such derogatory terms) asks about the purchase of a disk, they are FULLY briefed on the pricing and reasoning behind it... a disc with over 800 images on it has its price based on the fact that if they were to buy 800 prints it would be considerably more. A mute point, however, as sellin on the "negatives" isnt in my business model.

You either have no regard for your interlectual property, nor anyone elses, or you truely do not have value on your work.

Exactly. Couldn't agree more

NoClue , Photographer  posted on 24/02/2010 17:32:06   Posted 28 times

Located:Braintree,Essex, UK
Member Since: 09/03/2009

I don't think they have gone far enough.

I would suggest that they should abolish the concept of IP. except with respect to commecial use.

I would welcome this. I would never have to pay for another music album (they would only be for my own listening) and I could get my windows software free (again personal use only).

Adobe photoshop would become free to so many people. It would indeed be great.

Taken one step further - I'd never have to buy a game for the Wii or PS3 either, never have to pay to update my GPS software for my car or pay for a DVD I'll just download it and burn my own

etc etc

Being serious for a second - The governments main arguement appears to be "the consultation revealed that people ‘do not understand why they should have to pay for using works in the “cut and paste” world in which we live.’"

Err because its cause its called theft. All I see is that enough people are committing the cime of theft as it is relatively easy, and so the government has caved in to pressure to effectively decriminlise simple copyright theft.

I realise that the current system is not working 100% but I'm not convinced that the new system will be better, fairer or indeed workable.


Question is what next?

Just a little question - why are they picking on photographers the written word, music, video, and movies all have  exactly the same "intellectual rights" but as we are constantly reminded copying music/videos/books are killing the relevent industries. and if anyone dares to copy winnie the pooh they are hung drawn and quartered (i know its a misquote but it sings better) the copyright law for winie the pooh has been extended twice that i know of for the sake of the trust!

Glenn (doublescotch and designandimagestudio)

DesignandImageStudio , Studio  posted on 24/02/2010 17:34:08   Posted 40 times

Located:Arundel,West Sussex, UK
Member Since: 14/02/2010

Quoting post from AMPhotographique

Utter patronising rubbish.


Ofcourse all fees factor in all business costs...

The editing is not to cover any deficiencies... simply things like dropping to B&W etc take seconds.. other more "arty" effects may take longer... Im not refering to taking out blinked eyes to cut and paste eyes from another shot to cover for the inevitable unavoidable duff shot.

And how the hell does selling one disk for £25 to the B&G equate to a pot of gold money spinner??? Why would all the other guests buy it when the B&G can just email them the file?

When "the average Joe" (your words not mine.. i'd never refer to a paying client in such derogatory terms) asks about the purchase of a disk, they are FULLY briefed on the pricing and reasoning behind it... a disc with over 800 images on it has its price based on the fact that if they were to buy 800 prints it would be considerably more. A mute point, however, as sellin on the "negatives" isnt in my business model.

You either have no regard for your interlectual property, nor anyone elses, or you truely do not have value on your work.

'Utter patronising rubbish'? Sorry I disagreed with you. Before I was 'rediculously simplistic' but if I explain myself then I am being 'patronising'.

"The editing is not to cover any deficiencies... simply things like dropping to B&W etc take seconds.. other more "arty" effects may take longer..."
 
What are these more arty effects you speak of?

"Im not refering to taking out blinked eyes to cut and paste eyes from another shot to cover for the inevitable unavoidable duff shot."

The thought that you'd consider taking the eyes of one shot to cover another because of a blink is simply scary. I assume of course you do not do this  so why this is brought up I do not know.

"And how the hell does selling one disk for £25 to the B&G equate to a pot of gold money spinner??? Why would all the other guests buy it when the B&G can just email them the file?"

I explained in detail, you make money of better offers on prints. Most people frame and print their wedding photos so you can offer a nice service at a better rate for them. They can't email that. Remember you made your money on the day for your skilled time.

"When "the average Joe" (your words not mine.. i'd never refer to a paying client in such derogatory terms)"

er, the term 'average Joe' is a slang term to generalise people. It is not condescending but a common way of referring to people who may not be experienced in a certain area as others. Maybe the expression 'I'll put it in lamens terms' also offends you. When you feel the need to make digs at me for simple phrases I must admit I lose a lot of interest in any of your comments and would ask that you try to hold back this kind of reaction. I am very much interested in a mature and adult conversation on this topic without snide digs or remarks.

What this comes down to is this, you charge on the day for your time, but then you charge again for the product of your time. When your plumber comes out he will charge for parts and labour. He doesn't then charge you for everytime you use the piece of piping he put in, would you accept this pay structure?

In the case of photography this is essentially what happens, we pay for your time to take the images and then we pay you again for every image you created during the hours we paid you for anyway?

So I am saying, charge for your time on the day or for the images but not both and then you can also charge for prints, special editing and books and other services.


M

DragonLady , Digital Retoucher  posted on 24/02/2010 17:45:52   Posted 934 times

Located:London,London, UK
Member Since: 07/11/2008

Quoting post from LukeJohnson
I don't think they have gone far enough.

I would suggest that they should abolish the concept of IP. except with respect to commecial use.

I would welcome this. I would never have to pay for another music album (they would only be for my own listening) and I could get my windows software free (again personal use only).

Adobe photoshop would become free to so many people. It would indeed be great.

Taken one step further - I'd never have to buy a game for the Wii or PS3 either, never have to pay to update my GPS software for my car or pay for a DVD I'll just download it and burn my own

etc etc

Being serious for a second - The governments main arguement appears to be "the consultation revealed that people ‘do not understand why they should have to pay for using works in the “cut and paste” world in which we live.’"

Err because its cause its called theft. All I see is that enough people are committing the cime of theft as it is relatively easy, and so the government has caved in to pressure to effectively decriminlise simple copyright theft.

I realise that the current system is not working 100% but I'm not convinced that the new system will be better, fairer or indeed workable.


Question is what next?

I agree that it is an issue, is this workable? I think this is very easy to hack round even if it did come to law.

However to answer the photoshop software comparisons, please see my last post. The point is if the photographer was paid on the day for his hours this should include the images taken on the day (not prints or other after work as this is more hours work after).

So where this is different, in your paradym Photoshop has never been paid for, in the photographer example it was paid for, your hourly fee but then paid for again to get what was created in that hour.

So to bring it back to photoshop would be happy to buy photoshop and then pay everytime you use it?

The Government is saying that where people are confused is that question:
 
Client "but I paid you for the day, what exactly did that cover"
Photographer "my time"
Client "to do what?"
Photographer "take photos"
Client "but I have to now pay for the photos on top?"
Photographer "yes"

You see why people may not quite understand what they are paying for, they think they are paying you to take photos it is natural to assume you then get the photos in that cost.

M

DragonLady , Digital Retoucher  posted on 24/02/2010 17:54:34   Posted 934 times

Located:London,London, UK
Member Since: 07/11/2008

Quoting post from DesignandImageStudio
Just a little question - why are they picking on photographers the written word, music, video, and movies all have  exactly the same "intellectual rights" but as we are constantly reminded copying music/videos/books are killing the relevent industries. and if anyone dares to copy winnie the pooh they are hung drawn and quartered (i know its a misquote but it sings better) the copyright law for winie the pooh has been extended twice that i know of for the sake of the trust!

Glenn (doublescotch and designandimagestudio)

Excellent point and a good comparison.

I think the difference is that in music you are only paying for the end product, the song. With photography as I mentioned before you pay the photographers fee and then for the images.

If photographers only charged for the images I do not think this law would even be in consideration and you'd be under the same view as the music industry.

M

DragonLady , Digital Retoucher  posted on 24/02/2010 17:58:18   Posted 934 times

Located:London,London, UK
Member Since: 07/11/2008

Quoting post from DragonLady

'Utter patronising rubbish'? Sorry I disagreed with you. Before I was 'rediculously simplistic' but if I explain myself then I am being 'patronising'.

"The editing is not to cover any deficiencies... simply things like dropping to B&W etc take seconds.. other more "arty" effects may take longer..."
 
What are these more arty effects you speak of?

"Im not refering to taking out blinked eyes to cut and paste eyes from another shot to cover for the inevitable unavoidable duff shot."

The thought that you'd consider taking the eyes of one shot to cover another because of a blink is simply scary. I assume of course you do not do this {;)}  so why this is brought up I do not know.

"And how the hell does selling one disk for £25 to the B&G equate to a pot of gold money spinner??? Why would all the other guests buy it when the B&G can just email them the file?"

I explained in detail, you make money of better offers on prints. Most people frame and print their wedding photos so you can offer a nice service at a better rate for them. They can't email that. Remember you made your money on the day for your skilled time.

"When "the average Joe" (your words not mine.. i'd never refer to a paying client in such derogatory terms)"

er, the term 'average Joe' is a slang term to generalise people. It is not condescending but a common way of referring to people who may not be experienced in a certain area as others. Maybe the expression 'I'll put it in lamens terms' also offends you. When you feel the need to make digs at me for simple phrases I must admit I lose a lot of interest in any of your comments and would ask that you try to hold back this kind of reaction. I am very much interested in a mature and adult conversation on this topic without snide digs or remarks.

What this comes down to is this, you charge on the day for your time, but then you charge again for the product of your time. When your plumber comes out he will charge for parts and labour. He doesn't then charge you for everytime you use the piece of piping he put in, would you accept this pay structure?

In the case of photography this is essentially what happens, we pay for your time to take the images and then we pay you again for every image you created during the hours we paid you for anyway?

So I am saying, charge for your time on the day or for the images but not both and then you can also charge for prints, special editing and books and other services.


M

this is where you simply dont understand the industry...

I charge On the day fees, as ALL wedding photographers do, for the On The Day product.. i.e the time spent shooting the wedding, the production and supply of the album.

Why then would i give away the image files on disc ? the after print sales, as i've said earlier, is the actual profit earner.. the cost of the On The Day product is pretty much break even.

Im sure that, after you spent time retouching or creating some digital image, you'd feel mightly pi$$ed off if someone came along and said "oh i'm having that for my website.. oh but im not paying you for it"

And no.. the plumber wouldnt charge you for everytime you used the bathrooom... But you wouldnt call him a month after he's fitted it and expect an ensuite shower for free...

Quoting post from AMPhotographique

this is where you simply dont understand the industry...

I charge On the day fees, as ALL wedding photographers do, for the On The Day product.. i.e the time spent shooting the wedding, the production and supply of the album.

Why then would i give away the image files on disc ? the after print sales, as i've said earlier, is the actual profit earner.. the cost of the On The Day product is pretty much break even.

Im sure that, after you spent time retouching or creating some digital image, you'd feel mightly pi$$ed off if someone came along and said "oh i'm having that for my website.. oh but im not paying you for it"

And no.. the plumber wouldnt charge you for everytime you used the bathrooom... But you wouldnt call him a month after he's fitted it and expect an ensuite shower for free...

I think I need more explanation:

"I charge On the day fees, as ALL wedding photographers do, for the On The Day product.. i.e the time spent shooting the wedding, the production and supply of the album."

If I am reading this correctly you are stating you produce and supply the album on the same day? Obviously you do not.

So my point was, you charge for shooting the wedding, and then you have a service they can choose to purchase of 'album, binded with prints' which you have another charge for to cover the time of this.

"Why then would i give away the image files on disc ? the after print sales, as i've said earlier, is the actual profit earner.. the cost of the On The Day product is pretty much break even."

If your on the day costs end up break even then you need to go and see an accountant. Your camera is a fixed cost as is all your equipment. So your hourly fee is all profit minus travel costs (which should be taken into account of the hourly fee and aportioned). Like I said, I would charge for extra hours after the day for any post production if they request it.

"Im sure that, after you spent time retouching or creating some digital image, you'd feel mightly pi$$ed off if someone came along and said "oh i'm having that for my website.. oh but im not paying you for it"

I would have charged for the retouch work, my hourly rate when I first made the image. So no I wouldn't be annoyed about someone using my work for free on a non commercial site. I'd be quite flattered. It would be nice to make more money from it but I haven't done any extra work so why should I.

"And no.. the plumber wouldnt charge you for everytime you used the bathrooom... But you wouldnt call him a month after he's fitted it and expect an ensuite shower for free... "

The shower later is a new product/service, if I asked you to photograph 2 weddings I'd expect to pay your hourly wage on both days, this is not the same as I suggested before.

So I have to question what your hourly wage is you charge that leads you to break even on the day, unless somehow walking around the room holding a camera is incurring some cost you need to cover?

To highlight my confusion:
If I buy equipment for £2000. I charge £50 an hour (apportioning fuel costs). I average 11 hours per wedding.

It takes me 4 weddings to cover my equipment cost, making £2200.

My next wedding I make 550, where are these costs to make me only break even? You need to explain to me the extra flexible costs I am unaware of that you seem to incur at each wedding.

The album creation I would charge as an extra calculating my hours to make it at £50 an hour and the cost of the materials. That's my selling price for the album.

I don't see why this is such a problem?

M

DragonLady , Digital Retoucher  posted on 24/02/2010 18:24:36   Posted 934 times

Located:London,London, UK
Member Since: 07/11/2008