Advice needed regarding digital wedding albulm idea!!
Fotofin
I have contemplated creating digital wedding albums from old and new photos for
gifts or actual wedding services. The albulm would be a self running program
on Macintosh or PC and would contain any photographs with retouching or color
correcting services, along with any digital compositing or manipulation
required. The album would contain music or voices and possibly small quicktime
videos.
Any input on this idea would be helpful, does anyone find this interesting?
How much would someone pay for this service. Any advice or ideas would be
appreciated. Thanks
Chris
Karen Simmons
Fotofin wrote:
>
> I have contemplated creating digital wedding albums from
> old and new photos for gifts or actual wedding services.
Just remember that professional photographs are copyrighted. That means
reproduction rights belong to the photographer and you will be violating
the law if you create a product for sale from his/her images without
his/her permission.
Otherwise, I suppose it would be a worthwhile service. I dont' know
that I'd necessarily pay for it, but then it's something I can do myself
if I want to.
Karen
--
----------------------------
Karen Simmons, Photographer
The DK Gallery
http://www.thedkgallery.com
Atlanta, GA 404.233.1230
----------------------------
Anthony
>Just remember that professional photographs are copyrighted.
And if they are work for hire, the copyright belongs to the person who paid
for the photographs, not the photographer. Thus, if a party pays a
photographer to photograph a wedding, and the contract recognizes this as
work for hire, the copyright belongs to the customer, not the photographer.
And, personally, I don't see why anyone would not insist on a contract that
sets this out explicitly. Anyone with the right equipment can photograph a
wedding--no significant act of artistic creation is necessary (although it
helps).
I've always considered it kind of a joke that some commercial photo mills
have the nerve to stamp copyright notices on their assembly-line work. If I
were to take a picture for someone, I'd give him all the rights, unless the
picture involve some sort of real-world artistic input, and not just the
recording of light upon film. Wedding and other routine photos are often
nothing that could not be accomplished by a properly programmed robot.
--
Anthony
Anthony
>Read the contract. It is very very rare that a photographer cedes all
>rights.
It's a wonder that they find work, then. I suppose most clients don't care,
or don't know any better.
>Obviously you are totally clueless as to why some pictures are better
>than others. Equipment has little to do with it.
Many people are satisfied with even extremely ordinary shots. How else
would so many picture mills stay in business? Wedding photography is
well-established and straightforward. Yes, some photographers are very
artistic and creative and can do great work at a wedding, but most people
buying wedding pictures don't really care.
>There work may not be up to "your standards" but they are as entitled to
>the same protection of the law as anyone else.
Of course; I just find it amusing that they believe anyone would try to
steal their work. It's like copyrighting the design on a paper cup. And if
every one of their photos is exactly the same, I wonder if the copyrights
are even enforceable.
>Obviously if your photos are good enough so that someone is willing to
>pay you then you are also good enough to be considered at least slightly
>artistic.
Not necessarily. There is such a thing as pure documentaton. You put
everyone together, tell them to smile, and snap the shutter. Anyone can
learn to do it, with or without artistic talent.
>There are great wedding photos and crap.
I think that most people don't really notice or care about the difference.
--
Anthony
Liam Cahill
wrote:
>Karen Simmons wrote in message <35A14994...@mindspring.com>...
>
>>Just remember that professional photographs are copyrighted.
>
Hi Anthony,
Some interesting views here.
>>And if they are work for hire, the copyright belongs to the person who paid for the photographs, not the photographer. Thus, if a party pays a photographer to photograph a wedding, and the contract recognises this as work for hire, the copyright belongs to the customer,<<
If it is stipulated in the contract that the copyright of all photos
will belong to the hirer and the Photographer agrees and signs the
contract, then who can argue?
>>And, personally, I don't see why anyone would not insist on a contract that sets this out explicitly.<<
That's fair enough. But if the Photographer equally insists on a
contract _retaining_ copyright which the majority do. What then,
surely it's simply a question of market forces, of supply and demand?
>>Anyone with the right equipment can photograph a wedding<<
You'll get quite a bit of disagreement on this but I happen to think
you are probably right. Modern cameras can be idiot proof. Autoload
and autofocus, autoflash fill, E ttl A ttl and a host of other
refinements. Some reading, knowledge of the ceremonials, a sharp
brain, some practice and anyone CAN photograph a wedding. Whether well
or not is another matter.
>-- no significant act of artistic creation is necessary (although it helps).<
Now here's where it gets difficult to agree.
Sure, anyone can go 'by the book' and if they are at all 'with it' can
turn in properly exposed photographs with everyone's teeth displayed
and all their eyes open. This may be enough to ensure you'll never be
sued for breach of contract but you'll starve if you rely on it for
your livelihood.
There's an indefinable quality in a well made 'people' picture and if
it's missing you know it! It's a form of intimacy, of simpatico. On a
personal note. I love to photograph people. My best photos are of
those I love. Then of those I like. I have never taken a 'good'
photograph of someone I disliked. Perhaps that's why I was never
attracted to PJ. The old debate of whether Photography is Art or not
was always dead for me. It's a bit like asking, is painting Art? The
Photographer is simply rearranging atoms in a material to reflect
his/her view of the world and it doesn't matter whether these are the
atoms in clay, marble, paint pigment or what ever. It's the endeavour
that makes the Artist and the market decides if the results are Art
or not, whether now or in the future.
>If Iwere to take a picture for someone, I'd give him all the rights, unless the picture involve some sort of real-world artistic input, and not just the recording of light upon film.<
Again, that's fine. That's what you would do and good luck to you for
sticking to your principles. If you price your work accordingly and it
works for you and your client then everybody's happy. If you do
weddings on this basis and do them well, I can't see how you'll ever
be short of work. Though it is interesting that you say >I'd give him
all the rights< Sort of implies the 'rights' are yours to give.
My daughter brought home the school class photo yesterday. 35 children
in three rows all grinning to order with their teacher standing to
attention beside them. I wonder who you'd give the neg to. The School
doesn't want the hassle.
> other routine photos are often nothing that could not be accomplished by a properly programmed robot.<
Come to think of it these school photos were taken by a robot (on a
wage) and the results are ... well, there's no other word for it.
Mechanical.
Regards
Liam
Remove Wil if you must.
Anthony
>If it is stipulated in the contract that the copyright of all photos
>will belong to the hirer and the Photographer agrees and signs the
>contract, then who can argue?
My understanding is that it must be explicitly stated in a contract for
commissioned work, otherwise the copyright rests with the the photographer.
Were he actually an employee, though, the copyright in his work would
automatically pass to his employer.
>That's fair enough. But if the Photographer equally insists on a
>contract _retaining_ copyright which the majority do. What then,
>surely it's simply a question of market forces, of supply and demand?
Yes. If all you want is pictures of a wedding, you can often skip the
professional and find a competent amateur who will do it for free. If you
have your heart set on the work of a specific photographer, then you may be
more willing to give up the rights to the images.
The gray area is in photo mills that assert a copyright in photographs that
any technician can take with a few minutes of instruction. There is no art
or creation in such photographs, any more than there is art or creation in
painting a stop sign.
>You'll get quite a bit of disagreement on this but I happen to think
>you are probably right. Modern cameras can be idiot proof.
Exactly. Most people won't recognize the difference between an
expertly-photographed wedding picture and a casually-photographed picture.
In fact, I think the major difference is in getting enlargements, not in the
photograph itself, and you can always have snapshots enlarged.
>Some reading, knowledge of the ceremonials, a sharp
>brain, some practice and anyone CAN photograph a wedding. Whether well
>or not is another matter.
Well enough for most people, I daresay.
>Sure, anyone can go 'by the book' and if they are at all 'with it' can
>turn in properly exposed photographs with everyone's teeth displayed
>and all their eyes open.
I was thinking more of portrait photography in franchised photo mills,
although I suppose they do weddings, too (?). Then again, maybe they don't
do weddings, precisely _because_ photographing them actually does require
some creative input (however modest).
>There's an indefinable quality in a well made 'people' picture and if
>it's missing you know it!
Only if you have another photograph with that quality to which you can
compare it, which most people don't.
>I love to photograph people.
I do, too. But I can't photograph anyone without a release, and so very few
of my photographs ever include people.
>Though it is interesting that you say >I'd give him
>all the rights< Sort of implies the 'rights' are yours to give.
If it is commissioned work, I must explicitly give him rights to the
photograph. If I am his employee, this is not necessary.
>My daughter brought home the school class photo yesterday. 35 children
>in three rows all grinning to order with their teacher standing to
>attention beside them. I wonder who you'd give the neg to. The School
>doesn't want the hassle.
Who holds the copyright on the photograph?
>Come to think of it these school photos were taken by a robot (on a
>wage) and the results are ... well, there's no other word for it.
>Mechanical.
Exactly. But even the "creative" stuff can be produced mechanically--I've
seen plenty of such stuff from the franchised mills. Someone with a brain
develops a model that works, and then all the robots are trained to follow
that model meticulously. The only creation was in the mind of the person
who developed the
model (and even that was not very great, in the examples I have seen). It
seems to impress the masses, though.
--
Anthony
Karen Simmons
> photo mills, although I suppose they do weddings, too (?).
Just an idle comment here <g>. The franchise places *don't* do
weddings. Olan Mills, Sears, Penny's, etc. - call and ask any of them.
They will not do weddings.
Karen
WilLia...@compuserve.com
Cahill) wrote:
>On Tue, 7 Jul 1998 20:38:14 +0200, "Anthony" <mxsm...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Karen Simmons wrote in message <35A14994...@mindspring.com>...
>>
>>>Just remember that professional photographs are copyrighted.
>>
>Hi Anthony,
>
Thanks for your reply. I'm afraid I deleted it in error after I read
it yesterday. (Just started using this thing.) But from what I
remember we don't have any major disagreement.
I'm glad you agree good wedding photography requires a degree of
skill if not artistry.
We too have lots of these portrait outfits in supermarket with names
like 'Umbrasol' and such. Standard lighting setup, standard cliched
props with backgrounds that haven't changed in 50 years. The Camera's
f stop is usually taped at f11 and an 'operative' on a minimum wage
wielding a glove puppet coaxes a smile with a "let's all grin for
Granny" or "smelly socks" from the little horrors. Formula work or not
they seem to do well enough. I don't see many going bust.They are very
strong on copyright though with reminders posted everywhere.
This whole issue of copyright and what can and can't be copied for
private use is a real can of worms. Take as an example the school
photo I mentioned and say I scan that to use as wallpaper on my
daughters computer, I think that's considered fair private use. Say I
then transmit a Gif of the same picture to a distant relative, is that
still fair private use? If it's not and the recipient, after viewing
it, promptly deletes it. Is it still an 'offence'? Where does it
end, What if I make a little home video to send to relatives overseas
and zoom in on the Pro portraits on the wall or in an album, what then
if the recipient freezes and prints a frame? I made the video didn't
I?
Most people don't object at the moment because the quality isn't all
that, but that won't always be the case. Digital video with quality
still frame capture is here already. Soon we will all have laser
quality printers at home hooked up to digital TV/Computers linked to
the WWW via ISDN or even better! No amount of 'watermarking' or other
digital jiggerypokery is going to prevent copying. Rewritable DVD CD
technology is already sending shudders through the music and video
world. I could buy Photoshop 4 on a gold disk here for $50 if I wanted
to. (No Emails or spooks please ... I use CorelPaint) ..... as I said
it's a can of worms ....and I don't have any answers ... but there has
to be a major shift in the whole concept of copyright and patent law
worldwide. The idea that a gene of mine can become some Corporation's
intellectual property annoys me more than a little.
Regards
Liam