Any professional photographers? (1 Viewer)

[RudysNYC]

Hoping for some guidance about a situation I find myself in... any help would be appreciated!

I’m hoping to get professional, archive-quality photographs of an artifact taken, but I want to make sure I retain the full rights to the images and that they don’t get included on the photographer’s website portfolio (I own the piece, nothing unkosher here). I’m trying to be neither cryptic nor a prick, it’s just I’m in a situation where I want all rights.

Will I get cursed out by a photographer for this? The last time I interacted with a hired photographer in a professional setting was when I hit on the smoke show my parents hired to photgraph my bar mitzvah... I’m hoping this is much less cringe-inducing lol

Thanks in advance!

 

[horseshoez]

PAGING @Eloe2000, paaaaaging @Eloe2000, please report.

 

[CraigT78]

I retain the full rights to the images

This should not be a problem, but do expect that you'll pay for this request.

 

[Saoliver]

@justsomedude

 

[khp]

I think rights to the photos are automatically included, and that they need to ask you for permission if they want to include it in their portfolio/advertising. Either way, it should be stated explicitly in any contract.

 

[Eloe2000]

I think Justin and I are the only career photographers here. He has a commercial photography studio and I currently have a wedding photography studio but used to do commercial.

This is a rather basic and common question with an easy answer, but I will fully flush it out. The short answer is that usage should always be a part of the conversation when contracting a photographer. You can come to whatever agreement you two decide upon and put whatever you want in a contract. Given the nature of this shoot it sounds pretty straight forward and agreeable although additional rights can cost more.

A contract photographer owns the copyright the instant the photograph is taken (US law but differs elsewhere). However if the photographer was an employee and the photograph was taken pursuant to that employment then the other employer would own the copyright (US).

“Rights” are not a monolith. Just because I take a photograph, even under contract, and own the copyright that does not necessarily give me the right to use the image any way I want. Even with copyright, we do not inherently have the right to use the likeness of a person, a brand, a property, etc. This is the reason we generally need a “model release clause” which we include in the contract. I don’t know if this would be necessary as the photographer to display or distribute a photograph of your object because I don’t know the nature of the object. The usage of the image should always be discussed by the photographer because it is part and parcel to the work being performed. It is not uncommon to negotiate with a photographer for a restriction of usage, especially in my business.

Now when you say “I want to keep full rights” that implies to a photographer that you want them to transfer full copyrights to you so that you can edit/alter/reproduce/distribute/publicize/sell the images yourself. This is the whole ball of wax and generally not cheap. Limited commercial usage alone for a single photo is often thousands of dollars for a set time period. Full transfer of copyright would cost more than that. But if all you are looking to do is to restrict the photographer from using/publishing the images then you want to be very clear about that.

In my business, there are three buckets of rights and usage that are applicable. I typically contractually retain full copyright and also require a signed model release. That is the most common by far and my standard pricing applies. In the second bucket we have instances where clients just want privacy and wish not to have their wedding photos published publicly on my website, Instagram, etc. I used to charge a slight premium for privacy, but often agree to privacy these days without charge. Lastly, and very rarely, someone will want full transfer of copyright so that they can use the images commercially themselves. This only happens in situations with celebrities where they intend to resell the images or use them for commercial purposes themselves. This is very uncommon and also very expensive for them.

So, clarify your specific desires a bit more. Don’t go around telling photographers that you “want all of the rights”. Not that they will get offended, but they will get the incorrect and costly idea. If all you are looking for is privacy of these images then inquire with photographers about retaining privacy of the images. If you intend to use the images yourself for commercial purposes and will alter/reproduce/distribute/publicize the images then be very specific there as well because all of this should be contracted and will effect the price significantly.

If you want more specific advice just PM me or Justin.

 

[joepro]

“Come on!! What is it?"

...

 

[justsomedude]

I’m hoping to get professional, archive-quality photographs of an artifact taken, but I want to make sure I retain the full rights to the images and that they don’t get included on the photographer’s website portfolio

If all you are looking for is privacy of these images then inquire with photographers about retaining privacy of the images.

^^^^ This.

As @Eloe2000 stated, your clearest path forward is probably just to explain your desire for privacy regarding the photos up front, and maybe not even mention rights. When someone contacts me requesting "full rights" - "all images" - "raw files" - "give me everything" - etc., the email chain can go down a rabbit hole, mainly because they don't truly understand the request they've made. I'm now at the point where I either refer such inquiries to a more inexperienced colleague, or ignore the email entirely. I'm simply "too old for this shit."

As previously stated, a photographer in the US owns copyright as soon as he/she pushes the shutter button. It's just how our laws work. Legitimately requesting transfer of "full rights" is typically cost prohibitive, unless you're an ad agency working with a sound budget, and this is usually made clear in the introductory email (and those people know exactly what they're requesting). In my experience most people initiating contact with a photographer with such "full rights" requests are usually doing so out of ignorance of the terminology and incorrect prior assumptions about image ownership, which can be misconstrued as "rudeness."

My advice: Just be honest. When inquiring with photographers just share the same info you posted here... that this is a highly personal artifact/item; that you want the images to remain completely private and outside any public portfolio / other use besides your own; and that these terms be written into any contract/agreement. And if you really don't know what you mean when you say you want "full rights" - then don't say it. You're just asking for headaches.

KISS... keep it simple stupid.

If you intend to use the images yourself for commercial purposes and will alter/reproduce/distribute/publicize the images then be very specific there as well because all of this should be contracted and will effect the price significantly.

And yes, if you intend to use the images commercially or edit/alter them once you receive them, that must be conveyed to the photographer up front as well. If your photographer sees them in the December issue of National Geographic after you told him they were for personal/private use, you're gonna have some splainin' to do.

 

[RudysNYC]

Thanks for the wonderful info @Eloe2000 and @justsomedude ! Very, very helpful.

I am looking to secure the usage rights so I could potentially use it commercially. Going to have to do some serious thinking...

 

[Eloe2000]

Thanks for the wonderful info @Eloe2000 and @justsomedude ! Very, very helpful.

I am looking to secure the usage rights so I could potentially use it commercially. Going to have to do some serious thinking...

Best advice is to not mention “rights” at all and just explain exactly what you are looking to do and how you intend to use the images given basic/common language. There are still a lot of variables/circumstances possible here that all effect the situation and pricing. This is still just a basic commercial shoot. It’s not complicated and an experienced professional has this conversation every time they engage with a new project. I am sure you will not have a problem reviewing the contract to ensure it accurately reflects the agreement

Feel free to PM if you want to be slightly more specific.

 

[justsomedude]

Thanks for the wonderful info @Eloe2000 and @justsomedude ! Very, very helpful.

I am looking to secure the usage rights so I could potentially use it commercially. Going to have to do some serious thinking...

Remember... “useage” vs “full rights” can be two different things.

I’ve been asked to include the phrase “unlimited use in any/all media (print and digital) in perpetuity” in contracts before. It’s not an outlandish request. It just comes with a price.

Just let your photographer know that’s what you want, while also requesting he/she be limited in their own use of the images.

 

[justsomedude]

Best advice is to not mention “rights” at all and just explain exactly what you are looking to do and how you intend to use the images given basic/common language.

Bingo!

 

[justsomedude]

And I probably shouldn’t post this publicly... but you can probably get a new/inexperienced photographer to grant you “full rights” in a contract.

There are always people on Craigslist just starting out looking to build their portfolio, and will agree to just about anything to get a gig.

Not that I want to encourage taking advantage of some one just starting out, but every business owner has made mistakes and bad decisions along the way. Myself included.

Of course, with this approach you run the risk of obtaining lower quality images and having a less professional experience from the start... but you may ultimately get what you want at a much lower price.

Just remember...

You want professional?
You’re gonna pay professional.
You want amateur night?
You’re gonna get amateur night.

 

[RudysNYC]

And I probably shouldn’t post this publicly... but you can probably get a new/inexperienced photographer to grant you “full rights” in a contract.

There are always people on Craigslist just starting out looking to build their portfolio, and will agree to just about anything to get a gig.

Not that I want to encourage taking advantage of some one just starting out, but every business owner has made mistakes and bad decisions along the way.

Of course, with this approach you run the risk of obtaining lower quality images and having a less professional interaction from the start... but you may ultimately get what you want at a much lower price.

Just remember...

You want professional? You’re gonna pay professional.
You want amateur night? You’re gonna get amateur night.

Went through my head too, but a) I want good photos, and b) I don't want to scum anyone even if it's not exactly "scumming"

I have a few Nikon DSLRs for work with which I could even take the photos myself, but these photos will be for publishing/art books, so I'm gunning for the good stuff...

 

[justsomedude]

Are my clients lurking on PCF?

Not only does this guy want "all rights," but I love how he just dives in head-first by calling them "our photographs"...

 

[Eloe2000]

Are my clients lurking on PCF?

Not only does this guy want "all rights," but I love how he just dives in head-first by calling them "our photographs"...

View attachment 714072

You cropped out the rest of the message...

"...we have a sizeable social media presence and can offer you significant exposure. We were hoping to collaborate with you on this project."

 

[justsomedude]

You cropped out the rest of the message...

"...we have a sizeable social media presence and can offer you significant exposure. We were hoping to collaborate with you on this project."

Seriously lol'd at this.

 

[Eloe2000]

Seriously lol'd at this.

I wish I had an email plug-in so that anytime it picked up the word "collaborate" in an email it would auto-respond with "GFYS!"

 

[justsomedude]

@Eloe2000 ... you see the new Super Resolution feature in in the Lightroom update?

It instantly enlarges the selected RAW image 2x, for massive prints, etc., and it's damn good. It's even better than ON1's PerfectResize.

I'm impressed.

 

[Eloe2000]

@Eloe2000 ... you see the new Super Resolution feature in in the Lightroom update?

It instantly enlarges the selected RAW image 2x, for massive prints, etc., and it's damn good. It's even better than ON1's PerfectResize.

I'm impressed.

I did not! That is pretty amazing. I actually haven't paid attention to the release updates on the last couple updates of either LR or PS. There are probably a bunch of goodies that I am not hip to you!

 

[justsomedude]

I did not! That is pretty amazing. I actually haven't paid attention to the release updates on the last couple updates of either LR or PS. There are probably a bunch of goodies that I am not hip to you!

I get it. When I was running from gig to gig I ignored most feature enhancements... I just clicked "update" and went about my work.

But with our recent move and a brand new PC build to boot, I've had some time to look under the hood of the newest LR version and have "rediscovered" it so to speak. There's definitely some cool goodies in here!

 

[pltrgyst]

As previously stated, a photographer in the US owns copyright as soon as he/she pushes the shutter button. It's just how our laws work.

Sorry, but this is not true.

What you want is a "work for hire" contract with the photographer, which in effect, renders him your employee for the contracted work. And in that case, every time he pushes the shutter release, that shot belongs to you.

See the "Work for Hire" circular from the US Copyright Office, at
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

(Yeah, I worked my way through college doing weddings and horse shows. The horse shows were much more enjoyable... )

 

[justsomedude]

Sorry, but this is not true.

What you want is a "work for hire" contract with the photographer, which in effect, renders him your employee for the contracted work. And in that case, every time he pushes the shutter release, that shot belongs to you.

See the "Work for Hire" circular from the US Copyright Office, at
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

(Yeah, I worked my way through college doing weddings and horse shows. The horse shows were much more enjoyable... )

This has already been discussed in this thread:

A contract photographer owns the copyright the instant the photograph is taken (US law but differs elsewhere). However if the photographer was an employee and the photograph was taken pursuant to that employment then the other employer would own the copyright (US).

Yes, you can enter into contract with a photographer under "work for hire" terms, but the fees (at least for most self-respecting photographers), are typically exorbitant and often times cost prohibitive.

 

[Percy7]

This has already been discussed in this thread:



Yes, you can enter into contract with a photographer under "work for hire" terms, but the fees (at least for most self-respecting photographers), are typically exorbitant and often times cost prohibitive.

Echoing this sentiment. My wife caters to some clients when a candid conversation about privacy is had upfront. But she takes a work for hire request as kind of a slap to the face. Discretion can be obtained by other means.. I mean as long as it’s not an alien life form or something.