Jump to content


Photo

My @#%%# Photographer!!!


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#31 Christian

Christian

    Advanced Member

  • frequent poster
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts

Posted 22 June 2004 - 11:03 PM

QUOTE (cassarilda @ Jun 4 2004, 10:32 PM)
\
Technically thats not true....  but if you say that "you have had advice that you are well within your rights to get the negatives".   The photographer owns all original photos/digifiles/negatives unless written into the contract.  They also own copyright, once again unless written into contract.

Oh and most photographers shoot digital now. while still some shoot film, most is digital and if you want the pictures, make sure you stipulate that you want the full/high resolution images (untouched, although you wont get any of the retouching if any was done).

Usually, if you want the above, you have to pay quite a bit. Having the originals is the main way photographers get their continuous income (reprints, family orders etc).

However, it may be reasonable for you to inform him that due to his bad customer service and stress he put you through, that he offer you the pics for a lower cost than normal. Put it to him that you wont be using him again (tell him you'll copy the album prints if you have to ... he cant say anything, cos he didnt have a contract stating that you cant do that), and that if he wants any more money from him, that he should be smart and sell you the images.   The highest I've ever heard for this is $800 and that was a nationally AIPP recognised Master Photographer, so dont let him go any higher than, say, $500. I wouldnt even offer him that...  maybe get your friend to go visit him and barter for it. Its a lot of money, but at least you get the pictures.

THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT OWNERSHIP/COPYRIGHT OF NEGATIVES/IMAGES...

Copyright law was recently (a few years ago) changed to bring the law regarding Photographer's rights more in line with world thinking.

The law used to be on the consumer's side, ie; the commissioning agent (that's the person that paid for the work) owned the copyright unless assigned otherwise.

The law now states that the author owns copyright (ie; the photographer) unless otherwise assigned...

...except for domestic photography (ie; wedding and portrait).

However, this does not mean that you have ownership of any media used to store the images (ie; negatives etc). It just means that as owner of the images you control usage and reproduction.

Now you know why you sign a contract, the photographer is (usually) re-assigning copyright... wink.gif

PS. The professional photography community is lobbying for this to be changed in line with general commissioned photography, ie; the author owns copyright.
Christian Wright - Dip Phot
Baulkham Hills, NSW

#32 Christian

Christian

    Advanced Member

  • frequent poster
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts

Posted 22 June 2004 - 11:07 PM

PS. Most wedding photographers still shoot film, but the tide is turning...
Christian Wright - Dip Phot
Baulkham Hills, NSW

#33 andrew81

andrew81

    Newbie

  • New User
  • Pip
  • 27 posts

Posted 18 July 2004 - 04:00 PM

thats absolutly disgraseful!!!


#34 pinkbutterfly

pinkbutterfly

    So much more than JUST Audrey's Mummy

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,184 posts

Posted 18 July 2004 - 07:41 PM

I am so glad you got your photos!

After you have finished your dealings with him, I would definately tell the reception place and hope that they don't reccomend them to anyone else.

I'd try to get the negs bag for sure!

Good Luck!

Amanda

PS - Going to check all my contracts now....
<a href="http://s82.photobucket.com/albums/j276/hailtothebusdriver/2010/?action=view&current=IMG_6274-1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j276/hailtothebusdriver/2010/IMG_6274-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://www.TickerFactory.com/">
<img border="0" src="http://tickers.TickerFactory.com/ezt/d/4;10732;128/st/20101010/e/Our+Big+Cruise/dt/14/k/53ff/event.png"></a>

Please visit Our Website and don't forget to sign the guestbook!


#35 MrsMummyBurns

MrsMummyBurns

    Susan

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,401 posts

Posted 23 August 2004 - 08:04 AM

QUOTE
THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT OWNERSHIP/COPYRIGHT OF NEGATIVES/IMAGES...

Copyright law was recently (a few years ago) changed to bring the law regarding Photographer's rights more in line with world thinking.

The law used to be on the consumer's side, ie; the commissioning agent (that's the person that paid for the work) owned the copyright unless assigned otherwise.

The law now states that the author owns copyright (ie; the photographer) unless otherwise assigned...

...except for domestic photography (ie; wedding and portrait).


If this is true then you can go to the local camera house/Kodak and get them to do it off your proofs. They can also do enlargements.

But send your photographer a letter first then ring consumer affairs again and ask them if you are entitled to the negs coz you waited so long.

<center>IPB Image




</center>

#36 Christian

Christian

    Advanced Member

  • frequent poster
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts

Posted 23 August 2004 - 08:20 AM

QUOTE (Clueless Bride @ Aug 23 2004, 09:04 AM)

If this is true then you can go to the local camera house/Kodak and get them to do it off your proofs. They can also do enlargements.

But send your photographer a letter first then ring consumer affairs again and ask them if you are entitled to the negs coz you waited so long.

It's true Susan, the Copyright Act is quite clear on this. Forget the negatives though, the Dept of Consumer Affairs (or any other body for that matter) has no jurisdiction (nor should it) over the supply of negatives.

Unless otherwise negotiated, the negatives always remain the property of the studio/photographer.
Christian Wright - Dip Phot
Baulkham Hills, NSW




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users