a release letter to print MY pictures?

bell · bell's Garage

earlier today michelle went to walmart to have some of our wedding picture printed, did everything online first, then get's an email that they're ready.
they would not give them to her as she did not have a "release" form for the pics, we paid a proffesional photographer and have the master disk and the pics are of us but they gave us this bs.
so we went to walgreens and were out of there in 10 minutes with no hassles whatsoever......

anyone else run into this?

red-beard · red-beard's Garage

Yes. When we bought the negatives, we also bought the release from the photoghapher. Some places want to see the release, to cover their butts.

gchappel · 12-24-2007, 03:53 PM

Unless the photographer signed a release-they, not you, still own the copyright. Yes, I understand you paid for the photographer and they are pictures of your wedding, but you probably do not own the copyright. Without a release no professional site should print the files.
BTW walgreens can be fined/sued for printing the pictures without said release. You may have a disk to look at, but that may not give you the right to print the pictures. Do the right thing- talk to your photographer and either get the prints directly from them, or get a release. Yes, that is why they cost less printing from the disk- without a release you are stealing from the artist. I shoot weddings for friends, and I will give them a copyright release. Most pro photographers will either refuse, or charge additional fees for the copyright.
Gary

Zeke · 12-24-2007, 03:57 PM

Oh please. If these were of some commercial value, OK. But these are the man's wedding pics for chrissakes! I think the world we have made for ourselves stinks to hell.

equality72521 · 12-24-2007, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts

When I hire a computer programmer to create code for me, he doesn't own the code.-Wayne

WERD!

red-beard · red-beard's Garage

Wayne, the photographer for our wedding was included in the package, the production of the photos was not. We bought the negatives and the release as part of our package. We took the included photos, but opted to have the enlargements done where we wanted.

gchappel · 12-24-2007, 05:19 PM

Sorry, but again the artist owns the copyright unless specifically released. In the past people ordered their prints from the photographer. Now, no one thinks a thing of scanning the prints for copies- sure it is cheaper, but steals from the artist.
Their are now 2 different pricing structures used by most wedding photographers.
One is the older model where you pay a minimum fee, and the photographer expects to make his money from selling you reprints. If you paid less than $1000, this is the model you are probably working under. The newer model- which has developed because people no longer respect the copyright, charges a much larger fee upfront, usually at least $3000- and then gives you the files and the right to print for yourself. Even then, the copyright usually resides with the artist.
Companies, such as Walmart's, can and have been sued for printing copyrighted images. Try getting a studio's prints, like Olan Mills Studios, copied anywhere. No one can legally copy and print them except the studio. Most wedding images are similarly protected- again unless released from the artist.
Gary

john70t · 12-24-2007, 05:23 PM

$3,000 buys a nice digital 35mm and some beer.

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

It needs to be in the original contract that work product is the exclusive property of the employer.

I've done a huge amount of photography in the past 30 years and have never pressed for a renewed license, but there have been instances where I could've.

Wedding photographers sometimes count on making money on the prints, mounting and framing. In the case where you have a full resolution disk or negative, you own it by default.

Like musicians, photographers are learning to be pragmatic in the digital age.

gchappel · 12-24-2007, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john70t

$3,000 buys a nice digital 35mm and some beer.

The $5000 I spent for my 3.2 partial rebuild would have bought a nice set of tools as well. Sorry, but there is a lot more to taking good photos than owning a good camera. We all look around for the best porsche mechanics- but they may not own the best tools.
A good pot does not make a good cook.
Gary

cstreit · cstreit's Garage

How the hell would they know that the files he uploaded had ANY copyright on them?

gchappel · 12-24-2007, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cstreit

How the hell would they know that the files he uploaded had ANY copyright on them?

The copyright will be listed in the exif data which is linked in each picture.
I have never pushed for the copyright ownership of my work, but I have had to issue several release letters before friends could have the files printed. Professional printers can usually tell a "pro's" work simply by looking at it- for the most part. I do mostly bird, and landscape work now- published occasionally, paid even more occasionally. I agree the files are there to be printed- but that is how many pros make their money. It would be much like me copying the files from a Steve Wong chip and selling them for a cheaper price. They are just files, right?
Along these lines I should also be able to copy and hack computer code and programs- again these are just files.
I should be able to copy and do with them what I please.
The world is getting too complicated.
Gary

jsb944 · jsb944's Garage

I think it's something you agree to upfront and would bet that it's in every decent photog's contract..."who owns the rights".

If you are a model...and an agency takes your photo...somewhere in your contract I'd bet the agency owns it...even though it's a pic of you.....so if you happen to have a copy, you can not just go sell it to another agency...it does not belong to you even though it's "of you"....unless that's what it says in the Contract.

We have on occasion had to do things with our wedding pics (example..we had one made into a charm for a charm braclet)....the store asked for a release...and our photog was more than happy to give one.

my 2cents

bell · bell's Garage

wow, interesting responses.....
to be clear, the photographer was the wife of the rev who performed our ceremony, the pic package we purchased included about a dozen prints and the disc of about 300 photos which was given to us so we could print them out, yes we had "permission" from the photographer so there was no "stealing" involved, as was said by her "they are your pics, do with them what you like", they have a simple operation and i highly recommend them for any of their services

our wedding was pretty simple, which is exactly what we wanted, it couldn't have gone more perfect imo, we chose rev towne ( http://www.beachpeople.us/ ) because he shared the same concept as to what "it" is really about as we do

jsb944 · jsb944's Garage

so you had permission...just not on a piece of paper you could show walmart. I don't blame walmart for asking...infact I think it's a decent thing to have done.

That said, sounds like it's a non-issue....I guess you were just surprised they asked.

PS - looked at that website...cool!

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts

When I am hiring a photographer and paying them for a service, I expect to keep the output of that service. When I hire a computer programmer to create code for me, he doesn't own the code.

Exactly. I feel the same way about the poor writers who are on strike.

Zeke · 12-25-2007, 01:40 PM

I did a full album of pics on a big panel replacement job I did on an early 911S and I gave a disc to the owner. According to you guys, I own the pics since he doesn't have a written release. BS to that; his car, his pics AFAIC.

Methinks WalMart overstepped unless I'm not reading something here correctly. How was the original photographer identified? It could have been one of the grooms using the bridegroom's camera. I say you come in with a disc, they are your images. I would think a pro wanting to protect his/her work would "stamp" the proofs. Kinkos looks for copywrites displayed or embedded. If the disc is clean, you step up to the machine and pays yo money.

I have seen this method before. The pro put the pics up on his site for any of the guests to look at. The images are overwritten clearly indentifiying the copywrite. In that case the purchaser needs to buy from the photog. I'm sure some photoshop the copywrite out to the pics, but if they're going to go to that much effort to by-pass the system, I bet the photog already has an idea of what percentage of loss to expect from such behavior.

And, this method allows direct purchase of images from the event by non family. So, if you see a good pic of yourself and your sweetie, you can buy it w/o having to go thru the newlyweds.

jsb944 · jsb944's Garage

Good point except it's probably fair to say that the cutomer hired you to do the body work...and you chose to document the process with some pics. A wedding (or other life-event) photographer is hired to creatively and artistically set into film or digital media a rememberance of an event....so creatively and aritistically are the key words...and the photos are the work product.

Let me ask...if you hired an artist to paint a scene of you at the alter getting married....and then you decided to make lithos of the painting and sell them...do you think the artist might want a cut? Or at least some say in the matter?

And no...not a photographer and never been one...just a dumb engineer.