The Art of Intellectual Property 434
dpilgrim writes "When digital technology meets intellectual property, most of the attention focuses on the movie industry or the music business. I was surprised to discover how much of an impact there is in smaller areas like professional photography, and put together some reflections on my experience." This is why when I get married I want to make sure I contract only for the photographer's labor.
Echoes of the RIAA? (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is this: they are still living in a world of 20 years ago where the primary means for listening to and distributing music was as a casette tape.
Our photographer thinks she is in the business of providing high quality printed photographs. In fact she is in the image-capturing business, and as the business shifts from printed to digital format, she will either adapt or fail.
The RIAA thinks they are in the business of providing high quality music CDs. In fact they are in the audio-distribution business, and as the business shifts from CD to pure digital format, they will either adapt or fail.
Copyright is Copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like with source code -- it is up to to the producer of the source/photograph to decide what copyright terms to attach to the product. You don't like the terms, go elsewhere. Once this gets off the ground there will be photographers (or artists in general) making "Open Art", and there will be the ones making "Closed Art." You can't get on a high-horse and say that "Art Wants To Be Free" or anything like that.
Will always be a need for wedding photographers (Score:5, Insightful)
The other thing is: never hire a friend to take your wedding photographs. Your friends are there to enjoy themselves. One of my friends hired another friend to take the wedding photos. Something went wrong and the photos were never delivered. Those old friends are still not talking. Don't be cheap, hire a pro!
Overrated (Score:3, Insightful)
Give her a brake! (Score:3, Insightful)
I feel she was ignoring the needs of her customer in a fundamental way, and that ultimately, for her and her profession, that would prove to be a mistake.
Sorry, while I in principle am very supportive of the Open Source idea, I think you just have to give it a break here. OSS developers do not demand everybody to go OS as well (that's one of the differences to RMS's FS-idea).
If this woman decides for herself, that taking "proprietary" pictures is the business model that best fits her needs, then it's OK for her. If her business will not survive in the long run, then it was her own fault. If you have hired her without talking through the terms of the contract, nobody else is to blame than you.
Everybody should have the right to decide for him/herself. I understand you point, but I sure understand her's as well. In your situation, I would just buy the 8"x11" variant, scan it, edit it in the way you see fit and put it on your web site. And if you get sued, you may have the opportunity to brake new ground regarding copyright rules on wedding photogrphs.
the issue is getting compensated (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of razors and razor blades -- right now you get the razor free because the blades cost a small fortune. if you came up with a way to make your own blades, all that would happen is they would have to start charging more for the razor in the first place.
If you really want unlimited reprints and digital originals, a professional photographer will be willing to sell that to you, but the price will probably be higher than you want to pay. The reason images are sold with limited rights is not to rip people off, but rather to provide the lowest cost possible to each person.
If you're only printing 1200 copies of a company newsletter, you probably can't and don't need to pay as much for a photo as the New York Times does.
Yes, professional photogaphers will go through the same business cycle that desktop publishing went through in the 80s -- everyone will think their brother-in-law is "good enough", but eventually people will remember why they paid a lot of money for photographers in the first place.
The low end of the market IS better served by a technology that lets them do it themselves. If you only have $200 to spend on wedding photography, you'll get much better results by spending it all on disposable cameras and having the guests shoot candids. Spending $200 on a pro will barely get you a seated portrait (and certainly not unlimited prints).
Re:Copyright is Copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth today is that there isn't as much value in the duplicate prints of keepsake photographs. There is more value in the ubiquitous distribution of the composed images, via the internet or sending someone a CD.
Ultimately it is an issue with contracts. The problem is that the photographer historically provides artistic service in composing the shot, and in printing the image. The wedding photographer's competition isn't digital copyright infringement, it is the throw-away cameras that are put up on all the tables.
All industries must continually evaluate where they add value. Duplicate prints aren't where a photographer should make their money today.
Re:Copyright is Copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
When you contract someone to do something - whether its writing software or taking a photograph, you own the copyright. The only exception is when you sign a contract giving the copyright to the contractor.
So in effect it is up to the client who contracts the work to decide on the license, as they are the owner, not the contractor. This does not depend on any "Art WantsTo Be Free" argument - it is simply a fact of law.
This is slightly different (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:photographer vs. artist (Score:1, Insightful)
2)The sitter owns his image
Your copywrong is nixed.
"Frequently artists will even retain the right to borrow the painting for purposes such as exhibition"
Not if you don't get past my shotgun.
I hope you don't use BSD or Linux with your attitude on the "IP".
Re:Intellectual Property? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you ask him his opinion on "Intellectual property", he'll simply ask you to be specific. It's a bit like my asking you your opinion on "Computers". Or what is your opinion of "Politics". You can randomly choose one aspects of these things, I suppose, but you can't really answer the question correctly.
Incidently, to show how absurd the term "Intellectual Property" has become, a bottle of Soy Sauce I bought recently has a big warning on the back: "Intellectual Property Rights Reserved". What the hell does that mean? Legally, it's nonsensical, as IP doesn't realy mean anything, but refers to a wide class of legal constructs. And how it could apply to a bottle of Soy Sauce is beyond me - the title and logo might be Trademarked, but there's no reason to have this odd disclaimer on the bottle to support that.
--
Evan
Author makes weak open-source argument (Score:2, Insightful)
Photographers know this. It's fundamentally the same as the MP3 craze. What would you rather have, free low-quality MP3 format songs or high fidelity CD audio for $15 per album? Too many people choose the freebie, and thus less money to those who produce the content.
When you hire a photographer to take pictures, you are paying them for 2 services: 1-their time and effort. 2-whatever photographs you eventually decide to purchase. A professional photographer cannot hope to make a living on only the labor fee. Thus, photographers are beginning to limit the availability of proofs. Photography is a profession from the time when it took a hell of a lot of skill and experience to "capture the moment". Now, in an age where we have a cheap and inferior substitute to "analog" photography, the profession is finding itself in a vulnerable position.
10 years ago when you hired a photographer and bought prints, you were effectively buying a service and product that could not be easily or cheaply reproduced. In effect you weren't buying the rights to the picture itself, but a copy of the picture. Nowadays, you are still in spirit buying the printed photo itself, but you now have the power to copy them as much as you please, almost for free. How can artists compete with that? By A: charging more and B: limiting your ability to make high-res copies of THEIR artwork.
I also take offense to the comparison of "closed/open source" with the photographic medium. The primary positive philosophy behind open-source development is that when the original data is open to view and modification, it can be IMPROVED by the author's peers. This is completely at odds with the digital photography issue. The original data (the negatives/proofs) of a photo session can't be openly analyzed and improved by the photographer's peers. It can only be freely copied by the user.
IMO, this is a decently written, but very misguided commentary. You don't pay artists for all rights to a picture. You pay them for the limited quantity of paper images you receive. Hell, I guess you could buy the rights to the initial image, but if this were to become the case in the future, expect professional photos and negatives to cost much, much more.
The photographer is a thief (Score:4, Insightful)
If the photographer profits from selling additional copies, then he should do the basic work for free. The low-quality samples provided should be treated as a sales catalog. The couple who got married should be treated as models, they shouldn't have to pay anything for the production, and should get part of the profit from the sale of additional copies.
Suppose it was a fashion magazine which had a photo of, let's say Cindy Crawford, on the cover. Would ms. Crawford have to pay for the whole production and not get anything from the magazine sales? Saying Cindy Crawford is famous and her image is worth a lot is not an answer, since, if one can sell pictures from a couple who is getting married, then they are professional models, deserving as much respect as Cindy Crawford, only their image would not be worth exactly as much as Cindy's, since it would sell less copies.
The *customer* is right (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem here is that the photographer is trying to charge for the wrong part of the work. The photographer is trying to charge high prices for the easy part of the work - making copies - and keep prices low for the hard part of the work - setting up a good pose with good lighting and a good background - because the technology used to allow this pricing model.
It has become too easy for the customer to do his own copying, and the pricing plan needs to change to reflect the current realities. The high-cost part of this should be showing up at the wedding and setting up the shots. The resulting photographs should be supplied at close to actual cost, because that isn't the hard part of this. And none of this crap about how making the album is art, that's a cookie-cutter operation, pull out one set of photos and put in the next set.
I do agree, this isn't an issue of "open sourcing". This is an issue of not recognizing where your "art" is, and charging properly for it. Trying to charge for a package with a built-in (false!) assumption that people will come back to you for re-prints is not recognizing the realities of the business.
And yes, I *do* strongly object to being told I have to pay again and again and again for a picture of me. No, I paid for you to set up the shot. The resulting shot belongs to me.
I paid for your expertise at arranging the shots, not your abiltiy to make copies of pictures.
Re:The photographer is a thief (Score:3, Insightful)
this is basically true of how it is done today. Photographers charge a minimal amount to cover expenses, but you don't make money from shooting the wedding, you make money from selling the prints. The proof sheets ARE a catalog.
The couple who got married should be treated as models, they shouldn't have to pay anything for the production, and should get part of the profit from the sale of additional copies.
LOL -- the couple is the customer. They are not models, if they were the photographer could fire them when they act like idiots and cause him to run 4 hours over, or burn expensive film on shots they'll never sell.
Saying Cindy Crawford is famous and her image is worth a lot is not an answer
Yes, it is. The magazine sells more copies because cindy crawford is on the cover, not because a person is on the cover. Being cindy crawford and having her image is of intrinsic retail value.
Re:The photographer is a thief (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want, for your wedding, you could commission a photographer on the basis of "You can have some of the profits we make from selling these" - good luck in getting a photographer.
The basic profit for the wedding photographer is in the couple's and parents' books. Additional copies also help, but are financially much less significant.
Say a wedding guest has a camera identical to the photographer's, hangs over the professional's shoulder and takes the same photo... it is still the professional who has done the work - the guest is the theif.
The end result might be the same, but the guest's photo would not exist if the professional had not got the people arranged with the right background, lighting, etc.
Maybe paying a flat fee for "labour" would be one approach, but if that would include rights to the images, it'd be taking far more from the photographer, and should therefore cost you much more money.
Therefore, the status-quo is more likely to survive than be replaced - unless DRM takes off platonically, in which case you can have the images, but cannot share them / take credit for them.
Reality check (Score:2, Insightful)
But you ARE playing along... (Score:1, Insightful)
There Should be Multiple Business Models (Score:3, Insightful)
In reality, most photographers these days do make money from the reprints, but probably not as much as you might think.
I do agree, however, that given current conditions, perhaps multiple business models could be used. Many people who don't want to hassle making their own high quality scans and/or prints will still want things done the "old fashioned" way (my parents would certainly want it that way, they don't even have a computer at home), and, OTOH, more tech-savvy users will want a CD-ROM with hi-res images and then make reprints themselves (I'd prefer this myself).
A photographer could offer both models to potential customers, with the second approach being more heavily "front loaded" in terms of the fees since he/she knows that there won't be much income from reprints. One way or another, the photographer needs to get paid for their time and their artistic input to the end result, and earn an amount of money commensurate with the value associated with profesisonally taken photographs. Although I might want the option of the hi-res CD approach if it better fits my style of doing things, I shouldn't expect that it should necessarily be cheaper to get the images that way.
Re:The photographer is right (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, nowadays I run Oracle on a $1200 laptop and can charge $200/hr for my time while customizing Open Source software.
There's an economic difference that can't be ignored.
When computer hardware cost $30K (like my camera system cost me) there were very few open source hackers working at home on their own as volunteers. The open source movement owes as much to the fact that high-powered hardware costs trivial amounts of money than anything.
Meanwhile, high-end camera costs don't drop because there's no Moore's law to exploit in the construction and design of lenses. Yes, modern materials and techniques have vastly improved lenses over the last three decades but very slowly. The physics underlying lens design was figured out decades ago. Lens manufacturing and design is a far more mature industry than microchip design (likewise we're unlikely to see 767 equivalents on sale for the price of a new car in the near future).
If you don't want to pay for wedding photos