Comment Re:Photographers and IP (Score 1) 616
Much like the recording industry, the photography business is in a digital transition phase. They're still clinging to their old business models, even though the world is changing around them.
However, stock photography is very different from for-hire photography. People who take pictures of children, weddings, etc. for hire should in fact have a reasonable business model available for providing digital images. It's easy to imagine a portrait photographer whose business model is, "I'll bill you $X per hour for this shoot (or a flat rate $X or whatever) and when you're done you own the digital originals." I think that the industry is shifting in this direction-- when a friend of mine got married last summer, getting the "digital negatives" was available as part of the package.
Stock photography, however, is very different. When a photographer sells stock photos, he's basically taking speculative images and putting them up for sale with the hopes that someone will want to license them. While I'm primarily an art photographer, I have licensed a few of my images for use in marketing literature. When this happens, the purchaser licenses the right to use the image in a specific way, but I retain copyright of the image. Some people make a living with stock photography, and lots more supplement their income that way.
However, stock photography is very different from for-hire photography. People who take pictures of children, weddings, etc. for hire should in fact have a reasonable business model available for providing digital images. It's easy to imagine a portrait photographer whose business model is, "I'll bill you $X per hour for this shoot (or a flat rate $X or whatever) and when you're done you own the digital originals." I think that the industry is shifting in this direction-- when a friend of mine got married last summer, getting the "digital negatives" was available as part of the package.
Stock photography, however, is very different. When a photographer sells stock photos, he's basically taking speculative images and putting them up for sale with the hopes that someone will want to license them. While I'm primarily an art photographer, I have licensed a few of my images for use in marketing literature. When this happens, the purchaser licenses the right to use the image in a specific way, but I retain copyright of the image. Some people make a living with stock photography, and lots more supplement their income that way.
