renesisx Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 As for the digital negatives issue. Any professional photographer retains the copyright on any photo he/she takes. Try asking a Wedding photographer how much it would be IF you got the copyright to the photos of YOUR wedding. It'll be an extra £3000-£4000 for you to have the copyright (i.e. digital copies to reproduce). Trust me I checked! So this is very unlikely to be done. Wedding photographers traditionally did this because then they could make some extra coin from selling you more copies. How many extra copies have the photographers that SM hired ever sold? It's not where their income is from this gig. You just need to adjust your contract with your photographer. Tell them you want the customers to have the copyright or someone else will get the business. There are plenty of great photographers out there who would do it and not give two hoots about ridiculous copyright issues. Other places I've had my photo taken for similar stuff have offered to burn the image onto CD and charged some extra money. I'm fine with this. It's a way that SM could make a ton of extra cash if this was offered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen_Sindel Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 (edited) You just need to adjust your contract with your photographer. Tell them you want the customers to have the copyright or someone else will get the business. There are plenty of great photographers out there who would do it and not give two hoots about ridiculous copyright issues. Good photographers around yes - photographers who can deal with the stress of an event like LFCC? I doubt that there are many who can keep up with things as well as Malcolm and Danielle do, and still deliver a quality that the fans are happy with. SM worked with Malcolm and Danielle for a while now, and they are happy with them. I know I as a fan I am extremely happy with them. I've more than once bought extra shots just because I know I will get photos I love. Personally I rather have good photos and live with scans of the pictures than get photos of often more than questionable quality and pay extra for the priviledge of trying to save the JPEG with Photoshop. Other places I've had my photo taken for similar stuff have offered to burn the image onto CD and charged some extra money. I'm fine with this. It's a way that SM could make a ton of extra cash if this was offered. I know one convention organiser in the US who offers the JPEG. It's $ 10 per JPEG, and the photographer gets to keep the money. Also those events are not nearly as large as Comic Con, so it's a completely different level there. Edited July 25, 2009 by Queen_Sindel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psyclepath Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Just to add my two cents. As the lab runner for the two days - any extra copies would still come back the conventional way, by my two legs (by cycle) and back (for carrying). I haven't cycled since Sunday. As a consumer, I can see your point - it would be nice for this to happen. But even the emailing of the jpg file causes a lot of extra work for the crew involved on top of a very busy weekend, as well as the extra admin required from the customers. Regards, Michelle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renesisx Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 As a consumer, I can see your point - it would be nice for this to happen. But even the emailing of the jpg file causes a lot of extra work for the crew involved on top of a very busy weekend, as well as the extra admin required from the customers. I'm saying though that SM could make a load of extra money. Extra money = can pay extra staff. So, if it's very busy, then that's great as that's even more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psyclepath Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Every event SM try to anticipate the level of staff requires and still end up short of people due to no-shows. Please remember we are all volunteers, not necessarily motivated by the pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
touchthesky Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Kinda off topic but I wonder if anyone working in Boots has ever seen the photos with a certain guest and been annoyed because they didn't get to meet them xD. I know if I worked in Boots, wasn't aware that Edward Furlong was at an event, then had to process tons of photos of others with him I'd be peeved! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen_Sindel Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 It wasn't Boots, but some years back I had taken photos at a WWE wrestling event. That was when I still had a film camera and went to a chain store similar to Boots to get the film processed. So the pictures came back and I found a note in one of the sleeves "Great pictures, I really enjoyed looking at them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psyclepath Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 We do use Boots for this event - Malcolm has a very nice contact there. She is awesome - not always so clued up on who the guests are - but her turn around time is great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crippsy_99 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Couldn't thumbnails just be uploaded on a photo site later on This happened once before when loads of people hadnt picked up their photos, from what I remember, the amount of complaints there were from people who didnt want their image online/didnt want others to see their photos was sky high! As for the digital negatives issue. Any professional photographer retains the copyright on any photo he/she takes. Try asking a Wedding photographer how much it would be IF you got the copyright to the photos of YOUR wedding. It'll be an extra £3000-£4000 for you to have the copyright (i.e. digital copies to reproduce). Trust me I checked! So this is very unlikely to be done. Wow I would hate to have to hire that photographer!! Even glamour shoots from models and like only cost £500-700 for the rights to the pics, that is way overcharging! (I know several models who have wanted to buy the rights to their images due to various reasons and thats what they get quoted). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen_Sindel Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Wow I would hate to have to hire that photographer!! Even glamour shoots from models and like only cost £500-700 for the rights to the pics, that is way overcharging! (I know several models who have wanted to buy the rights to their images due to various reasons and thats what they get quoted). That may be for one shot, or maybe a their casting portfolio or however this is called. Wedding photos usually come in a pretty large amount, so I can see why the price would be higher there. My aunt had 800 photos taken at her wedding, and that was between me and one of the groom's friends. Professionals go to a completely different level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crippsy_99 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Wow I would hate to have to hire that photographer!! Even glamour shoots from models and like only cost £500-700 for the rights to the pics, that is way overcharging! (I know several models who have wanted to buy the rights to their images due to various reasons and thats what they get quoted). That may be for one shot, or maybe a their casting portfolio or however this is called. Nope. The entire shoot of about 200 photos.. One girl I know of did some fully nude photos when she was 18 as she needed the cash. The photographer sold the pictures to a few websites and magazines. Someone she knows saw some of the photos, so she contacted the photographer to say she made a mistake when she was 18 and wanted to buy the copyright and images back so no-one else could get hold of them, and she was told £600 for the images and expenses from doing the actual shoot. Who seriously wants/needs more than even 100-150 photos! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salchli Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Something I thought of... At US conventions, I've noticed that the photographers develop the photos themselves, and do not use an outside service for printing. Maybe that's why it's so common over here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen_Sindel Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Nope. The entire shoot of about 200 photos.. One girl I know of did some fully nude photos when she was 18 as she needed the cash. The photographer sold the pictures to a few websites and magazines. Someone she knows saw some of the photos, so she contacted the photographer to say she made a mistake when she was 18 and wanted to buy the copyright and images back so no-one else could get hold of them, and she was told £600 for the images and expenses from doing the actual shoot. I stand corrected then. I've seen higher price tags for unallowed photo use on German eBay, that's another reason why I thought this had to be a limited amount. Who seriously wants/needs more than even 100-150 photos! You mean for the wedding pictures? A wedding isn't exactly something you can repeat, so we rather took three shots than one to make sure at least one came out okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now