Digital BW, The Print

here is a questions for all you commercial photographers.
if a art director ask you to light a subject the way he 
would like it lit, and you are shooting digital from a computer.
you as the hired photographer set up the lights, balance the light
use the right lens for the job. the art director then proceeds to
left click the mouse to fire the shutter. does the art director get
credit for the photography work? does'nt photography by definition
mean the recording of light? i would think the photographer get's 
credit does'nt he. or is the art director a glory hound and wants 
all the credit. i welcome any views. thanx, alex lemus

Doesn't Bill Gates get credit for everything?
:) Mark

On May 25, 2004, at 2:15 PM, gunslingrnyc wrote:

> here is a questions for all you commercial photographers.
>  if a art director ask you to light a subject the way he
>  would like it lit, and you are shooting digital from a computer.
>  you as the hired photographer set up the lights, balance the light
>  use the right lens for the job. the art director then proceeds to
>  left click the mouse to fire the shutter. does the art director get
>  credit for the photography work? does'nt photography by definition
>  mean the recording of light? i would think the photographer get's
>  credit does'nt he. or is the art director a glory hound and wants
>  all the credit. i welcome any views. thanx, alex lemus
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
>  Please follow these basic guidelines:
>  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
>  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
>  - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
>  - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>  BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� 
> AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE� �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <lrec_companion_043004.gif>
> <image.tiff>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> 	� 	To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> �
> 	� 	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> �
> 	� 	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
> Service.
>
>  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

we are talking photography, not software.....

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Savoia" <mark@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] who gets credit?


Doesn't Bill Gates get credit for everything?
:) Mark

On May 25, 2004, at 2:15 PM, gunslingrnyc wrote:

> here is a questions for all you commercial photographers.
>  if a art director ask you to light a subject the way he
>  would like it lit, and you are shooting digital from a computer.
>  you as the hired photographer set up the lights, balance the light
>  use the right lens for the job. the art director then proceeds to
>  left click the mouse to fire the shutter. does the art director get
>  credit for the photography work? does'nt photography by definition
>  mean the recording of light? i would think the photographer get's
>  credit does'nt he. or is the art director a glory hound and wants
>  all the credit. i welcome any views. thanx, alex lemus
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting
> this same page.
>
>  Please follow these basic guidelines:
>  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
> keep them short.
>  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from
> the membership without notice.
>  - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be
> removed from the membership.
>  - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group
> Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>  BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER"
> AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES),
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <lrec_companion_043004.gif>
> <image.tiff>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> . To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>
> . To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> . Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

Alex, lighten up. I got Mark's funny.

IMO, the photographer and the art director would likely share credit 
for the shot. Reproduction rights would likely remain with the art 
director's company, since the photographer was 'hired'.

This is similar to artists who want to reproduce their commissioned 
works. We've been advising them to get signed "reproduction rights" 
when they work for pay.

Cheers, John

On May 25, 2004, at 2:29 PM, gunslingerstudios wrote:

> we are talking photography, not software.....
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Savoia" <mark@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 11:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] who gets credit?
>
>
> Doesn't Bill Gates get credit for everything?
> :) Mark
>
> On May 25, 2004, at 2:15 PM, gunslingrnyc wrote:
>
>> here is a questions for all you commercial photographers.
>>  if a art director ask you to light a subject the way he
>>  would like it lit, and you are shooting digital from a computer.
>>  you as the hired photographer set up the lights, balance the light
>>  use the right lens for the job. the art director then proceeds to
>>  left click the mouse to fire the shutter. does the art director get
>>  credit for the photography work? does'nt photography by definition
>>  mean the recording of light? i would think the photographer get's
>>  credit does'nt he. or is the art director a glory hound and wants
>>  all the credit. i welcome any views. thanx, alex lemus

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "gunslingrnyc" 
<gunslingerstudios@s...> wrote:
> here is a questions for all you commercial photographers.
> if a art director ask you to light a subject the way he 
> would like it lit, and you are shooting digital from a computer.
> you as the hired photographer set up the lights, balance the light
> use the right lens for the job. the art director then proceeds to
> left click the mouse to fire the shutter. does the art director get
> credit for the photography work? does'nt photography by definition
> mean the recording of light? i would think the photographer get's 
> credit does'nt he. or is the art director a glory hound and wants 
> all the credit. i welcome any views. thanx, alex lemus

If you are hired as a freelance agent then you are producing a work 
for hire 
product for the people who hired you- they keep the the image (or 
their client does) and if 
they are considerate they will give credit-but the image is 
theirs.If you are a big enough name then you keep it and make your 
own contracts (annie lebowitz)- most good photography for ads is a 
team effort and 
the person most under rated is the stylist.: The stylist finds the 
perfect accesories to make the shot work and is almost never 
credited except in fashion shoots. There are star art directors who 
should and do get credit for the assembly of the production team. 
Most ad shoots, the photographer is just another technician.

your right sorry mark, it was kinda funny.
this art director is going around saying he did every thing.
i guess he is not nice enough to give me credit for the work 
i did. such is life....

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dragonfly Imaging & Printing 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 11:45 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] who gets credit?


  Alex, lighten up. I got Mark's funny.

  IMO, the photographer and the art director would likely share credit 
  for the shot. Reproduction rights would likely remain with the art 
  director's company, since the photographer was 'hired'.

  This is similar to artists who want to reproduce their commissioned 
  works. We've been advising them to get signed "reproduction rights" 
  when they work for pay.

  Cheers, John


  On May 25, 2004, at 2:29 PM, gunslingerstudios wrote:

  > we are talking photography, not software.....
  > ----- Original Message -----
  > From: "Mark Savoia" <mark@...>
  > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
  > Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 11:22 AM
  > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] who gets credit?
  >
  >
  > Doesn't Bill Gates get credit for everything?
  > :) Mark
  >
  > On May 25, 2004, at 2:15 PM, gunslingrnyc wrote:
  >
  >> here is a questions for all you commercial photographers.
  >>  if a art director ask you to light a subject the way he
  >>  would like it lit, and you are shooting digital from a computer.
  >>  you as the hired photographer set up the lights, balance the light
  >>  use the right lens for the job. the art director then proceeds to
  >>  left click the mouse to fire the shutter. does the art director get
  >>  credit for the photography work? does'nt photography by definition
  >>  mean the recording of light? i would think the photographer get's
  >>  credit does'nt he. or is the art director a glory hound and wants
  >>  all the credit. i welcome any views. thanx, alex lemus



  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
  - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
  - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

  BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dragonfly Imaging & Printing wrote:

>IMO, the photographer and the art director would likely share credit 
>for the shot. 
>
Wrong.  Standard law is it resides with the individual who fixes the image.

>Reproduction rights would likely remain with the art 
>director's company, since the photographer was 'hired'.
>  
>
If it's an explicit written contractual work-for-hire, yes.  But that 
still doesn't make the art director either the creator or the copyright 
holder.  Then the Art Director is simply another work-for-hire.  
(UNLESS, the copyright holder explicitly transfers that right.)

>This is similar to artists who want to reproduce their commissioned 
>works. We've been advising them to get signed "reproduction rights" 
>when they work for pay.
>  
>
I make sure I have reproduction for portfolio or personal advertising 
purposes written into EVERY work-for-hire agreement I do. For movie work 
I always demand an appropriate credit in both the film and, often. 
whenever an image is used in print as well. If the client doesn't like 
it, they are always free to find someone else.

PS - Ask the Art Director if the image has his/her name in the 
copyright... That usually ends such drivel.  Art directors are NOT 
legally or figuratively the creators of the images.  They are NOT the 
creating artist.  If they were, copyright ownership would reside with 
them, as it does with every other "creating artist" in the absence of a 
work-for-hire.  It doesn't.  End of story.

Feel free to forward my email to the benighted Art Director in question.


 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

jnhugo wrote:

>
>If you are hired as a freelance agent then you are producing a work 
>for hire 
>product for the people who hired you
>

In the US that is true ONLY if they explicitly or by direct reference 
incorporate the term "work-for-hire" in a written contract.  Can't tell 
you how many clients forget to do that.. I let them write the final 
contract up and simply review the terms. When they do forget it, I don't 
cut them a break (except in the rarest of circumstances where I may lose 
a large recurring contract), since the rule of law is "ambiguity goes 
against the drawer."  In such cases, I make sure I register the 
copyright immediately after the shoot.

AND, I can always use the extra cash that comes from selling them back 
the copyright.. LOL

Under copyright law, by actual definition, a photographer is an artist 
not a technician. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.. When you do 
so, it lessens your inherent $$ value.

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Editor P.O.V. 
Image Service" <editor@p...> wrote:
>> 
> Under copyright law, by actual definition, a photographer is an 
artist 
> not a technician. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.. When 
you do 
> so, it lessens your inherent $$ value.

That my be true under copyright law but in actual practice the 
photographer is just another technician- most ads are a knock off 
of  someone elses work anyway. Doing commercial work lessens your -
non $$- value regardless if you think are an artiste or not.
> 
>  
> Keith Krebs
> 
> "Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON 
printer 
> User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
> Publications), at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
> and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
> "For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks 
together 
> guys"

>
>
> That my be true under copyright law but in actual practice the
> photographer is just another technician- most ads are a knock off
> of  someone elses work anyway. Doing commercial work lessens your -
> non $$- value regardless if you think are an artiste or not.
> >
> > 
> > Keith Krebs
>

In music, whenever a guy told me that he didn't read music because it 
would destroy his creativity, or that he played "only originals", I 
knew one thing right away:  he can't play. The guy who had the studio 
chair sewed up had it because of one thing as well:  he can play, well, 
with creativity if needed, and do it on the first take.  My guess is 
that the same is true of photography.

James Irelan




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Keith wrote:
> > Under copyright law, by actual definition, a photographer is an 
> artist 
> > not a technician. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.. When 
> you do 
> > so, it lessens your inherent $$ value.

jnhugo wrote: 
> That my be true under copyright law but in actual practice the 
> photographer is just another technician- most ads are a knock off 
> of  someone elses work anyway. Doing commercial work lessens your -
> non $$- value regardless if you think are an artiste or not.

Hmm...with  all do respect jnhugo have you been shooting commercially? In actual practice 
- as least in the 20 plus years I've been shooting - the photographer is the copyright 
owner. You are short changing yourself - literally - if you are give the rights away to your 
images. ASMP and other professional groups really try to educate the photographer in not 
doing work-for-hire or just giving the image away to the client. Listen to Keith and at least 
join APA or ASMP to learn about retaining rights to YOUR images.

jnhugo wrote:

>
>That my be true under copyright law
>
You sound quite like those at magazines who argue that photographers 
aren't "artists" and therefore we shouldn't retain the copyright;  that 
copyright law is "wrong" on that level and in  contradistinction to the 
"reality" of the publishing and entertainment worlds.. What utter pap.

It's exactly the argument that has been tried over and over by 
publishers like Cond\ufffd Nasty to rip off photographers and keep all the 
profit for themselves.. Fortunately they've gotten deservedly spanked by 
the courts over and over again.



 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

jnhugo wrote:

> Doing commercial work lessens your -
>non $$- value regardless if you think are an artiste or not.
>  
>

Care to explain whatever this is supposed to mean?

Particularly "lessens your - non $$ value?"

How did you get there from my quote : "[w]hen you do so, it lessens your 
inherent $$ value, " to  a quote that apparently would be speaking of  
"non $$ - value"? Although I remain truly mystified what you mean and 
what being an "artiste" or not has to do with it...

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

commercially? In actual practice 
> - as least in the 20 plus years I've been shooting - the 
photographer is the copyright 
> owner. You are short changing yourself - literally - if you are 
give the rights away to your 
> images. ASMP and other professional groups really try to educate 
the photographer in not 
> doing work-for-hire or just giving the image away to the client. 
Listen to Keith and at least 
> join APA or ASMP to learn about retaining rights to YOUR images.

Actually I shot commercial work for about 30 years- and if you (or 
I )  worked for a commercial client thru an agency we almost always 
shot for hire- the images weren't ours. We needed to get permission 
from the client to use them in our books or advertising.it was 
actually about 20 years that work for hire became the normal way of 
doing business..there were are a lot of complaints but since the 
field was saturated with competent photogs, if you did not like it 
there were plenty of other shooters that could do the job just as 
well.

John Vitollo wrote:

>
>Hmm...with  all do respect jnhugo have you been shooting commercially? In actual practice 
>- as least in the 20 plus years I've been shooting - the photographer is the copyright 
>owner. You are short changing yourself - literally - if you are give the rights away to your 
>images. ASMP and other professional groups really try to educate the photographer in not 
>doing work-for-hire or just giving the image away to the client. Listen to Keith and at least 
>join APA or ASMP to learn about retaining rights to YOUR images.
>  
>
Thanks John! If I come off as harsh on this issue it's because this is 
one of the most divisive issues between many photographers newly coming 
into the business and those who have been in it for years.

Digital has greatly exacerbated an already bad situation in several senses.

1)   Many new photographers don't learn lighting traditionally, they 
instead simply play with it until they "like what they see in the 
imagery they capture." That in come sense undercuts their status as any 
more than a technician.  Art directors suddenly believe, with the same 
equipment they "could do it themselves.

2)   Art directors now want to watch the on-screen display and/or 
"chimp" at photos as the shoot goes forward.. I don't allow that as a 
rule, they can see a few shots, but I'm not, nor is any professional 
photographer, their trained monkey there to give them instant 
gratification.  If they want that, I suggest they try some cheap and 
easy prostitute, I'm NOT responsible for relieving their tension. (This 
isn't only in the commercial world, I can show you parents of gymnasts 
openly complaining about the costs of imagery, and the fact that he 
doesn't post enough images freely on his website, as regards one of the 
nation's top gymnastics photog)

3)   Without film processing the preceding factor is magnified beyond 
what it had been, but, it also leads to serious underestimation by 
photogs who have ONLY done digital of what the real $ costs are.  They 
then underprice their work substantially, dropping the floor out of the 
market to a point where photography is, in many instances, only a 
potential 2nd or 3rd job.

4)   Buyers, subjects, models, etc. all seem to think that because the 
image is now only individual pixels and electrons instead of physically 
tangible and "costly" prints or negatives, that not only should the 
images be provided quickly, but, at almost no cost, AND to top it off 
should be fully post-processed ready for immediate printing.  Nonsense.. 
If you want post-processing, you need to pay for it. Somehow people have 
the idea that post-processing consists of just pushing a button in 
Photoshop, etc. and that since that is all there is to it, it should be 
done for no cost.

5)   This all combines to a point where we find many new photogs 
idiotically signing away copyrights for literally no or nearly no 
cost... That hurts every other photographer in the business..

In sum, these trends are combining to drive legions of professionals who 
worked for years, out of the business.  It has very little to do with 
them not wanting to take on the digital learning curve, most have done 
so already.   It's just the fact that if you hire 100 amateur squirrels 
to shoot digital at $1 each, when a single credible pro costs easily 
upwards of  $500 or more (excluding expenses) for a half-day, and you 
know that it's likely that one of the squirrels will get a usable 
shot... The paradigm shifts..  And yes, the squirrels ARE to blame. 
Because they actually think that there is no need to recoup their costs 
with their shooting... They simply do it for the "love of photography."

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Editor P.O.V. 
Image Service" <editor@p...> wrote:
> jnhugo wrote:
> 
> > Doing commercial work lessens your -
> >non $$- value regardless if you think are an artiste or not.
> >  
> >
> 
> Care to explain whatever this is supposed to mean?
> 
 this means that I believe commercial work is bad for an artists 
personal growth as an artist. It is the most common mistake we all 
make in our society: to equate $$ value with our worth as a human or 
in this case an artist. I tell any young photographer that loves 
photography as an art form to stay clear of commercial work. 
Commercial work requires an extreme amount of comprise in creative 
decision making and anyone who thinks they maintain "creative 
integrity" 
while making beautiful shoots of dog food is fooling themselves. And 
then the big bucks come rolling in and we all celebrate what 
wonderful artist we are... if commercial work is so creative-why 
does it all look the same?
By the way I think being an Art Photographer poses the same risk-
it is difficult to maintain artistic integrity in the face of a 
sucessful schtick. Isn't it weird when all the big name photogs 
resort to soft focus b/w images of flowers?

Keith  -

 

You said: "...In sum, these trends are combining to drive legions of professionals who worked for years, out of the business...."

I don't know how you can beat the trend.  This is the business climate in the US today.  It applies to almost everything that people have to pay for.  The major manifestation of this, of course, is 'outsourcing', 'offshoring'.  It's just that the people replacing 'real' photographers are not 'offshore'.  

 

Tom Baker




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Message: 12
> Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 11:29:26 -0700
> From: "gunslingerstudios" <gunslingerstudios@...>
> Subject: Re: who gets credit?
> 
> we are talking photography, not software.....

Oh, I though we were talking digital B/W printing, not other non-related
photographic issues.

Jon

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Editor P.O.V. 
Image Service" <editor@p...> wrote:
> 
> 1)   Many new photographers don't learn lighting traditionally, 
they 
> instead simply play with it until they "like what they see in the 
> imagery they capture." That in come sense undercuts their status 
as any 
> more than a technician.  Art directors suddenly believe, with the 
same 
> equipment they "could do it themselves.

they could

> 
> 2)   Art directors now want to watch the on-screen display and/or 
> "chimp" at photos as the shoot goes forward.. I don't allow that 
as a 

they always looked at polaroids in the good old days


> rule, they can see a few shots, but I'm not, nor is any 
professional 
> photographer, their trained monkey there to give them instant 
> gratification.  If they want that, I suggest they try some cheap 
and 
> easy prostitute, I'm NOT responsible for relieving their tension.

you have to be kidding- commercial photography has always been 
client -centric -it's a service.

 (This 
> isn't only in the commercial world, I can show you parents of 
gymnasts 
> openly complaining about the costs of imagery, and the fact that 
he 
> doesn't post enough images freely on his website, as regards one 
of the 
> nation's top gymnastics photog)
> 
> 3)   Without film processing the preceding factor is magnified 
beyond 
> what it had been, but, it also leads to serious underestimation by 
> photogs who have ONLY done digital of what the real $ costs are.  
They 
> then underprice their work substantially, dropping the floor out 
of the 
> market to a point where photography is, in many instances, only a 
> potential 2nd or 3rd job.

this sounds like the days when young photgraphers were being cranked 
out of art center willing to do a 5000 job for 800

> 
> 4)   Buyers, subjects, models, etc. all seem to think that because 
the 
> image is now only individual pixels and electrons instead of 
physically 
> tangible and "costly" prints or negatives, that not only should 
the 
> images be provided quickly, but, at almost no cost, AND to top it 
off 
> should be fully post-processed ready for immediate printing.  
Nonsense.. 
> If you want post-processing, you need to pay for it. Somehow 
people have 
> the idea that post-processing consists of just pushing a button in 
> Photoshop, etc. and that since that is all there is to it, it 
should be 
> done for no cost.

that's true- i hate it when people say its so easy ( yeah its easy 
after you learn how to do it
> 
> 5)   This all combines to a point where we find many new photogs 
> idiotically signing away copyrights for literally no or nearly no 
> cost... That hurts every other photographer in the business..
> 
> In sum, these trends are combining to drive legions of 
professionals who 
> worked for years, out of the business.  It has very little to do 
with 
> them not wanting to take on the digital learning curve, most have 
done 
> so already.   It's just the fact that if you hire 100 amateur 
squirrels 
> to shoot digital at $1 each, when a single credible pro costs 
easily 
> upwards of  $500 or more (excluding expenses) for a half-day, and 
you 

20 years ago assistants were getting 500 for half day- I guess you 
are a different category of pro

> know that it's likely that one of the squirrels will get a usable 
> shot... The paradigm shifts..  And yes, the squirrels ARE to 
blame. 
> Because they actually think that there is no need to recoup their 
costs 
> with their shooting... They simply do it for the "love of 
photography."

the old timers were being driven out 25 years ago- digital has 
nothing to do with that.
the most interesting thing about digital is not so much the change 
of process and the impact on business practices but the "fact" that 
digital has changed the paradigm of photography..it will never be as 
it was- 



> 
>  
> Keith Krebs
> 
> "Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON 
printer 
> User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
> Publications), at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
> and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
> "For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks 
together 
> guys"

I would add one IMO very important factor.
A few years ago you could start seeing in the high end magazines a kind 
of "rough"
"unfinished", or rather "amateurish" look of some high end (I repeat) 
 ads and editorials.
I was asking myself for a while: "What e f... is going on?"
But then the magazines even escalated the game of disregarding the 
copyright and not
paying for editorial usage trying to antagonize clients and 
photographers.  New York Times
and others joined suite and have the "work for hire" in their freelance 
contracts.  Many
better photographers refuse to sign it, some others can't (I write can't 
and not don't on purpose).
And now I look on the "rough" look a few years ago in different light.
It was the beginning of the carefully planned and executed campaign to 
push High-End photographers
who provided High-End images out of equation. The "squirrels" can do the 
job and get away with it
because the market opened up for the "unprofessional on purpose" images.

I do not know where it is going to go.  I loose some jobs to the 
"squirrels".  I loose some clients to them
as well.  If the client doesn't see the difference between a diamond and 
the quartz crystal - he's not going to
pay the High-End photographer.

BUT, the worst what can happen is when a professional photographer for 
whatever reason dares to say
that  the "commercial ads ar just rip-offs..."  Sell yourself short - 
but do not pull anybody with it.
I worked for Sotheby's ("work for hire" contract - for 10 years - doing 
"Not for hire" assignments at the
same time)  until I started believing in myself.  
Again, if you want to sell short yourself it's your right if you can't 
do it the other way - but do not try
to pull the whole industry with you.

Good luck to all of you.
Jack

_________________________________________________
Jack M Kucy
JMK Gallery (www.jmk-gallery.com)
917-991-2096     jmk@...
Member of ASMP (www.asmp.org)
_________________________________________________
...a riveder le stelle


Editor P.O.V. Image Service wrote:

> John Vitollo wrote:
>
> >
> >Hmm...with  all do respect jnhugo have you been shooting 
> commercially? In actual practice
> >- as least in the 20 plus years I've been shooting - the photographer 
> is the copyright
> >owner. You are short changing yourself - literally - if you are give 
> the rights away to your
> >images. ASMP and other professional groups really try to educate the 
> photographer in not
> >doing work-for-hire or just giving the image away to the client. 
> Listen to Keith and at least
> >join APA or ASMP to learn about retaining rights to YOUR images.
> > 
> >
> Thanks John! If I come off as harsh on this issue it's because this is
> one of the most divisive issues between many photographers newly coming
> into the business and those who have been in it for years.
>
> Digital has greatly exacerbated an already bad situation in several 
> senses.
>
> 1)   Many new photographers don't learn lighting traditionally, they
> instead simply play with it until they "like what they see in the
> imagery they capture." That in come sense undercuts their status as any
> more than a technician.  Art directors suddenly believe, with the same
> equipment they "could do it themselves.
>
> 2)   Art directors now want to watch the on-screen display and/or
> "chimp" at photos as the shoot goes forward.. I don't allow that as a
> rule, they can see a few shots, but I'm not, nor is any professional
> photographer, their trained monkey there to give them instant
> gratification.  If they want that, I suggest they try some cheap and
> easy prostitute, I'm NOT responsible for relieving their tension. (This
> isn't only in the commercial world, I can show you parents of gymnasts
> openly complaining about the costs of imagery, and the fact that he
> doesn't post enough images freely on his website, as regards one of the
> nation's top gymnastics photog)
>
> 3)   Without film processing the preceding factor is magnified beyond
> what it had been, but, it also leads to serious underestimation by
> photogs who have ONLY done digital of what the real $ costs are.  They
> then underprice their work substantially, dropping the floor out of the
> market to a point where photography is, in many instances, only a
> potential 2nd or 3rd job.
>
> 4)   Buyers, subjects, models, etc. all seem to think that because the
> image is now only individual pixels and electrons instead of physically
> tangible and "costly" prints or negatives, that not only should the
> images be provided quickly, but, at almost no cost, AND to top it off
> should be fully post-processed ready for immediate printing.  Nonsense..
> If you want post-processing, you need to pay for it. Somehow people have
> the idea that post-processing consists of just pushing a button in
> Photoshop, etc. and that since that is all there is to it, it should be
> done for no cost.
>
> 5)   This all combines to a point where we find many new photogs
> idiotically signing away copyrights for literally no or nearly no
> cost... That hurts every other photographer in the business..
>
> In sum, these trends are combining to drive legions of professionals who
> worked for years, out of the business.  It has very little to do with
> them not wanting to take on the digital learning curve, most have done
> so already.   It's just the fact that if you hire 100 amateur squirrels
> to shoot digital at $1 each, when a single credible pro costs easily
> upwards of  $500 or more (excluding expenses) for a half-day, and you
> know that it's likely that one of the squirrels will get a usable
> shot... The paradigm shifts..  And yes, the squirrels ARE to blame.
> Because they actually think that there is no need to recoup their costs
> with their shooting... They simply do it for the "love of photography."
>
>
> Keith Krebs
>
> "Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer
> User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo
> Publications), at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
> and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
> "For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together
> guys"
>
>
>
>
>
>

jnhugo wrote:

>
> 
>
>20 years ago assistants were getting 500 for half day- I guess you 
>are a different category of pro
>  
>
I didn't say that was ANYWHERE near my rate.  ;-)  But there are lots of 
photogs who think that's a good rate, again part of the problem..

>
>
>the old timers were being driven out 25 years ago- digital has 
>nothing to do with that.
>the most interesting thing about digital is not so much the change 
>of process and the impact on business practices but the "fact" that 
>digital has changed the paradigm of photography..it will never be as 
>it was- 
>
>  
>
In some sense you contradict yourself here.  It is exactly the change in 
the paradigm that is part of what is pushing many out of the business... 
When you change to a "technician" oriented approach, it's axiomatic that 
you'll be perceived as having less value.

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"