Photographer vs Photograph and Pricing

[sk66]

I see a lot of discussion on here about pricing and there is a trend that seems to address all photography as being the same. This bothers me.... I just don't get it.

IMO, Not all photography is the same.
There are significant differences between "Photographic Artist", Photojournalism, and "Photographer".

Let me explain:
Photographic Artist: to me this is photography inspired and created solely by the photographer. It is based on either preconcieved idea or "oppportunistic vision" (seeing an image potential). It is photography for the sake of photography and for "enjoyment". This is and should be solely owned by the creator.

Photojounalism: This is similar to above, but has less "creative leeway". It is "assignment based" and "hired out". The "employer" has the right to use the photograph how and when they see fit. The photographer may have the right to re-sell the photograph. There is an area of this which I would categorize a "freelancing" which crosses the line towards "photographic art".

Photographer: This is "work for hire". You are paid to do a specific job for a specific price and provide a specific product. "What" that product is is not up to you really. The product is not the photographer's, it is the "employers" property. The photographer retains the right to use the images for "portfolio" purposes (as is also true for all cases above) but nothing more. To me this is wedding/"studio" type photography.

In some countries this is the law. And I think this is the way it should be. Of course, the differences have different risks and levels of "guarantee"/security. And therefore the differences dictate a different pricing plan/structure. Your level of skill/talent determines "how much" you can charge in any field and the extent of your success.

[Sime]

Just wondering what you mean by "This is and should be solely owned by the creator." in the first example of Photographic Art?

--S

[Jim Poor]

I think your delineations are too black & white.

Why can't a studio produce photographic art?

Why can't a photojournalist? The Afghan Girl photo comes to mind.

As for pricing, yes there are different things to consider based on what area of photography you call your own.

[Jim Poor]

Oh, and you're way off base on the "law" bit if you try to lump studio and wedding photography into a "work for hire" model.

[candleman]

i know for certain that event photography (weddings included) is not classified as a Commissioned work in NZ... so it's not automatic work for hire.

[sk66]

Originally Posted by Sime

Just wondering what you mean by "This is and should be solely owned by the creator." in the first example of Photographic Art?

--S

I mean the rights to the work...

[sk66]

Originally Posted by Jim Poor

I think your delineations are too black & white.

Why can't a studio produce photographic art?

Why can't a photojournalist? The Afghan Girl photo comes to mind.

As for pricing, yes there are different things to consider based on what area of photography you call your own.

Of course there is some crossover... The main differentiator I am using is who is paying for the work under what type of "contract".

Originally Posted by Jim Poor

Oh, and you're way off base on the "law" bit if you try to lump studio and wedding photography into a "work for hire" model.

You are correct for the USA, but not all countries operate the same (e.g. U.K.)

But I am not an expert on copyright laws...this is just my opinion.

My main complaint is that everything is (in general) "treated" as "photographic art" and that is really not appropriate IMO.

[sk66]

Originally Posted by candleman

i know for certain that event photography (weddings included) is not classified as a Commissioned work in NZ... so it's not automatic work for hire.

Really?
"Under current New Zealand law, in order for photographers to ensure that they own the copyright of the images taken for a client, it is necessary for them to do this by obtaining agreement from the client."
I don't live there so I don't know. but I think you may be mistaken..
"For photographs taken on or after 30 July 1998, the general rule on ownership depends on the purpose for which the photographs were taken:
• if the photographs were taken for “private or domestic purposes” (such as family portraits, or wedding photographs), the first owner of copyright in them is the client, unless the photographer and client agree otherwise; however
• if they were taken for any other purpose (e.g. commercial shots), the photographer will be the first owner of copyright, unless the photographer and client agree otherwise."

[candleman]

Originally Posted by sk66

Really?
"Under current New Zealand law, in order for photographers to ensure that they own the copyright of the images taken for a client, it is necessary for them to do this by obtaining agreement from the client."
I don't live there so I don't know. but I think you may be mistaken..
"For photographs taken on or after 30 July 1998, the general rule on ownership depends on the purpose for which the photographs were taken:
• if the photographs were taken for “private or domestic purposes” (such as family portraits, or wedding photographs), the first owner of copyright in them is the client, unless the photographer and client agree otherwise; however
• if they were taken for any other purpose (e.g. commercial shots), the photographer will be the first owner of copyright, unless the photographer and client agree otherwise."

FML ~I was not quite on par,

However, the standard terms of engagement i use (as written by NZIPP) state:

The Photographer does not accept commissions to create Photographic Works. The Photographer and the Client have agreed by these standard terms to override section 21(3) of the Copyright Act 1994. .... ......All copyright that arises out of the performance of the Photographer’s obligations under this contract shall arise not by commission but shall be the creation of the Photographer. The Photographer shall remain the first owner of the Photographic Works and the Client shall be supplied with the Photographic Works for use on the basis of the terms of this Licence.

i knew i was safe from being screwed by the "but I hired you" nonsence. i just crossed my wires when posting. appologies.

[sk66]

Originally Posted by candleman

i knew i was safe from being screwed by the "but I hired you" nonsence. i just crossed my wires when posting. appologies.

But that's my point..why is it nonesense? What do you need/want with someone's wedding photos? How often does a bride (or relative) come back and order new prints after the initial contract is completed? (e.g. 1yr later)
I'd be happy to be well paid and just have "portfolio rights".

If you are planning on making the majority of your profit off of the prints, I would say it's underselling "yourself" and a poor business model.
(Top photographers get paid for thier time and skill. They get paid quite well to produce 1 image.)