How do you deal with clients who can't understand why they don't own the copyright?

[mokka]

This is a question for the pros out there who don't give their copyrights to clients after a job (which I understand is the majority of you).

I was discussing copyright etc. with a colleague (in my day-job) today. He isn't a potential client, but he does have contacts and was interested to know more about my current plans to set up a commercial photography business.

He was specifically talking about a portrait session he had done with his kids, but also generalising to mean all photography (including commercial). He couldn't understand that the photographer (or rather most photographers) will retain the copyright to the photos after the shoot.

In terms of the legal status of copyrights, I had a hard time convincing him that any photographs are automatically copyright of the photographer. In his words 'If the photos are of my kids, or my shop or my products then surely they are automatically my copyright'. I think he's still about 50% convinced that the legal right rests with the owner of what is being photographed.

In terms of retention of copyright as a business model he was even less convinced. He said that if he was a commercial client (even a small scale one) who wanted photographs of his products or premises, he would refuse to do business with a photographer who wouldn't give him full copyright after the shoot. He then said he can't believe any business would work with such a photographer even after I told him that this was pretty much all photographers.

He also couldn't see what the point would be of a photographer not giving the client any extra photos after the shoot, as in his view they are useless to the photographer as they were for a particular job with a particular client, why does the photographer not just give them all to the client, with full copyright for free (assuming the client has already paid for 'most' of the photographs, or paid an hourly rate for the commission).

In his case I think the situation was slightly aggravated by an old-fashioned portrait photographer who refused to deal in anything but prints. I think I agree with him in that sense that more and more now people simply expect to be able to have the photos digitally, and photographers will just have to accept that they can't make so much money from reprints like they once did.

So I was thinking, I'm sure many clients who are used to dealing with photographers are used to the idea of the photographer retaining copyright, but there must also be many who share his views, who maybe have never hired a photographer before and are appalled to hear that they won't get the full copyright.

How do the pros here deal with such clients, how do you explain your position to them, and do you run into this mindset often? Alternatively maybe you are a photographer who agrees with my colleague and thinks that photographers retaining copyrights is an outmoded business model. I'd be interested to hear your views and would find them extremely helpful as I'll be stating my business case to many other people besides him.

[nickbedford]

Ask them this question:

Does the copyright of a painting of someone automatically fall into the subject's possession? Nope.

[Jim Poor]

In general, I don't if I can avoid it.

Seriously, don't do any work for someone like that. If you find out after the fact, then you have to educate them.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by mokka

In terms of the legal status of copyrights, I had a hard time convincing him that any photographs are automatically copyright of the photographer. In his words 'If the photos are of my kids, or my shop or my products then surely they are automatically my copyright'. I think he's still about 50% convinced that the legal right rests with the owner of what is being photographed.

The shop and the products are copyright of their owner, but the photographs are another issue. They are the creative work of an individual and are therefore subject to copyright law.

Connect it to music: Just because you buy the CD doesn't mean you now own the copyrights. You own use rights. Same thing applies: just because you're paying someone to make photographs, it doesn't mean you own them.

Originally Posted by mokka

In terms of retention of copyright as a business model he was even less convinced. He said that if he was a commercial client (even a small scale one) who wanted photographs of his products or premises, he would refuse to do business with a client who wouldn't give him full copyright after the shoot. He then said he can't believe any business would work with such a photographer even after I told him that this was pretty much all photographers.

The reason for this is linked to above: the client gets usage rights. The way those are organized means that there are usually time/use limits to when/how images are used. For example, if I take photos of his products, then I license their use to the client for a year. After that, the client can opt for new photos (to showcase new branding or so on) or can renew the contract. In many cases this works to the benefit of the client as they can schedule new branding, etc.

Originally Posted by mokka

He also couldn't see what the point would be of a photographer not giving the client any extra photos after the shoot, as in his view they are useless to the photographer as they were for a particular job with a particular client, why does the photographer not just give them all to the client, with full copyright for free (assuming the client has already paid for 'most' of the photographs, or paid an hourly rate for the commission).

Because a photographer will often take several images of the same scene. Say products for instance: Should I also give the client a CD of the overexposed, out of focus, underexposed, or poorly lit trial shots?

The trick here, ironically, is branding on the photographer's side. If I'm known for a certain kind of look of images, I'm not about to give away files that do not fit within my quality or look requirements. If my images arent what I deem "sell-able", they dont leave.

Originally Posted by mokka

In his case I think the situation was slightly aggravated by an old-fashioned portrait photographer who refused to deal in anything but prints. I think I agree with him in that sense that more and more now people simply expect to be able to have the photos digitally, and photographers will just have to accept that they can't make so much money from reprints like they once did.

Again, this falls under use. It used to be that the only way to show off images was with prints. Now that most viewing is done electronically, the photographer has to charge for that. The client is still getting a product, so why would you charge less for the same possibilities? Even worse, the photographer doesnt make more money if the client wants to show off the images in multiple places. Instead of buying several 8x10s, the client can now simply place the same file on facebook, twitter, a digital frame, and/or have them printed. So, instead of selling 5 8x10s, the photographer charges for more based on the assumption that the client will use the image more than once.

Originally Posted by mokka

So I was thinking, I'm sure many clients who are used to dealing with photographers are used to the idea of the photographer retaining copyright, but there must also be many who share his views, who maybe have never hired a photographer before and are appalled to hear that they won't get the full copyright.

This is, sadly, becoming the case. It means that all photographers need to be up to date on copyright laws and usage, and that means more work for them (and now, increasingly, at lower prices and margins).

Originally Posted by mokka

How do the pros here deal with such clients, how do you explain your position to them, and do you run into this mindset often? Alternatively maybe you are a photographer who agrees with my colleague and thinks that photographers retaining copyrights is an outmoded business model. I'd be interested to hear your views and would find them extremely helpful as I'll be stating my business case to many other people besides him.

I've had to explain it, at length, as I've done here. Several times. In many cases "International Copyright Law" or "it's in the contract"/"that's how i operate" works. I've had clients come to me, not like how I deal with copyright, go to another photographer (or a commercial one) and come back. They get an extra "Pain in the ass" fee.

[Jim Bryant]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

The shop and the products are copyright of their owner, but the photographs are another issue. They are the creative work of an individual and are therefore subject to copyright law.

Connect it to music: Just because you buy the CD doesn't mean you now own the copyrights. You own use rights. Same thing applies: just because you're paying someone to make photographs, it doesn't mean you own them.



The reason for this is linked to above: the client gets usage rights. The way those are organized means that there are usually time/use limits to when/how images are used. For example, if I take photos of his products, then I license their use to the client for a year. After that, the client can opt for new photos (to showcase new branding or so on) or can renew the contract. In many cases this works to the benefit of the client as they can schedule new branding, etc.



Because a photographer will often take several images of the same scene. Say products for instance: Should I also give the client a CD of the overexposed, out of focus, underexposed, or poorly lit trial shots?

The trick here, ironically, is branding on the photographer's side. If I'm known for a certain kind of look of images, I'm not about to give away files that do not fit within my quality or look requirements. If my images arent what I deem "sell-able", they dont leave.



Again, this falls under use. It used to be that the only way to show off images was with prints. Now that most viewing is done electronically, the photographer has to charge for that. The client is still getting a product, so why would you charge less for the same possibilities? Even worse, the photographer doesnt make more money if the client wants to show off the images in multiple places. Instead of buying several 8x10s, the client can now simply place the same file on facebook, twitter, a digital frame, and/or have them printed. So, instead of selling 5 8x10s, the photographer charges for more based on the assumption that the client will use the image more than once.



This is, sadly, becoming the case. It means that all photographers need to be up to date on copyright laws and usage, and that means more work for them (and now, increasingly, at lower prices and margins).



I've had to explain it, at length, as I've done here. Several times. In many cases "International Copyright Law" or "it's in the contract"/"that's how i operate" works. I've had clients come to me, not like how I deal with copyright, go to another photographer (or a commercial one) and come back. They get an extra "Pain in the ass" fee.

Good answers...saves me from having to explain. You sell the copyright and you'll never make another cent off the photo.

[autofocus]

All it is is a form of legal protection which in a lot of ways is not much different than protection of patented products and trademarks. That said, you and your friends jobs are also protected by virtue of this. Just think if the products your company makes were not protected by the laws in place, the end result could be the demise of your company, and therefore your job.

Copyright laws also protect the author's / artists / photographer's name and reputation. (which directly impacts his livelihood)
A common scenario often discussed here on DPS is as follows:
-a photographer gives his digital images to a client on a CD
-the client now further edits or manipulates the original image(s)
-the client then proceeds to have the images printed with a low quality print service
-the photographer's name and reputation is now associated with these badly reworked and printed photos...not a good scenario

[mokka]

Thanks so much to everyone who's replied, all your answers were so useful. I feel more confident now that I can explain the rationale behind retaining copyright and why it's a good business model more clearly and calmly (without making contradictory statements or just sounding like I'm just regurgitating something that has become a mantra for professional photographers). This will be useful if I do come face to face with someone who wants an explanation and may be in a position to hire me, or give me a business grant.

I especially didn't think to mention to him that if you give away the copyright, the client is then free to do what they like with the photo and misrepresent you. This is a strong argument, especially given that he understood the related idea that the photographer won't want to sell the poor out-of-focus and badly exposed photos at any price in order to protect their reputation.

I'm relieved to know that photographers who will just give copyrights away on the cheap are very much in the minority, if indeed they exist at all, because I did have some concerns that clients who refused to work with any photographer who didn't give them copyrights would be able to easily find a commercial photographer who would sell them the copyright for the same price I would sell them a licence.

In general are pros finding that the attitude of clients is changing in terms of what they expect and what they expect to pay? Not just whether more and more potential clients expect to get the copyright, but also with respect to getting digital images (of course in commercial photography digital images are now almost the only format which is useful to the client, but in other fields of photography too), and with clients increasingly expecting that because they can take a half decent photo for free on their point and shoot, a professional shouldn't be charging that much more.

[Jim Poor]

Originally Posted by mokka

I'm relieved to know that photographers who will just give copyrights away on the cheap are very much in the minority, if indeed they exist at all, because I did have some concerns that clients who refused to work with any photographer who didn't give them copyrights would be able to easily find a commercial photographer who would sell them the copyright for the same price I would sell them a licence.

Unfortunately, you're mistaken on that point. Photographers that will give away the farm are a dime / dozen. Fortunately, they tend to go out of business quickly.

Careful with your use of "commercial photographer" a lot of true "commercial" photography is done on a work for hire basis, in which case © does go to the client rather than the photographer.

[Dennismc]

Originally Posted by Jim Poor

Unfortunately, you're mistaken on that point. Photographers that will give away the farm are a dime / dozen. Fortunately, they tend to go out of business quickly.

Jim, I would have to agree with you here. BUT thanks to this forum and posts like this one, being a new photographer, even just barley getting any good shots, I am standing behind my decision to not give out the copyright on any photos. IE recent dog show that i went to with a friend, got about 15 useable shots for the owners. They wanted to just download the images from my sd card on site or have me send them a cd, I explai9ned basically the above and said that I wouldn't do that until a release was signed.

trying to set my habits now rather then later..

[Jim Poor]

Originally Posted by Dennismc

Jim, I would have to agree with you here. BUT thanks to this forum and posts like this one, being a new photographer, even just barley getting any good shots, I am standing behind my decision to not give out the copyright on any photos. IE recent dog show that i went to with a friend, got about 15 useable shots for the owners. They wanted to just download the images from my sd card on site or have me send them a cd, I explai9ned basically the above and said that I wouldn't do that until a release was signed.

trying to set my habits now rather then later..

Awesome. Sounds like you're on the right track!