Copy Protecting an Image CD/DVD

[jagabo]

I'm not even talking about the legal issues. I'm talking about market issues. The market is moving toward work-for-hire contracts. Obviously, anybody is happy with that if "paid the proper amount". The lowering cost of entry into the market (because of the internet, digital distribution, ubiquitous computers and printers, etc) means there are more and more young hungry writers and photographers willing to to do the job on a work-for-hire basis without the premium payment.

[El Heggunte]

RdM642, I was curious about your "Constitution" statement, so I looked up the constitution. This is what I found:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

(In Article1 of the Main part, not the Amendments)

This establishes the idea of "patents" and "copyrights".
Note that Authors/Producers love to highlight the term "EXCLUSIVE", while ignoring the "LIMITED", and even "To Promot the progress".

Also, there are no references about «copyright buyers and copyright pr0stitutes».

[lordsmurf]

@cornu
Under this line of thought, I think Jagabo wants to shift it too far, though. I fully believe in both exclusive AND limited. I don't know that this was his intention anyway, I think there is some misinterpretation over the point he's trying to make.

@jaga
Ideally, yes, work it all out up front with a proper amount. However, cheap bastards everywhere won't agree to this, so you have to nickel-and-dime them to death OR (as I do) just forget about that demographic. Honestly, I don't want to deal with them. For example, if you only want to pay $200 for a wedding, then you'll either get shoddy work OR there are many hidden costs. You just can't feasibly shoot weddings for $200 and make money from it, given time, equipment and other expenses (travel, etc).

@RdM
FYI, ownership of the camera doesn't shift rights. The camera is not the photographer, the person is. I borrow equipment all the time, but those are my photos.

[lordsmurf]

I The lowering cost of entry into the market (because of the internet, digital distribution, ubiquitous computers and printers, etc) means there are more and more young hungry writers and photographers willing to to do the job on a work-for-hire basis without the premium payment.

NNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To call many of these people "writers" or "photographers" is a joke.
Buy computers, cameras -- these are the tools, yes, but few people ACTUALLY know how to use them well.

They are no more a writer/photographer than I am a doctor (because I can buy aspirin cheap at Walmart).

I call bullshit.

[jagabo]

I The lowering cost of entry into the market (because of the internet, digital distribution, ubiquitous computers and printers, etc) means there are more and more young hungry writers and photographers willing to to do the job on a work-for-hire basis without the premium payment.

NNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To call many of these people "writers" or "photographers" is a joke.

Of course many of them aren't any good. On the other hand some of them are. And even the unskilled ones put downward pricing/licensing pressure on the skilled ones.

I think Jagabo wants to shift it too far

I'm not arguing what I want. I'm arguing the market reality and where I see it going.

[VegasBud]

In terms of the original topic, the story really isn't complicated...guy shoots wedding without a contract, excrement hits the fan, end of story.

In case it isn't obvious, the purpose of a contract is to clarify the rights and responsibilities of, and thereby protect the interests of, all parties involved. Shooting without a contract is unprofessional, and just plain silly.

One last comment on the original topic...especially with wedding photography, happy customers and undeniably superior product lead to word-of-mouth advertising which is extremely effective at promoting your business. Unhappy customers and bad product are just as effective at destroying your business. Give those people their photos, with a smile on your face, and chalk it up to the cost of your education.

A couple other subjects were brought up which I have some thoughts on:

Concerning legal rights, there are two things which weren't mentioned:
1.) By the time you're even thinking about legal recourse, you're way past the point where you screwed up. Once lawyers are involved, only the lawyers win.
2.) While it's true that photographers get the copyright...the photos are unuseable without releases.

Concerning pricing pressure:

I tend to agree with jagabo about the downward pressure of pricing. Digital cameras are everywhere. I can't walk down the strip (with a camera) without collecting a little herd of point-and-shoot photographers following along behind me like chicks behind a mother hen (apparently they're attracted to large lenses). Whatever I take a photo of, they take a photo of. By doing so, they are creating duplicates (of a sort) of the photos I take. Supply and demand would suggest that this would diminish the value of my photos.

However, I also tend to agree with lordsmurf. Someone can stand in the same spot I did, and shoot in the same direction I did, but the photo will never be the same as mine. They just don't see what I'm seeing, so they can't capture what I'm capturing. As a result, those people aren't my competition. If anything, their photos just serve to emphasize the value of my photos.

It seems to me that most people can use a current camera (whether still or video) to open a window into a moment in time which has now passed (which is magical, in itself), but there are far fewer people who can use a camera (whether still or video) to tell a story. I think it's likely that the storytellers (or artists, if you prefer) will always be in demand.

Of course, that's just my opinion, but as always...where someone's opinions differ from mine, it's my opinion that they're wrong...and I'm right.

[lordsmurf]

2.) While it's true that photographers get the copyright...the photos are unuseable without releases.

Not entirely true. They can still be sold and used. News, editorial, documentary, etc...
... I don't feel like getting into the details. Too much to type.

I can't walk down the strip (with a camera) without collecting a little herd of point-and-shoot photographers following along behind me like chicks behind a mother hen (apparently they're attracted to large lenses). Whatever I take a photo of, they take a photo of.

It's worse when they try to talk to you. I hate that. "GO AWAY! I'M WORKING!"

I think it's likely that the storytellers (or artists, if you prefer) will always be in demand.

Yes and no. Ideally, yes. Mostly yes. But I find a lot of people who will look at a total piece of crap video or photo and proclaim "wow, that's so good". I'm often in disbelief. You'd almost have to be clinically blind to like some of those out-of-focus, off-white balanced, blurry, off-color crap. There are actually people out there who appreciate the "I could do that too" crap look. It reminds me of voting for somebody because he/she's as dumb as you are. Fear of quality, fear of intelligence.
... I could type more, but my hands hurt right now. Just a rant anyway.