Sorry for posting on a stale topic, but I can't resist .. I actually *DID* discuss this with a photographer once (who said armchair economics isn't a contact sport? ;-)
> > for the negatives - but the photographers always react with horror to > > this suggestion and refuse. > > Alex > > Ask them how much is the least they would accept in payment for the negative, > before you have the picture taken. > > Go and ask several photographers. If they say "I don't sell negatives," > offer $10,000. He will probably say OK. Then tell him you will be asking > other photographers, and so, what is the least he would accept? I asked. At $5,000 PER NEGATIVE he said he "might consider" it. > You could also mention that if you can't get the negative, you will scan the > photo into your computer. The quality won't be as good as with a negative, > and folks might think it is the fault of the photographer. He said that scanning the image was a violation of his copyright, and if he found out any of his customers did this, he would "definitely" sue them. I asked how much he would charge for the right to scan the picture -- after all, I pointed out, the scanned image is a different product than the print. He said he would "consider" giving permission for a "very low resolution" scan, for no additional charge, but would not consider allowing high resolution scans at all. As far as having people think the low quality associated with a scan was the fault of the photographer ... well, if people were dumb enough to reveal he was the photographer, they'd get sued for copyright infringement! I asked him if he would consider a photo contract which, in advance, included selling the copyright to the customer, and he was extremely horrified I had even thought of such an idea. It was as if he considered it immoral to sell the copyright. Note that this fellow mostly does weddings, and he said that photographers often "help each other out" when more than one individual photographer is needed at a wedding. The "helpers" are paid a fixed fee, and it SEEMED to me that the copyright on all photos went to the guy who got the contract. --Robert
