Our photographer
(Warning! What follows is a long rant. Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!)
Yilin and I have picked out a photographer for our wedding. His name is Georges Khayat and he is pretty darn good, I would say. He shoots mostly digital, but will shoot film (35mm or medium format) upon request. He shoots mostly color, but will shoot some black and white (or convert color digital images to black and white). But more importantly, he shoots great photos.
Therefore, choosing him was not too difficult, as both of us had him at number 1 or tied for number 1, and then he is the only wedding photographer we looked at that 'allowed' us to gain the rights to our wedding photos. I say 'allowed' since ownership of rights in wedding photography is very contentious.
Traditionally, wedding photographers had contractual clauses that state that they'd own the rights to your wedding photos, and if you wanted prints, you'd have to order them from the photographer. Yep. You forked over big bucks for them to take photos of your wedding, and then, "Oh, I'm sorry, you have to pay extra if you want any of those photos." (At least above and beyond what minimal number they initially give you, along with proofs.) The only way to get more photos was to go back to the photographer who owned the rights. I think this is extortion, and just wrong, which is why I am glad to hear that the industry is slowly changing.
Today, with the advent of cheaper technology, formerly prohibitively expensive items like scanners and photo printers are the bane of wedding photographers who choose the traditional contract method. Most people are happy scanning in any prints that they get, and then printing out copies themselves. The difference in quality will be minimal, mostly a slight color shift if your setup is not properly color calibrated. It would be hard for most people to notice a big enough difference to be willing to pay the photographer a lot of money for more photos. Of course, these photographers are angered by this because they lose money and technically it is illegal as the clients don't own the copyrights.
But that is what is ridiculous: Why, other than monetary reasons, would any stranger to me want to own photos of my wedding? Does it seem creepy to anyone else? (This is only one concern, as you will see if you continue reading.) Why people still submit to this archaic form of contract is beyond me. The masses should be outrage and demanding change. Instead, the photographers are changing their contract arrangements so that the masses aren't 'ripping them off.'
And these changes are for the better: more and more wedding photographers either agree that the client retains the rights to the photos, or allows the rights (along with the negatives or digital negatives) to be purchased for a flat fee, at any point. This allows the client to print 8000 copies of the photo of the cute little flower girl using their home printer, without paying exhorbitant per print fees or worrying about copyright infringement (which most clients are probably unaware of; imagine getting sued for printing a copy of your own wedding photo!).
So what happens if Mr. Bigshot Wedding Photographer gets hit by a truck and nobody takes over his business, or his computer bursts into flames, and all of my wedding photos are lost? It happens. It was worse in the old days when there were no digital photos, or digital copies of negatives. What? Your photography studio burnt down and all your negatives with it? So I can't get any prints of my wedding, huh?
Sorry, but I trust myself to properly archive such a momentous event in my life over the archival ability of a stranger.
So naturally, being an amateur photographer, I wanted to retain the rights to our wedding photos. Well, in Montreal, things are a bit different than in New York City: the photographers stick to the archaic system of 'keeping' the rights and selling you prints. What is potentially amusing, in a frustrating ironic way, is that U.S. and Canadian law differ ever so slightly on artists' rights when it comes to photography.
First, let me talk about rights. Most of you are probably somewhat familiar with copyrights: the artist automatically owns the copyright to a piece of work, and that work cannot be copied or duplicated in any way without the artist's consent, etc. Of course, artists can work out royalty deals with those who wish to reproduce their work, or sell (or give) the copyright to that piece of work. I think they can even waive the copyright, making a piece of art public domain.
But there are also things called 'moral rights.' These are more interesting. If I create a statue, on commission from MegaCorp, for the purpose of displaying outside their corporate headquarters in Manhattan, I can sell them the copyright so that they own the statue and own the right to sell souvenir statues. But let's say that after 10 years, they decide the statue doesn't fit with the 'improved' global image of MegaCorp, and they want to tear it down. Guess what? They can't. According to the law, they have to get permission from the artist to alter, deconstruct, or destroy (or move if it is a permanent installation, like a large statue) the piece of art. (This actually happened in NYC, although I don't remember the artist or corporation right now...) They own it, they own the copyright to it, but the artist owns the moral right to it, indefinitely. Moral rights cannot be sold/transferred by an artist to another party. They can, however, be waived.
The way I understand it, wedding photographers in the US make you sign an agreement allowing the photographer to retain the copyrights to the photos, unless agreed upon otherwise (i.e., you purchase the rights or they just 'give' them to you). The photographer retains the moral rights.
In Canada, if you commission an artist to create a work for you, the artist owns the copyrights and moral rights. Except photographers. For some reason, Canadian copyright law is such that if you commission a photographer to take photos for you, you the commissioner are considered 'the author' of the work. (This does not hold true for anything else: opera, theater, paintings, novels, drawings, sculptures, etc.) Therefore, in Canada, if I commission a wedding photographer, for instance, I automatically possess not only the copyrights, but also the moral rights as well. They all have contractual clauses saying that they retain the copyright (meaning you hand them over), just so they can extort you into buying prints. But, I wonder how many even know about moral rights.
For instance, one great thing about moral rights is that they prevent use of the piece of art for anything with which the 'author' objects. In Canada, I, as the author and therefore owner of the moral rights of my wedding photos, could refuse the photographer to ever use those photos in their portfolio or to promote their business. Even if they own the copyright. Do most of them know this? Probably not, but some have a clause in the contract saying that they can use the photo in their portfolio. Which is reasonable. As handsome as I am, I don't think use of a photo of me will gain them substantial profit; at least not enough that I would object.
I have wondered if you could knowingly hire a wedding photographer with a weak contract and then exploit that. Even more so, since most Quebecois use French for their contracts (why?). Also, if you request an English version it is so full of typos and poor language that I question it's ability to hold up in court (at least in the U.S. it wouldn't).
To bring us back to the thrust of this post, I just wanted a photographer who would either allow us to retain the rights to our photos, or would 'sell' them to us. Georges was the only one. Our wedding planner said that she didn't expect to find any in all of Montreal, and was a bit surprised that he would do that. Good for him, as it won him another client. (We can buy the rights and negatives for C$900, or after 2 years he gives them to us for free.)
Hopefully, this will be my only rant. I don't care enough about the details of the other stuff to get passionate. ("What? The plates have lemon colored edges instead of sunshine yellow? NOOOooo!!!")
Yilin and I have picked out a photographer for our wedding. His name is Georges Khayat and he is pretty darn good, I would say. He shoots mostly digital, but will shoot film (35mm or medium format) upon request. He shoots mostly color, but will shoot some black and white (or convert color digital images to black and white). But more importantly, he shoots great photos.
Therefore, choosing him was not too difficult, as both of us had him at number 1 or tied for number 1, and then he is the only wedding photographer we looked at that 'allowed' us to gain the rights to our wedding photos. I say 'allowed' since ownership of rights in wedding photography is very contentious.
Traditionally, wedding photographers had contractual clauses that state that they'd own the rights to your wedding photos, and if you wanted prints, you'd have to order them from the photographer. Yep. You forked over big bucks for them to take photos of your wedding, and then, "Oh, I'm sorry, you have to pay extra if you want any of those photos." (At least above and beyond what minimal number they initially give you, along with proofs.) The only way to get more photos was to go back to the photographer who owned the rights. I think this is extortion, and just wrong, which is why I am glad to hear that the industry is slowly changing.
Today, with the advent of cheaper technology, formerly prohibitively expensive items like scanners and photo printers are the bane of wedding photographers who choose the traditional contract method. Most people are happy scanning in any prints that they get, and then printing out copies themselves. The difference in quality will be minimal, mostly a slight color shift if your setup is not properly color calibrated. It would be hard for most people to notice a big enough difference to be willing to pay the photographer a lot of money for more photos. Of course, these photographers are angered by this because they lose money and technically it is illegal as the clients don't own the copyrights.
But that is what is ridiculous: Why, other than monetary reasons, would any stranger to me want to own photos of my wedding? Does it seem creepy to anyone else? (This is only one concern, as you will see if you continue reading.) Why people still submit to this archaic form of contract is beyond me. The masses should be outrage and demanding change. Instead, the photographers are changing their contract arrangements so that the masses aren't 'ripping them off.'
And these changes are for the better: more and more wedding photographers either agree that the client retains the rights to the photos, or allows the rights (along with the negatives or digital negatives) to be purchased for a flat fee, at any point. This allows the client to print 8000 copies of the photo of the cute little flower girl using their home printer, without paying exhorbitant per print fees or worrying about copyright infringement (which most clients are probably unaware of; imagine getting sued for printing a copy of your own wedding photo!).
So what happens if Mr. Bigshot Wedding Photographer gets hit by a truck and nobody takes over his business, or his computer bursts into flames, and all of my wedding photos are lost? It happens. It was worse in the old days when there were no digital photos, or digital copies of negatives. What? Your photography studio burnt down and all your negatives with it? So I can't get any prints of my wedding, huh?
Sorry, but I trust myself to properly archive such a momentous event in my life over the archival ability of a stranger.
So naturally, being an amateur photographer, I wanted to retain the rights to our wedding photos. Well, in Montreal, things are a bit different than in New York City: the photographers stick to the archaic system of 'keeping' the rights and selling you prints. What is potentially amusing, in a frustrating ironic way, is that U.S. and Canadian law differ ever so slightly on artists' rights when it comes to photography.
First, let me talk about rights. Most of you are probably somewhat familiar with copyrights: the artist automatically owns the copyright to a piece of work, and that work cannot be copied or duplicated in any way without the artist's consent, etc. Of course, artists can work out royalty deals with those who wish to reproduce their work, or sell (or give) the copyright to that piece of work. I think they can even waive the copyright, making a piece of art public domain.
But there are also things called 'moral rights.' These are more interesting. If I create a statue, on commission from MegaCorp, for the purpose of displaying outside their corporate headquarters in Manhattan, I can sell them the copyright so that they own the statue and own the right to sell souvenir statues. But let's say that after 10 years, they decide the statue doesn't fit with the 'improved' global image of MegaCorp, and they want to tear it down. Guess what? They can't. According to the law, they have to get permission from the artist to alter, deconstruct, or destroy (or move if it is a permanent installation, like a large statue) the piece of art. (This actually happened in NYC, although I don't remember the artist or corporation right now...) They own it, they own the copyright to it, but the artist owns the moral right to it, indefinitely. Moral rights cannot be sold/transferred by an artist to another party. They can, however, be waived.
The way I understand it, wedding photographers in the US make you sign an agreement allowing the photographer to retain the copyrights to the photos, unless agreed upon otherwise (i.e., you purchase the rights or they just 'give' them to you). The photographer retains the moral rights.
In Canada, if you commission an artist to create a work for you, the artist owns the copyrights and moral rights. Except photographers. For some reason, Canadian copyright law is such that if you commission a photographer to take photos for you, you the commissioner are considered 'the author' of the work. (This does not hold true for anything else: opera, theater, paintings, novels, drawings, sculptures, etc.) Therefore, in Canada, if I commission a wedding photographer, for instance, I automatically possess not only the copyrights, but also the moral rights as well. They all have contractual clauses saying that they retain the copyright (meaning you hand them over), just so they can extort you into buying prints. But, I wonder how many even know about moral rights.
For instance, one great thing about moral rights is that they prevent use of the piece of art for anything with which the 'author' objects. In Canada, I, as the author and therefore owner of the moral rights of my wedding photos, could refuse the photographer to ever use those photos in their portfolio or to promote their business. Even if they own the copyright. Do most of them know this? Probably not, but some have a clause in the contract saying that they can use the photo in their portfolio. Which is reasonable. As handsome as I am, I don't think use of a photo of me will gain them substantial profit; at least not enough that I would object.
I have wondered if you could knowingly hire a wedding photographer with a weak contract and then exploit that. Even more so, since most Quebecois use French for their contracts (why?). Also, if you request an English version it is so full of typos and poor language that I question it's ability to hold up in court (at least in the U.S. it wouldn't).
To bring us back to the thrust of this post, I just wanted a photographer who would either allow us to retain the rights to our photos, or would 'sell' them to us. Georges was the only one. Our wedding planner said that she didn't expect to find any in all of Montreal, and was a bit surprised that he would do that. Good for him, as it won him another client. (We can buy the rights and negatives for C$900, or after 2 years he gives them to us for free.)
Hopefully, this will be my only rant. I don't care enough about the details of the other stuff to get passionate. ("What? The plates have lemon colored edges instead of sunshine yellow? NOOOooo!!!")
posted by josh at 9:39 AM
2 Comments:
I was not aware of this at all and am glad you went on your rant. This is an awesome bit of information which I have sent link to Pete in my office as he recently got engaged.
I went and checked out your photographers website... very artistic shots. Yilin will make his job easy, but Josh is generally so unpresentable, that I'm not sure if even Georges Khayat can turn him into gold. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home