That's an interesting story!
Thanks a lot for sharing, Bill!
A few quick comments:
1. I would have assumed that "our" photo outlet would be using a
standardized setting (a conveyor as you described, that removes thinking
from the process, but also reduces chances for errors).
I am content with that, - I am not expecting a manually-assembled
Rolls-Royce where a school bus would work, as long as the proper
maintenance is done.
2. The US copyright law assigns the copyright to the employer if it is
a "works made for hire" with a fairly clear definition and criteria of
what that constitutes. (Well, as clear as it gets in precedence-based law,
where many things are a "gray area")
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf
But if I am commissioning (ordering) the photoshoot, I am not the owner, as
it would be an independent contractor/service provider, unless, it is
explicitly written in the service contract.
I've just given a series of lectures on IP (intellectual property),
including the copyright, as a guest speaker in a business class.
So, these issues are very fresh in my mind.
3. As for the Big company vs small local ones: I've seen almost the same
happening in San Diego downtown ("Gaslamp Quarter"). There was a local
family-owned coffee shop -tea room "Bassam", that was there for close to
20 years.
Then Starbucks came and put 3 (!) shops within 2 blocks from that corner,
one being right across the street. The interesting part was that that
store across was always empty, while the local one was always packed. At
some point Starbucks actually approached the shop owners and offered to
buy the shop, but the owners refused.
(That was happening soon after a new Ballpark "Petco Park" and many
high-rise condos were built in that area.)
Then, when the lease came for renewal, Starbucks offered 3x the rent
price, and the family couldn't match that and lost their space. They were
forced to move to "midtown".
I don't know all the details after that as we moved from San Diego around
that time, but as far as I know, Starbucks didn't even use that space,
and it stayed empty until the lease expired. At least, now, there is a
yet-another-Irish-bar there.
Such is life...
Igor
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018, Bill wrote:
On 2/21/2018 9:20 AM, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
HAR!
People with K-{1,3,5} are overqualified for that job! ;-)
BTW, regarding using their own gear:
There could be an interesting twist if the photographers are using their
own gear, especially if they are getting 1099 tax form, and not W-2 (which
might be the case, especially it sounds like a seasonal job, according to
the reviewer on Glassdoor). In that case, the photographer might not be
considered "an employee" but "an independent contractor".
If that's the case, then the copyright on the photos belongs to the
photographer, not to the studio, unless it is explicitly written
differently in the contract. I would assume, that they have written that in
the contract. It doesn't matter to me as a customer, it's just a
curious aspect of the copyright laws.
He will be signing his copyrights over to the company as part of his
contract. That is a given. I don't like our present copyright law. The
Canadian law used to read that the first owner of copyright was the
person who commissioned the work. That makes more sense to me than the
way we do it now.
Cheers, >> >> Igor
A few decades ago, I was a stringer for a large specialty company that did
school photos and not much else. I don't know how representative my
experience with them was, but I suspect they all work pretty much the same
way.
All gear was supplied by the company, and lighting set up was fixed. There
was no allowing for the photographer to freelance with the equipment. The
posing stool was placed exactly the same distance from the background in
every set up, in every school, and with every photographer. The lights were
also positioned exactly the same way, same distance from the subject, same
angles, same power output, etc. The camera to subject distance was locked in
place. In fact, we were using fixed focus lenses so we had to string the
camera to subject distance.
This was done to allow the many thousands of images to flow through the
system as smoothly as possible and fie on any photographer who deviated .
Group shots had a bit more flexibility, but getting a group shot with
everyone looking at the camera with their eyes open is more of a challenge
than anyone who hasn't done it would realize. The success rate is an inverse
square proportion related to the number of people in the group. By the time
you get to a couple of dozen people in the group, only Mr. Spock could figure
the odds of success in his head.
The group I worked with were actually interested in portrait photography, and
most of the people were very good photographers in their own right. However,
I didn't see being a photographer as being especially necessary, it was much
more important to be able to relate to people, especially kids, since they
were really the only variable.
They tended to haul me in at graduation time, as they needed to swell their
ranks temporarily to keep up with demand. I liked doing the grad stuff as
there was a lot more freedom, and working with young adults is more fun than
with surly, mewling twelve year old mini-demons.
Grads were pretty much a free for all, I was allowed to light the subjects as
I wanted to with some limitations. They didn't want really hard ratios, for
example.
I imagine with everything being digital now, they could composite the group
shots to get everyone looking at the camera if they wanted to, it depends on
the individual company. If they are a photographic company, they might, in
fact probably would, but if they are a company that just happens to make
their money doing photography, it might be a different story.
A decade ago, I was working as one of the Photoshop technicians for a small
studio that was trying hard to break into the school market. By then we were
shooting digital, and the owner allowed the photographers a lot more freedom.
As a tech, my responsibility was to pick the best picture out of the series
and then do minor retouching to make the subjects look their best. Zit
cloning was the biggie, but occasionally we would do other things to improve
the look of the subject. Nothing that was terribly obvious.
The problem we had was that competing against the aforementioned large
company, we didn't have the financial resources to be in the same price
point, and it is a very price sensitive market. The big player eventually got
tired of us and crushed us by dropping their bid price in our market to the
point that it would have cost us money to win projects. They did this to
every independent in the markets they wanted to own.
Eventually, I went to work for a home improvement store, another photographer
went to work at a seed mill, the other retoucher drifted off to work for an
insurance company, and after the rent per square foot quadrupled because the
mall decided it wanted national stores not independents and decided to
squeeze us out via absurd rent demands, the business owner closed the place
and took a job selling building products for a specialty supply company. The
last shoot I did there was Dec 31, 2011.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
