on 29/9/04 12:47 pm, Shangara Singh wrote: > Actually, a fair number of photographers on this list own RIPs. That not > withstanding, be fare, and admit how many photographers you know who will > NOT charge a "fat fee" every time their photo is used in a magazine, poster > or other campaign? I can't see a difference. If you have the copyright on a > product, you have the right to charge for its usage.
Hi Shangara If you check my introductory post you'll see that I'm watching that anachronism with the same interest as I'll be watching Adobe's DNG. Giving the photographer copyright on an image that they may have spent 30 minutes setting up under the guidance of an art director and that required another 20 hours of post production retouching before it can be used is about as old-fashioned as supplying camera-ready artwork with a union stamp on the back! Sure if you're the photographic equivalent of the proverbial "auteur" then nobody's going to question your right to the benefits of authorship. But what percentage of photographers exert that degree of control? I'm not having a dig. I think that pro photographers need to demand more cash considering that they are now expected to provide pre-press services, retouching and digital storage/delivery as part of the job nowadays. But the copyright/usage issue looks ripe for revision... > If they wanted to, Adobe have the rights to charge you every time you open > Photoshop! <g> That's why we leave our copies running 24/7 :-) -- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd -- The Image Specialists http://www.idea-digital.com =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
