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
Fred's solution looks to be the best. I remember noticing that the
copyrights for a lot of celebrity photographs are no longer with the
original photographer. Maybe this system does work
-yazad
Ask them how much is the least they would accept in payment for the
negative,
before you have
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
How about asking some photographers?
Armchair economics is not a contact sport.
JC
_
John-Charles Bradbury, Ph.D.
Department of Economics
The University of the South
735 University Ave.
Sewanee, TN 37383 -1000
Phone: (931) 598-1721
Fax: (931) 598-1145
E-mail: [EMAIL
. McDaniel
University of Tulsa
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of John-charles Bradbury
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 12:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Photographers
How about asking some photographers
Dear Alex,
I am (semi-)married (divorce looming) to a photographer. Actually, he is a "public information officer" (propagandist -- see why we're getting divorced? I am unsupportive) who uses his talents as a photographer and graphic artist in his work. I have forwarded your message on to him
relatedly, how will this change (or has this changed?) given the fact that
you can get a fairly good quality digital scan of a photo for a relatively
low price - and reprint it from the file (or by rescanning) ad infinitum at
no additional cost?
seems that as the scanning/digitalization process
I'm not a pro, but what are those brown strips of film that have impressions
like the pictures you had developed that come back from Ritz when you get the
pics?
Burns, Erik wrote:
relatedly, how will this change (or has this changed?) given the fact that
you can get a fairly good quality
And of course normal developers always include the negatives.
--
Prof. Bryan Caplan
Department of Economics George Mason University
http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
He was thinking that Prince Andrei was in error and did
Sure, if you take your own pictures you get the negatives. But if you
hire a profesional photographer for say a wedding or if you have a
portrait done they are insistent on keeping the negatives.
Alex
--
Dr. Alexander Tabarrok
Vice President and Director of Research
The Independent Institute
Producing a photograph requires creating a negative and transfering it to a
positive image. It would seem simple to separate the two processes.
Certainly, a photographer ought to be able to sell the negatives for the PV
of the positive image revenue. The industry probably does not specialize in
The professional photographer keeping the negatives may be because that
photo is his/her property and he/she is trying to protect the
unauthorized use of it. A photo development shop just prints your
photos where as the pro is taking them and so they are his/hers.
I am guessing this is the
Alex Tabarrok wrote:
Sure, if you take your own pictures you get the negatives. But if you
hire a profesional photographer for say a wedding or if you have a
portrait done they are insistent on keeping the negatives.
What's wrong with a simple adverse selection story here? The only
people
Tbe adverse selection story, really a price discrimination story,
assumes monopoly power in the photography market. But there is free
entry into photography and hundreds of photographers easily available in
the phone book thus price should fall to MC which implies that
photographers should be
14 matches
Mail list logo
