 Kimberly Armstrong |
Names on Images I am having a debate with several family members over having my name in the bottom right-hand corner of the images with the year (sort of a copyright stamp). They think it's tacky and unnecessary. The images that I shoot mostly are for weddings. So I'm wondering what is the "correct" answer to whether or not my image should have my name on them. Now to add a little more info. I give a limited copyright release to my clients so that they can copy and re-print all images from a CD that I provide to them ... so what does everyone think??
|
|
|
|
||
|
Stephanie M. Stevens |
That doesn't sound tacky to me. I think every studio on the planet does that. It tells everyone who looks at the pictures who you are. That's how you bring in more business.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Liza M. Franco |
I agree with Stephanie. I recently had a customer who was upset that I didn't have my name and copyright on the bottom. To some, it is almost a status symbol. Some people like to show off which studio has done their portrait. The funny thing is, I purposely didn't put the name and copyright on it because it was for extended family and I wasn't worried about her copying it. But she really wanted the name on there. You would be surprised how much some people really like having it on there. You have worked hard to capture that photo for someone, you should definitely put your name on it. You can make a copyright symbol in Photoshop, too, if you need one.
|
|
|
|
||
|
William Koplitz |
I'm with your family. I would think a trademark would be good, a name with a copyright symbol is not necessary. I can think of an instance here were you won't even own the copyright, but it will be considered work for hire without you assigning rights.
|
|
|
|
||
|
steven barr |
Ms. Armstrong, I am interested in seeing what you mean by a 'limited' copywrite'? First I assume you are burning the CD's at the highest resolution? What does this do to your print resales? Do they return the CD after making their prints?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kimberly Armstrong |
Steve, I currently do not offer packages with printing. Basically 'limited' means more that it's shared, I still own the copy right giving me the ability to use their image in advertising, marketing, sale to magazines, etc. I shoot everything digital, but yes I save everything as high as possible, they keep the cd and just print whatever they want, the cd is theirs. My prices are just for my time. I am in the process of creating printed packages, but I've gotten a lot of clients because I dont print and my packages are low cost and for brides on a budget that's exciting to them. They can print their favorites, print them at the size they want them and they can share the disk with family members as well. Good luck to you too.
|
|
|
|
||
|
steven barr |
Thanks for yout rime. If it isn't rude to inquire, may I ask you your price for your time? In other words, what is your fee to clients? Thanks, Steve
|
|
|
|
||
|
Norbert Maile |
I agree. It is a mark of an artist, which brings me to another point. If it is a standard type of print you could have your company name blocked into the bottom portion of the print and if it is a more artistic type of photograph you could sign it by hand and put the year on it. I would recomend India Ink for the signature. I use an old style pen which actually scratches the surface and can not be removed. Each to thier own.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kimberly Armstrong |
Steve, I dont think it's rude at all. There is no time limit on any of these, and I digitally enhance many of the images (black & white, selective coloring, collages) none of that is extra charge. They'll get all the images, minus of course blurry, eyes closed, etc. when they've been enhanced they get the original and final image. I think that a lot of times prices for wedding photography goes up with cost of printing. It is a responsiblity that I am passing on to my clients, I dont know what images will mean more than others to them, so this way they can have the final say in everything that is printed and it saves me time not having to keep track of everything right now in this stage of my business. Like I said I am working on including printed packages probably at the beginning of the year. I'm not just charging for my time, because lets face it who really needs to be paid $100 an hour, I'm charging for my talent. Some would say it's over priced, some say it's under. I seem to have found a pretty open market of people looking for a budget photographer and they wouldn't hire me if they didn't like my quality and talent. Hope that helps
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bill Wassmann |
I don't think you should put your name on your pictures. I have shot only a few weddings (didn't like it) but I didn't put my name on anything. When I sell matted prints I sign the mat, not the print. Brides don't want to see someone elses name on the picture; it's a picture of an important moment in their lives. How many pictures in advertising - even by very famous photographers - have the photographer's name? As for copyright (note the spelling folks, it isn't "copy write"), although you technically own it, you had better not try to sell a bride photo for ads without the express permission of the subject. I gather you are an amateur making few bucks. Fine, but learn about business principles and photographic law.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mary N C. Taitt |
I think people who display their names largely on the bottom of their pictures are ruining the pictures. I don't even like to look at them. However, if it is small and tasteful and partially blends with the background, that's OK with me (but who am I?). Mary
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kimberly Armstrong |
Bill, I am a professional, I have a model release signed by all the people that I shoot it's part of the contract, it's an optional signature, but I have never had anyone not sign it, they find it to be a compliment that I would possibly want to use an image from their wedding to promote my business. And I am not sure where you got the idea that I dont know anything about business principles or photographic law. As far as having my name on an image for advertising, I wouldn't need it on the acutal image since it would be a part of whatever advertising I would be doing for my business....therefore my name would be somewhere on there. My signature at the bottom of the image isn't obtrusive to the main subject it is a very light signature and a very small font. I would never do anything to take away from the image that was created or distract from it. And out of curiousity how many times have you been a bride, because I for one have been one and if the photographer had put their name on my image it wouldn't have bothered me, because that is their right, it's their artistic expression and quite frankly if I didn't like that I wouldn't have hired someone that represented images with their name on it. Personal preference, my family doesn't like it, I happen to like it there. I am proud of the work that I do and proud to have my name on my work. Just wondering, but what about shooting weddings didn't you like? What kind of photography do you shoot. I'm just curious because I like to view other peoples work and noticed you dont have a gallery. Thank you everyone else for your opinions and advice.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kimberly Armstrong |
Mary, Your images are beautiful, but you dont need me to tell you, obviously the judges here think so as well since you're a multi-finalist for your images. Congrats! I agree with what you said, I'm not placing my name on there to take away the attention of the subject. More of a small mark of pride to my work.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Thea Menagh |
Hello, everyone! To sign or not to sign ... that is the question ... which should be left to the person paying you for the photograph! I have an image of my signature and a request on the Wedding page of my website at www.AFittingImage.com asking that if the couple wants my digital signature on their portrait, to please let me know when emailing me the photo number of the image they want. Yes - personal preference. Actually, the signature is pretty neat, and most people want it. Personally, I think for the client, it's one of those status things ... while for me, it's a signature of pride in my work! It's shown tastefully in either black or white (depending on whether the right-bottom corner of the photograph is dark or light) in a size appropriate for the 11"x14 print.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Nancy Donnell |
Hi, I would have been very upset to see a name and copyright symbol at the bottom of all of my wonderful photos. If someone wanted to know who the photographer was, I told them. The day is about the bride, the groom, and and any family, or friends. I think it would be horrible to have my wedding pictures marred with type. Hand out your business card. Don't distract the eye of the beholder for the ego of the photographer.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Thea Menagh |
Good morning ... Some people DO feel that way, Nancy, which is why I ask first. However, you bring up another big 'advertising/marketing' no-no, in my opinion ... handing out business cards. I've photographed weddings where the florist & DJ have left several of their business cards on each of the guest AND head tables. THAT is something I consider rude and inappropriate. While I always bring a few business cards ... ONLY for people who ask for them ... the handing out of my cards and the signature on the photographs (when I'm asked to put it there) is hardly an "ego" thing ... but a business matter. After all, I'm an artist among many people who may wish to make use of my services, and if they express that interest, I'll give them a card. However, using that wedding celebration as a marketing & advertising venue by distributing the cards at random, in my opinion, is crass, rude and very unprofessional. The signature on the portraits should be discussed BEFOREHAND, and when you see the photographer's portfolio, something to consider asking.
|
|
|
|
||
|
William Koplitz |
You have a model release on your photography contract for services? I don't know about that, it sounds like a unilateral contract which is not enforceable and that's really aggressive, borering on rude. Can they have the photography done without giving you rights to publish their photographs? Have you run this by a lawyer?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Thea Menagh |
Hi, William ... I don't use a Contract. My Invoice is the Agreement between us, and no, the Release isn't obligatory. There's not been anyone whose wedding I photographed (every weekend beginning May to end-October, with 8 booked/confirmed for next year) who's not signed the Release. My lawyer's seen the Release and it's AOK. I've worked in law offices for years (many, many years ago) and for the past 14 years have written all my own copy, Agreements, Contracts, and Use Agreements with greeting card companies. I don't think you'll find any of my clients considering me either aggressive or rude, but of course, there's always the possibility of running into someone who may take things the wrong way! My existing & prospective clients love the website, and appreciate being seen there!
|
|
|
|
||
|
anonymous A. |
What a fascinating discussion! My personal preference for photographs of my own wedding, and all of my many kids re theirs was just the photos . . . no photographer's signature, name, symbol thank you very much. BUT, I am very pleased to have photograph folders embossed with the name of the studio/photographer, dates etc. and likewise any albums (discretely). It has proved a wonderful source of historical information for family research!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Thea Menagh |
Hi, David ... I appreciate your preference ... and you bring up another very interesting note ... the embossed photograph folders with the name of the studio/photographer, dates, etc. I also do a great deal of old photo restoration, and have to scan photos which are in such folders or on cards. When I present the 'new', restored photos to my clients, I always suggest they keep the originals to preserve the dates/names of the original photographers (whom I attempt to contact for permission to copy the photographs!). One of my business cards always accompanies all orders when returned to clients, and for framed photographs, my corporate seal embossed on a gold seal purchased at Staples goes on the back of the frame.
|
|
|
|
||
|
William Koplitz |
A Model Release is a contract, "for valuable consideration received", so you have a contract on your invoice - this doesn't strike you as aggressive? What are you giving them in return?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Thea Menagh |
Hi, William K. No, it doesn't strike me as aggressive. I'm asked to provide photographic or graphic design services. All details & costs regarding my various packages & services are provided on my website. When the Invoice is emailed upon receipt of the retainer (weddings) or deposit, the client's always asked to contact me again if there's any concern or question regarding the Invoice. What I give in return is exactly what's asked for ... and always a bit more! In return for the signed Release, what my clients receive is between them and me! I'm sorry you seem to feel I'm taking advantage of anyone. My clients don't feel that way, so I hope you can appreciate that I own & operate a business, and anytime you have that kind of responsibility, it's important that you maintain a friendly & professional attitude while ensuring you promote your business as a whole, your services individually, and yourself especially in an honest and forthright manner. You may want to check the Testimonials page of my website at www.AFittingImage.com as well as some of the individual photo packages to see the details provided.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Allan T |
I agree with placing your mark on your pictures, I use a watermark on my pictures. I have ran into situation where some of my work was stolen and end up on key chain tags, that hurt Thea I don't mean to sound rude , but are you willing to share a sample of your contract please, if the answer is no I will not be offended.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Thea Menagh |
Hello, again... Not rude at all, Allan. I'm assuming you want to see a copy of my "Authorization - Individual & Corporate Property Release". I have a pdf copy which I'll be happy to email to you. On the other hand, if it's a copy of my Invoice you'd like to see, it's in WordPerfect format, but I'll be happy to create a pdf file of it and email it to you, as well. The main portion of each of my Invoices is the same, although I have various Invoices for different things I do, such as photo restoration, design/print business cards & postcards, and various types of photo shoots. Just get in touch with my via the form on the Contact page of my website at www.AFittingImage.com and let me know what it is you'd like to see, and I'll get it out to you asap. I'll watch for your request. Kind regards, Thea
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michelle Ochoa |
I think we may have gotten away from the subject a little. I think the main concern was putting a name and copyright symbol to prevent people from copying the photo. Personally, I think the copyright symbol is tacky. If it's an artistic print, that will be framed, then a signature, small in the right hand corner, is best. But if you're printing for a wedding, I think processing your images with a professional lab (not printing them on your inkjet) who uses professional paper that's stamped on the back "Do not duplicate - copyrighted image" is enough. Most people who are going to dismiss the copyright notice on the back and scan the photo to email to their friends will do the same even if it had the signature on the front. And other professional labs won't duplicate a photo printed on the professional paper with that statement on the back. I don't think you photo reprints should be an advertising tool - your customer paid for them for their personal use and should be able to enjoy them without your name on it. If they're good enough, the bride will definitely give your name to anyone who asks. And I agree about bringing the cards with you for those who request and not scattering them around the room.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Allan T |
Thea thank you very much , I will contact you soon. Michelle O . All artist that do portraits(paintings) place there signature on the front of their paitings. so I really don't see the wrong with a photograher putting her or his mark on the front as long as it does not obsure the photo like some of the gold studio marks. Just think of it 10 twenty years from now someone recognize your sig. on a photo and offers to buy it as colletable , a signature goes a long way.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Allan T |
excuse my typos
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jennifer L. Bales |
Thea, I would love a PDF file of those contracts/releases you use! I am starting out in business and I tend to agree with you in who you do business. Also, here is a thought. A photographer friend of mine does not put the copyright/trademark on the front of the pic, but she purchased one of those "stamps" that is specifically for photos and she stamps her logo on the back of each picture. What does anyone think of that? Jennifer
|
|
|
|
||
|
Thea Menagh |
Hi, Jennifer ... Thank you. I do business in a most relaxed, friendly and mutual trust kind of way ... which works for me but may not for everyone. Again, because I've written the Release and Invoice myself, I'd like you to completely fill out the form on my CONTACT page of the website at www.AFittingImage.com so I know to whom/where I've sent the pdf files. This is not something I normally do. The stamp sounds like a great idea! Personally, I put only my signature "Thea" on the photo (see it on the Wedding page of my website) and not a copyright/trademark on the front of the photograph. My clients do not receive their prints in frames, and on all enlargements (anything over 4"x6"), I simply put a clear Avery return address label on which I've printed the following ... Photography © B&T Graphic (first line); www.AFittingImage.com (second line); Thea Menagh - 416.488.3372 (third line). All the necessary information. When I offer a framed print for a charitable organization's silent auction, or for a store for which a large framed print has been requested, I put a gold corporate seal on the back of the frame along with the tiny, clear label and ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS give the person who's asked for the complimentary photograph print about 50 business cards to display with the print (in the case of silent auctions) or keep in a drawer in case anyone in the store asks about the photograph on the wall. I like the quiet, simple & honest approach ... which keeps me VERY busy! Have a great day, Thea
|
|
|
|
||
|
Karolyn R. Moltzan |
A small inconspicuous copyright wouldn't be a problem for me.. However, if you're still concerned, perhaps have that in your initial agreement... Just say that unless they specifically request not to have the copyright on there, it will be. Since you give them a cd of their photos to print on their own (a smart way of doing things, I think), then maybe add into your signed agreement that they cannot sell those photos for profit. I guess I haven't paid attention to many wedding photographs, but I know that for Senior pictures and things like that, I've always seen the copyright fairly large on the front of the photo, so something small and not distracting shouldn't be a big deal.
|
|
|
|
||
|
William Koplitz |
I have been following this thread and I have to admit that I'm a bit confounded. I'm not really sure what you are trying to protect since you give them digital copies of the images in the first place. Is there such a great market for wedding photographs that a photographer has to worry about the client selling his own wedding photographs. Who would buy these? Why would you ever try to stop someone from publishing your work? It seems that the publicity would be much more valuable than the $200 you might get from a publication. Wedding photography is a competitive field, it seems you should give your work away to magazines and everyone, just to get your name out there even to the point of giving the subjects the publishing fee in exchange for a release.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kimberly Armstrong |
The only thing that is on the image is my name (first and last) and the year that's it. No copy right symbol nothing. I have done a LOT of free work for other companies and they use my images in their marketing materials and advertising. It was a question about artist signature, not copy right. Sorry that this thread has created such confusion. I was just looking for opinions on if they were your images would it bother you to have a photographers signature on your images. Thanks everyone.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bill Wassmann |
The reason I questioned whether you are professional is the fact that you are debating the subject with your family and you submitted this query to a website. A family shouldn't be involved in such questions. This website, while useful, is not really geared to professional problems (which are really "how can I make more money?"). I got interested in photography more than 60 years ago so I have shot many types of subjects. Why I don't like weddings is not important to you but I'll say one thing: I've been married 51 years and I am sad that about half of all marriages end in divorce. My comment about advertising assumed you were planning to sell your photos to a third party (ad agency, etc.). I don't believe you have to worry if you are only advertising your own work (although I would check that with a lawyer).
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kimberly Armstrong |
I am debating this with my family, because I asked them for their thoughts on this matter, same as I asked here. Being a professional doesn't mean that I can't ask for people opinions and advice. I'm not looking or asking how can I make more money, how can I squeeze money out of other people, if I wanted to do that then I would raise my prices. I am doing this because I enjoy the art of it. And professionals can have other problems than just 'how can I make more money' Everything is discussed in detail with my clients. I'll be celebrating my 4th wedding anniversary in 5 days. I got into doing weddings because when I got married we couldn't afford a "wedding photographer" so we had a couple friends of the family do it...I was in bride mode that day not photographer and I wish I had of been, because the shots that were missed were once in a life time. I have none of my baby brother walking me down the aisle, I have none of them with me and my mom or even with my sister who was my maid of honor. That is why my prices are low so that people in my situation who dont have a lot of money can afford for someone to be in photographer mode while they can just enjoy their day. I'm not in this for the money. and congrats on 51 yrs of marriage!
|
|
|
|
||
|
anonymous A. |
Like Bill, I've been taking photos for 50 years (started when I was 9). But unlike Bill, I don't believe is about making money: that's commercialism! Professionalism is principly about conforming to an accepted code of conduct; it's about ethics rather than business, so to consult the people whose values you respect and to involve your clients in decision which affect them seems to me most appropriate. The amount of correspondence this simple question has generated speaks volumes!
|
|
|
|
||
|
William Koplitz |
A business person needs to gather information from where ever it is located and this probably isn't the best place. What I've found on this list are old guys, like me, who have had success and the parade has passed us by, or new shooters who need information. The working pros have no time for this, and for good information you need to join PPA or ASMP.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Thea Menagh |
Hi again, William ... Just to set the records straight ... I HAVE found this to be the best place to gather information. I'm not an 'Old Guy' but a 60-year old woman. A 'Working Pro'. I'm IN the parade, and nothing passes me by! And the 'New Shooters' deserve to hear from those of us who may have an opinion on what they're asking ... which is why I, as a working pro, take the time to check this site and offer my opinion when it's asked for. Joining the PPA or ASMP (whose annual fees many of us can't afford - for whatever reason!) won't necessarily guarantee the answers appropriate for the individuals whose questions & remarks appear here. I've still found BetterPhoto the best resource for sharing ideas and getting those hints which make each of us a better photographer ... with a whole lot of heart and love for our talents! Warm regards to all. Have a wonderful Monday! Thea
|
|
|
|
||
|
William Koplitz |
exactly
|
|
|
|
||
|
ANTHONY CAROLINA |
Kimberly, I too put the copyright & my company name on my Photos. As for the model release I too include it in my contract along with an explanation of how the pictures may be used by signing the contract. If a client doesnt want the copyright they have to purchase the rights to the pictures, they can then do whatever they like with them afterwards. If they don't want to sign the model release thats okay too.I will ammend the contract.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Nancy Donnell |
Hi Thea, Whew, this question generated a lot of discussion. I just wanted to clarify something I mentioned. I said I wanted to look at my pictues "clean", and when I said hand out a business card, I suppose I meant, if someone said , "who did your photography?", then a card could be passed out. I have been married many years, and I am the one who looks at my pictures, and when I see them today, I am glad they are free of watermarks or type at the bottom. The card idea was only for someone "who asked who did your wedding?", as they looked at my photos. I am talking 8x10's, 5x7's, etc. Something at the bottom of an image so small would end of being quite a percentage of the shot, even if it were tiny.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Thea Menagh |
You're very right, Nancy! The only photograph I'd even consider adding my digital signature to would be the 11"x14" portrait, inconspiculously in the bottom corner. It would never occur to me to add any kind of a signature or mark on anything smaller. Advertising & marketing should not take place on something purchased by a client. Although ... how many cars do you see on the road with the name of the dealer on the back?! When my clients pick up their prints, I always give them an envelope with a few business cards ... in case someone asks "who did your wedding photographs?". That covers it! (p.s. I've been married 41 years, and the reason I got into wedding photography was because we couldn't afford a professional ... and we have some pretty awful photographs!! I felt everyone should be able to afford photos of their wedding day. I consider myself blessed to be allowed to share couples' most special day, and am now asked to photograph their babies, anniversaries, other family functions & friends' special occasions. It doesn't matter that my copyright mark isn't on their wedding photographs!! They remember ME ... and how special is that?! I couldn't ask for a more precious compliment!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michelle Ochoa |
Printing your pictures on professional photo paper that has the "do not copy" stamp should be enough to copyright, especially if they try to take it somewhere to scan it. You'll never be able to stop those who scan them at home. As for ads, what about putting a rubber stamp or sticker on the back of the photos with your name and phone number? It's there, but inconspicuous.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Stephanie M. Stevens |
What about putting a trademark on something like a fine art print?
|
|
|
|
||
|
William Koplitz |
Fine Art prints are usually more valuable if they have the makers signature on them.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michelle Ochoa |
All in all, this is my opinion: A trademark, or signature, is appropriate on fine art photos and landscapes. I don't think they're appropriate for weddings or portraits of any kind. Some people like them on the wallet sized prints for senior portraits, school portraits, and maybe even weddings. But nothing bigger than a wallet for portraits.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||