Why is it that a photographer can take a picture of my child, and then demand payment of over $100 for the digital copy and "rights" to print?
Yes, I understand that they need to make money. That's why they charge for the prints on the special glossy paper. Putting a watermark on the digital samples on the website, not even allowing download of lower resolution non-watermarked photos, and charging $120 for a CD with the pictures on it is ridiculous. You took a photo of my child. You should be paying me.
This hospital-associated studio doesn't do free shipping, even on orders of $1000+, and tried to get another couple bucks out of me by stating that their "free gift" still was taxable and put me into the next price bracket for shipping.
In the end, I didn't buy any of their silly packages - just an 8x10 and a 10x13 of the one shot we couldn't bear to pass up. I didn't get their CD, either - that's what my scanner is for. If they hadn't gotten lucky with that one pose, they'd have gotten nothing from me.
1 comment:
My mom does portraits. She charges for the shoot itself and gives the client the CD. I don't know if they're charging for the shoot outright or just trying to gouge so they can get that money's worth in, but yeah.
I think a bit part of it is that with the advent of digital the entire industry's tanking. Back in the day you'd have to take it to a professional photo lab, which took more time and money and shipping. These days anyone can print it out, and I think a lot of photographers are still trying to hang on to the old ways rather than trying a different outlet for it.
The interesting thing about copyright on photographs is that the photographer owns the rights to the photos, doesn't matter the content. However, models are allowed to use the photos taken for personal (portfolio) use, if they can get them from the photographer, that is.
Okay, that was all completely randomness. Boo for expensive photos, for seriously :P
-baka
Post a Comment