Why you don't get reprints

I almost cried. My wife dragged me into the *al=mart store and I told

herI would be strolling around over in the photo section, while it's hard to

believe I have never been there. So there are the DIY machines and I couldn't

help notice this young couple scanning there wedding proofs and making

enlargements and cropping on a flatbed, I thought they just had the ones where

you plug in your card. Anyway I commented on the nice package that they had

and they explained to me that they had "worked the photographer" to provide

them with the proofs and if they liked them they would get reprints but it was

evident that wasn't going to happened so I noticed the copywright on the back

of one and informed them and the 5 people behind the counter that I thought it

was against the law to do such a thing but the attitude was that everyone does

it, so it must be ok and they grabbed up the photos before I could see the

name, the manager ask me, get this "are you a Lawyer?" to which I

responded "no but I wish I were one that way I could see you in court for

allowing such a thing. My hat is off to you guys who do this.

Actually, as a complete ignorant of the traditional business model of wedding photographers I would say that this rather why in the digital age the market will certainly forget the whole concept of "reprint". Make sure that the gig pays enough by itself, provide the images at screen resolution as proofs and sell unlimited non-commercial printing rights of the full-resolution versions on an individual image basis. That way you don't have to handle the low value added job of printing and you don't have to worry too much about chasing copyright infringers that you don't really want to antagonize anyway because they are your past customers who probably know your future customers. This sort of rampant cheating is a clear hint that the business model should probably evolve toward more upfront fees instead of relying on reprint fees that feel completely alien to people who live in a digital world. In fact I don't know many people who still use prints these days, except of course the ones in my parent's generation who are not connected yet...

 

I am probably going to be flamed for expressing this point of view...

Wasn't this posted a couple of days ago?

This was just posted a couple days ago.

i would of minded my own buissness.

Maybe jim or the moderators reposted it since the first one was being clogged up with copyright law arguments. Last i read it was getting very heated and not really discussing the poster's comments directly.

Jean-Marc Liotier, I completely agree with your point of view. No flames from me. I think wedding photographers need to move away from the reprint business and make their profits in other ways. Package deals, albums, image files, whatever works for you, but the temptation to copy is too high and too easy to keep people honest. That's not to say I condone the theft that this often represents, but I think we have to change to accomodate todays market trends.

Lauren, "Last i read it was getting very heated and not really discussing the poster's comments directly." I don't think you read it very well. The poster got plenty of good and accurate advice here and on the other two forums where he posted the same question. He berated everyone who disagreed with him, mocked some of the commenters nationality and was eventually given the boot for his obnoxious behavior.

Tim, I was asked to repost it since I never got to see the first responses, I don't think I got the boot, but maybe someone is posting as me.

Jim, as I said in first thread which got deleted, notify the regional office of Wal-Mart and let them know what is going on in that store. It's very likely that allowing such copyright violations is against the company's policies.

I've heard of weighted proof prints, so that when someone places the print on the flatbed of one of those machines, they get denied. Anyone know of any labs that do this?

Jim Strutz - good points

Tim Holte - Maybe I didn't read enough of it or am thinking of another thread. I just thought I remembered it turning into a big mess as some of these threads have in the past. I must have stopped reading too early or just skimmed the messages. Just saying in general it turned into an argument instead of discussion of the problem. Don't remember who was at fault. I'm trying to steer clear of those threads and concentrate on my photography (sort of a new years resolution) :)

This type of behavior has been going on forever. Back in the 80's the high school seniors

would go to the local Foto**t and have their proofs copied into wallets. I actually

witnessed the same thing a few months ago at an office supply store. When I mentioned

something to the sales person behind counter, they gave me a blank stare. I am not sure

Management stresses the fact that it's Illegal to copy Professional photos. Unfortunately,

it's all about profit and it comes at the expense of Photographers. This moral dilapidation

began decades ago. I think, the average consumer only feels good if they feel they have

gotten something for nothing or next to nothing. The average person doesn't care if the

Photographer they hired can afford to buy his/her kids shoes, as long as they get the

upper hand.

 

As far as minding your business, As Professional Photographers we have an obligation to

say something when we see unethical behavior wether it be at a Super Discount Store or

the local Drug Store chain. This behavior is ruining the Industry more now than ever. Do

you mind your business when someone is trying to steal a woman's pocketbook or do you

try to do something about it. Copying equates to stealing, it doesn't matter how the

perpetrator justifies it in their mind. Illegal is illegal, Thank G-d we have a Constitution

and Laws, and not what the Majority feels is acceptable.

And it's not just weddings. You should hear the arguments I'm having with family over buying multiple copies of graduation pictures for our oldest. They want me to buy one copy, scan, PS, and reprint a bunch for them. I said no and now we're into it and, even after explaining the valid reasons why, while they understand, THEY DON'T CARE, they're just pissed about the ridiculous pricing.

 

The company is charging upwards of $15 for a 5x7 and $30 for an 8x10 for a barely average quality shot. If they were high quality, artistic-type wedding photos done by a pro lab, maybe. But not poorly lit, slightly out of focus and crappy composition grip-and-grip shots. They know what things cost and, from me, what a reasonable expectattion of profit is from things like this. So I definitely agree that for ANY event shooting, the model has to change. But, between stupid consumers and stupid business people, Probably be a few years though before we see any significant progress.

If scanning is a problem in your area and your reprint sales are suffering then you might consider spiral bound proof books. Most pro labs offer them. The images are large enough to see but small enough to make scanning a waste of time. I know a guy who uses some sort of computer program for proofing that makes a CD of low res images that are not copyable and not printable. You can also set up a sort of self destruct that makes the images unreadable after a certain amount of time. Also when you order prints make sure to have them sprayed and textured this can make getting good scans difficult. FYI for all of you who use Sams and Costco for printing. They use consumer paper, many labs will not copy anything that is printed on Kodak or Fuji professional paper, and so you might consider using a pro lab like Pounds or Millers. The PPA has been doing a great job protecting our rights and our business by going after labs and on-line printers like Shutterfly who have not been doing a good job weeding out copyright violators. On a more personal note: Jim, thank you for saying something and standing up for the law of the land. If we policed each other and if our society had no stomach of lawbreakers then our nation would be a much better place. Instead we have this stupid self destructive concept of not �ratting� on each other and minding our own business.

I don't blame couple of doing that kind of stuff. I blame the photographer for that. Most of the photographers reprint price is rediculously expensive and rip-off. $25 for a 4x6? wth? that is like 2-4 hour wages for that couple after tax. After they order a reprints for friend and relative, it is like they paying for another 2-5 weddings that don't have. Be reasonable with your pricing and the couple will come back for more reprints.

<i>I don't blame couple of doing that kind of stuff. I blame the photographer for that.</i><P>

If the couple thinks the photographer's prices are excessive, they should have hired someone else. At a fundamental level, wedding photography is a luxury item--it's not a necessity like food or shelter. If you can't afford it, don't buy it. "I think it costs too much" isn't a justification for stealing it.

An interesting topic, aside from the "scanning the proofs at Hell-Mart" is the actual business model used by a professional photographer.

 

Tell me (those who are in the business) what sort of income stream do you get from reprints, rather than from the fee to do the job? Is it so lucrative that you would need to protect it from illegal photo duplication? I would think, in this day and age with high quality (high quality being decidedly relative, but "enough" for grandma to get one to put on her night stand in a frame also bought at Hell-Mart) that it would be nigh impossible to realistically protect copyright on wedding photos.

 

Personally, I would think a wedding photographer would get his/her money up front and figure they would get very few, if any, print orders after the "package" was delivered.

Scott, Thank you so much for getting my point.

[At a fundamental level, wedding photography is a luxury item--it's not a necessity like food or shelter. If you can't afford it, don't buy it. "I think it costs too much" isn't a justification for stealing it.]

 

Come on, don't tell me that you don't shop around for your gear and find a reasonable price.

 

I think this is a very mean statement [if you can't afford it, don't buy it.] So, if the gase price is $20/gallon and if I can't afford it, then I have to quit my job and stay home or walk to work? Be reasonable would you?

 

I understand that luxury item has it price, but not a rip-off price. Like many other photographers have said ..."Charge your price upfront and forget about reprint" and if you don't give cd away, then make your reprint price as reasonable, so that your pictures doesn't get wrong impression from Walmart lab. How much does it cost you to get a 4x6? And do you feel consciously right to charge people 100 times of your cost with little effort? This is the reason why you, the photographer, force the client into stealing.

Times are changing. The Napster generation is getting married and could care less about copyrights of the music industry, movie biz, or their wedding photos. That doesn't make it right but that's reality.

 

You can find a method like DRM (digital rights management) to prevent copies or sue your customers like the music industry. While you are debating the morality of copying wedding photos someone else will come up with a better business model that actually satisfies the bride and groom.

 

This thread on dpreview is not about copyrights exactly but about not providing prints for the wedding, just a CD of images and links to printers.

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=18839278

<i>Come on, don't tell me that you don't shop around for your gear and find a reasonable price.</i><P>

As I said in my previous post, if you think the cost of a photographer's prints is excessive, you're free to find another photographer. Telling the photographer that you'll order reprints so you can get your hands on the proofs, then illegally copying those proofs, is nothing like shopping around to find a reasonable price.<P>

<i>I think this is a very mean statement [if you can't afford it, don't buy it.] So, if the gase price is $20/gallon and if I can't afford it, then I have to quit my job and stay home or walk to work? Be reasonable would you?</i><P>

Not purchasing wedding photos in no way threatens a couple's livelihood. Your ridiculous claims that consciously stealing someone's work is comparable to shopping around for the best price and comparing having to quit your job to not buying wedding pictures are what's unreasonable. They're nonsensical.

Stephen - "Personally, I would think a wedding photographer would get his/her money up front and figure they would get very few, if any, print orders after the "package" was delivered."

 

Actually - I give proofs and a very small very informal album with double 4x6 prints in story form (my favorites). My price is not low for shooting the wedding and I do give a $100 credit towards reprints - no package that includes any reprints or final albums.

 

The last order I shipped out for albums and reprints was $3134.00 and

I have 6 orders in house right now all above $700 worth of reprints/albums. So - I'd say the reprint business is very lucrative.

Kevin,

If you've ever purchased bottled water, far more costly than gas per/gallon, then you shouldn't be pleading poverty and stealing photos from the wedding photographer. And no I don't mean "you" personally.

<ul><i>I think this is a very mean statement [if you can't afford it, don't buy it.] So, if the gase price is $20/gallon and if I can't afford it, then I have to quit my job and stay home or walk to work? Be reasonable would you?</i> (Kelvin Phan)</ul>

If you can't buy a Rolls-Royce, you don't steal it, do you? I'm not going to discuss music, software, or video theft, but in The Real World, when something isn't affordable, it's not bought--most folks won't steal something just because they can't afford it.<p>

("Gee, the 39 megapixel back costs waaaay too much money. I think I'll steal one instead of getting a less expensive camera")<p>

That said, the business model for retail photographers (wedding, portraits, families, etc.) <i>used</i> to be a very low up-front cost, often below the actual out-of-pocket expenses, and high reprint prices. That was the standard for around 50 years.<p>

Commercial photographers used another approach: most charges were for the expertise/creativity and usage, and prints were at a slight markup. With the advent of trivial scanning, this model is becoming normal for retail as well, since so many consumers don't seem to care about violating copyright laws or bypassing the photographers.<p>

That means that there'll be less benefit from stealing photos--a well-printed original won't cost much more than a copy--but the up-front costs of hiring a photographer will go up. Right now, we're in transition: some photographers loss-lead the sitting fee, and <b>try</b> to make it up in print sales, while others use the commercial model.