Need a Pro's Advice about Negatives

[picturesque]

Mr. Krohn--I don't belong to PPA, but around here and at some of the studios I have worked for in the past, selling negatives to clients after a period of time was a common practice, and some of those studios did belong to PPA. So I don't know about your area--but that's my experience. I never sold negatives in my business--they were part of what the customer got anyway. I've always operated like that.

[robbie_caswell]

Personally, I think the money is irrelevant. I get a bit aggravated with people (both photogs and clients) that place little monetary value on their "priceless" images.

 

Is it really that hard to come up with $300, $400, or $700? I think I would be begging and borrowing to raise the funds for my wedding negatives.

 

Seriously, what do you expect him to do if they have no value to you?

 

Whether you think he's gouging or not, offer him a fair price, and expect to settle somewhere in the middle and be grateful you have your memories.

[William Michael]

>>> Yesterday I got a call from her assistant saying that she has gone digital and is getting rid of all her negatives. She said she would give me the negatives if I paid her $700 within the next two weeks. etc <<<

 

You (Nicole) are dealing with second hand information.

 

If there was good enough reason for you to contract directly with the photographer prior to the Wedding: `(When I originally interviewed her [The Photographer], she explained her policy about keeping the negatives.`)

 

you owe both her and YOURSELF the curtesy again.

 

The conversation with the photographer might indeed confirm what has been told to you by the assistant, and in that regard, there is good advice as to how you might approach the photographer with a counter offer, should you wish to buy the negatives, or indeed she might recall her conversation with you, who knows?

 

The bottom line is, from a business / contract standpoint you first need to decide if you want the negs, and then act accordingly.

 

From an emotional viewpoint: it seems to me, there has been much expended over an issue with very little conformation of the facts.

 

Deal only with the decision maker, and make decisions only on primary, source information: not through or with second hand information, supplied without confirmed substantiation of the reason(s) and agenda(s) for that information.

 

WW

[William Michael]

(Obviously, silly me), I did NOT read the whole thread before I posted my response, above. I did not read that Nicole had, indeed, telephoned the photographer.

 

It seems we now have a predicament of raised emotional tension, based upon a conversation coming from an offensive premise of preparedness:

 

`to at least tell her not to trash the negatives until I'd had a chance to speak to my attorney`.

 

My previous post encouraged you (Nicole) to gather / confirm the information (i.e. ask questions), not pre determine the answers from a standpoint of an offensive counter action and with, what I interpret as, much flurry; or what is commonly referred to as `going in with a good head of steam`.

 

The default from the photographer is now: status quo.

 

You (Nicole) were happy with the arrangement before the assistant called you; it is only the emotion which replaces that happiness now, with disquiet.

 

Nothing you have stated indicates that the photographer has not fulfilled her obligations thus far or has not conducted herself professionally: however, there may be questions in regard to the expertise and skill level of her employee regarding how they manage and answer questions from potential customers.

 

But back to the point you now raise: if you really want the negatives in you hands, and considering the actions to date: then I suggest a more considered, open and diplomatic approach in a few weeks time, on a Wednesday morning (her time), when with an assuaging temperament and timbre, you might be able to broker a deal that will satisfy both parties.

 

WW

[savagesax]

Offer $25 and see what her answer is. Tell her you have a GREAT scanner or you can take it, the pics to a lab and they can make a digital copy them for you. Maybe she will come down off her really high horse and offer them to you for about $50.

[joe meadows]

I guess I am a little surprised by the responses here from professional photographers.

 

How do you think this reflects on us all as Photographers?

 

Honestly, no one is going to live forever, and wedding negatives, no matter what the policy of the PPA is, belong in the hands and custody of the client, and her family for generations. I give each and every one of my clients the opportunity to purchase their negatives after a 2 year period. (If they have spent their print credit as required by my contract.) With two months notice, and sell them for $150 cash. If they decide to not purchase the negatives, I continue to store them for ten years.

 

Frankly, it is so much fun to see them again after all these years have gone by. We talk about children, and relive the wedding excitement all over again. The experience is worth more than the money I make for this small transaction. They know I WANT them to have them! It is a special gift..a twinkle in an eye and a had shake goodbye...

 

Now, I too have gone digital, and storage doesn't take up as much space, but another problem is created, and that is digital storage. Perhaps a much more difficult situation as "archival" CD's and hard drives really don't exist, and in the future the medium could and will change on how we store and view photos.

 

Producing traditional wedding albums has been replaced by a much more unstable medium, and the storage negatives, VS digital, makes this problem much more difficult.

 

It has been my experience that even the worst procrastinator will have done their print order within the two year period, if not then I hold the Negs until they do their print order.

 

If the customer wants to buy the negatives right after the wedding, with out a print order, well that is a whole different story!

 

Sorry no order, no negatives, no exceptions,..that's it...

[david_schilling___chicago_]

$700 for a full set of professional wedding negatives is not unreasonable..........

[William Michael]

>>> I guess I am a little surprised by the responses here from professional photographers. <<<

 

I understand the sentiment, and the surprise might be due to many factors, including the methodology with which issues are analysed: but, none the less, in every profession there will be exponents who choose to run their businesses according to various different models: this is called free enterprise, and should be of no surprise to a business person, IMO.

 

>>> How do you think this reflects on us all as Photographers? <<<

 

It creates opportunity options, for a business mind and has perhaps illogical, but certainly emotive effect for many: customers and photographers alike.

 

WW

[savagesax]

Jack Krohn, I've been with PPA for a number of years. Maybe not as long as you have. I'm totally shocked about this. I can't remember ever reading anything about this.

 

I first joined PPA in 1989, because of insuring my photo gear and getting into plush places that require a 1 million dollar proof of insurance coverage. Most of the upper end hotels I shoot at require this. I heard recently some places have incresed this to 3 million, but that subject is saved for another day.

 

Anyway, I still have negs from clients going back to 1987. Most have moved, divorced, whatever the case is, but we've kept them all. The negs for 2 years, as stated in our contract, is an option for clients to buy them for $75. Most of the people bought them and I see nothing wrong with Nadines business practice, or anyone who wishes to keep the negs. Anyway this is/was a very common practice is the LA area and I'm sure it wasn't just LA.

 

Why give away your copyrights? I have a problem with this...

 

As I've stated before, Bill Gates the richest man in the world, charges a ton for a 5 cent OEM CD. OEM cd's are not packaged, has no booklet, nothing. Not even a hard protective case. Just a sleeve with a code on it. His company is always going after unlawful use of his copyrighted 5 cent cd's. My arguement is he pays talented people a lot to write the programs. Well we are talented too, and we share these same copyright laws, therefore we should and can charge whatever we wish because our work is copyrighted.

 

Frankly I can't remember a single article about being a "Pariah," with PPA for keeping the negs. If you can show me where this is located I will promise not renew my membership with PPA this January. If this is true and PPA supports this, in a sense PPA is telling us, the gifted talented artists, that we should gladly give up our copyrighted work because it is worthless. I have a hard time with this. I've gotten reorders this past year from clients in the mid 90's. My work must mean something to these 2 wedding couples.

 

Thanks for sharing this information.

 

But 1 thing - treat people respectfully in this forum and try not to refer them/us as ohare or something cold like this. There are many wonderful people in this group that deserve to be called by there proper name like Nadine or Ms. Ohara.

 

Nadine, I know you can fend for yourself very well, but this is an issue with me. Foregive me if I interfered, it is not about you, but as a general comment of respect for all.

 

Jack, thanks in advance for this special request of mine which may not be the opinion of this group. But it does bother me.

[William Michael]

Oh, I cannot resist.

 

I refer to the previous posts by: Ms Ohara; Mr Krohn and Mr Bernardo.

 

I am a member of several Professional Associations, obviously not Professional Photographer of America Incorporated, to which I believe the comments refer, that would be geographically silly, even if I could / wanted to become a member.

 

Whilst I understand many of the points made, including references to manners, personally such would not perplex me all that much, but I understand it would affect others and to that end manners and politeness should not be underestimated.

 

However:

 

What does concern me is, the reported extension of the aegis of a professional association over any member to the point of casting out that member: `pariah (op cit); in regard to the control of the sale of a product which is lawfully theirs to offer for sale and was produced during the performance of their professional duties.

 

 

 

***

 

My Professional Association telling me what, of my produce, I can and cannot offer for sale?

 

I think not.

 

And the bigger question is: Why would any other business minded member stand behind that principle? (it is referred to as the thin edge of the wedge.)

 

WW

[daniel_smith6]

The oral agreement is not worth the paper it is printed on.

 

If you want the 'priceless' negatives, pony up the dollars.

[captjack]

I never said that selling negatives was forbidden as a member of the PPA, I said, "Ohara- I don't know how long you have been a member of the PPA? - but selling wedding or portrait negatives will definitely make you a "pariah" amongst the membership." which means that when I joined the PPA in the mid 70s it was an understood practice of wedding photographers not to sell their negatives. As a photographer in business if you choose to sell your negatives that's your business but like I said it was an unpopular thing to do amongst the membership- but not a "rule". and I never said it was.

 

I still think it is a sign of un-professionalism.

[fotografz]

"I still think it is a sign of unprofessionalism."

 

Perhaps selling the negatives is a fall out from the digital age where consumers are

beginning to expect printable files on a DVD?

 

Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with the practice, many digital photographers are

providing DVDs and pricing accordingly, so the film shooter seems at a disadvantage in

this "new" marketplace environment.

 

"The times, they are a changin' "

[captjack]

Williams- giving/selling the bride the files is the same thing as giving/selling the negatives. It's apples & apples, not professional in the trade.

[craign]

Nicole,

<p>It seems to me that part of your problem is you don't value the negatives <i>per se</i>. You want the assurance that you will always be able to order replacements if the need arises. You don't really want the negatives and you certainly don't want the potential hassle of storing them in someplace other than your home in an archive-safe environment.</p>

<p>Allow me to suggest you place a value on your ability to get the replacements made should that become necessary. Would you be willing to pay $700 for the assurance that within your lifetime you would be able to replace any (or all) of your wedding photos? Alternatively, would you be willing to pay $50 per year for that assurance? Perhaps it would be advantageous to both you and your photographer if you agreed to pay a set amount (perhaps $50) for one year of archival storage of your negatives (renewable each year). This does several things:<ul><li>It creates a written agreement concerning the archival storage of your negatives</li><li>It provides some additional income for your photographer</li><li>It eliminates the uneasiness you feel surrounding the phone call from your photographer's assistant</li><li>It forces you and your photographer to keep in touch in order to renew the contract each year</li></ul></p>

<p>Something for you (and your photgrapher) to think about.</p>

[craig_gillette]

It's professional to retain them until it's professional to throw them away.

 

Although Meg suggests making arrangements to buy them, this guy will probably charge you again to buy the copyrights. Selling negatives and selling copyrights isn't the same thing. Nobody mentioned that yet, did they?

 

One nice thing about the archival quality of film, it's easier to throw away the one set of negs than find all those multiple back-up files.

 

I'll bet you signed over rights for him to use the images for his business promotions, too.

[craign]

Craig,

<p>I had thought about the difference between selling negatives and selling copyrights. You are right - they are not the same, but an active defense (for those of us who shoot film) in regard to ownership is "I have the negatives and you don't so I own the photos (and copyrights)." If the photographer sells the negatives to her, he would have a hard time defending his copyright.</p>

[nicole_privette]

Okay, whoa. I haven't checked this thread again since I let you all know that I talked to the photographer and she backed away from forcing me to buy the negatives. I feel like I need to clarify some key points because this conversation is turning away from the main idea.

 

First of all, some of you criticized me for saying the negatives were priceless to me, and yet I wasn't willing to pay $700 for them. Understand this: Those negatives ARE priceless to me, and whether she asks $700 or $7000 or $70,000 for them, if she gives me no other choice I will come up with the money and pay for them. I can't stomach having them sink to the bottom of a landfill. I can afford to pay for them and would, if I were forced to.

 

I understand the point you are all making as professional photographers - how can a photographer be expected to keep negatives forever? Why is she obligated to do so? That was the crux of my problem. Legally, the contract I signed made no provisions for the storage or disposal of the negatives. I knew that when I signed, so I made a point of asking the photographer what would happen when, inevitably, she couldn't or didn't want to keep them in the future. She told me she would keep them as long as she was in business, and when she wasn't anymore, she would give them to me. She also told me that her negatives are professionally stored in a way that will maintain their integrity, and that they are sealed in a fire-proof file cabinet. This all sounded reasonable to me - my parents' wedding photographer still has their negatives from 1973. So I was naive, and the fact that I didn't get her promise in writing was my rookie mistake.

 

So does she have a responsibility to keep them forever? Legally, based on the wording of the contract, the answer is no. (As many of you have been quick to point out, she doesn't even have an obligation to sell them to me.) But ethically the answer is yes, she DOES have a responsibility to keep them, because she promised she would. I would not have paid her almost $10,000 to take my wedding, bridal, and engagement photos if I had not been assured of the fate of my negatives, and if she had disclosed to me that she would reserve the right to call me at some indeterminate time in the future and force me to pay a price that was as yet undetermined when I signed her contract, and that she would give me two weeks to pay or the negs get trashed. That is a terrible way to treat a customer, regardless of which side of this fence you're on.

 

So as you continue your back and forth about this issue, remember that THIS IS NOT ABOUT MONEY. This was NEVER about how valuable the negatives are to me. This is a question of whether it is ethical as a professional to go back on your word and USE the fact that you are in possession of something that is priceless to someone else as leverage to exact money from them.

 

So continue your debate. I'm interested.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

Nothing to debate really....if you value the negatives then go ahead and purchase them. Stuff happens, and if you delay there's no guarantee that the photographer will still be around tomorrow, or next week, or next month. In the event of thier demise, I think it would be highly unlikely that: 1.) You'd be notified, and 2.) The estate would make provisions for disposing the negatives your way. There's no big trick to storage of the negatives, keep them away from heat and humidity and away from sunlight and they'll last for several decades. Although some might argue the ethics and/or the ettiquette of this situation, if the negatives are indeed priceless then purchase them and take care of them or face the risk of losing them.

[ed_farmer]

This has gotten pretty far off of the original question! Like many of you, I have a large pile of medium format negatives in my basement. Soon, they will be joined by a large pile of CD/DVDs! I have never promised to to keep negatives (or digital files) for any particular length of time, but I still have all of them from every wedding that I have photographed (since the first that I did in 1997 for $150!)

 

 

Lately, I have been thinking about what to do with them. I have considered attempting to get in touch with each couple and offer the negatives for $200-300. If they decline, they will be destroyed. If I can't reach anyone, I will keep those. This seems fair.

 

 

Now, I was not and I am still not charging $10K a wedding. If I were, $700 would seem to be pretty reasonable. I am assuming, that this photographer shot more images and (I hope) that they are pretty damned good in order to justify the price that you paid for the wedding. Contractually, they are her's. She has every right to offer them for sale to you, just as should could offer to sell you her camera or sofa. She verbally told you that she would give you the negatives if she were to go out of business. Well, that's not what's happening.

 

 

I think that the issue is that you feel cheated (and you deserve to!) that she now wants to sell you a record of your personal memories. They are your memories, but they are her negatives.

 

 

At first, my advice was going to be to try and negotiate a better price. But, that doesn't really solve anyone's problem. My suggestion at this point, would be to offer to buy $700 worth of prints and have her throw the negs into the deal. This gets her the money (with a little bit of cost) and you have the chance to go back and get yourself a very nice wall portrait (for example) or some 8x10's of family members who may have passed away since your wedding five years ago.

 

 

That's all just my two cents . . . Ed

[photographicsafaris]

That she has chosen to go Digital has no bearing upon your contract.

 

Its not as though film is obsolete. She has a contract (and duty of care) to be able to

reprint the pictures as long as the contract states. If she wishes to destroy them, then she

is in breach.

 

I would thank them for the offer of $700 to buy, but state that it is too expensive for you

at this point, would they consider $100? If they are threatening to destroy them, you shall

be contacting a solicitor regarding breach of contract.

 

I agree with may of the point above, both pro and con the sale of the negs, however I

stand behind it not being your problem that she has changed medium.

 

Good luck G