john_h.1

<p>One has to "sign up" just to merely try to learn what goes on at the site and what to expect. My "thoughts on this" are highly negative. There is nothing else to review as a result because the answer to the second question is no. No, I wouldn't sign up under such circumstances.</p>

<p>You need to be careful about creating an employee status if you exercise to much control. While that might serve you well with respect to copyright, it would create all the obligations of an employer for taxes, workers comp insurance, Unemployment employment and lots of regulations. Which is fine as long as you are doing so purposefully, not inadvertently. If you can avoid that, then you need to make contractual arrangements regarding the intellectual property in any event just in case.</p>

<p>Rollei Prego 90 or 145. Awesome sharp lens. Loaded with useful features even multi exposure. Reliable. Way way less costly. </p>

<p><strong><em>"Secondly, if they are interested in purchasing or 'buying out' an image which I have previously licensed to a <a id="itxthook4" href="/business-photography-forum/00dax8?unified_p=1" rel="nofollow">client<img id="itxthook4icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> as non-exclusive, what does this mean?</em></strong><br /><br />It means the terms of the previous licensing agreement allows you to license the same image to others as well. You will need to be careful not to violate the terms of your previous agreement. You need to find out what the potential customer's perception of "buying out" is. Buying the copyright, paying for unlimited usage and if they believe they will receive an exclusive license (which will interfere with non-exclusive licenses you granted to others for the same imagery. <br /><br />You should endeavor to understand the terms of your contracts before executing them which you at are least attempting for this potential deal. You should study the copyright, licensing and laws about when permission to use people's likeness in an image is needed to have a solid understanding in general if you plan to do engage in business.</p>

<blockquote> <p>You either need a <a id="itxthook4" href="/business-photography-forum/00dajE?unified_p=1" rel="nofollow">contract<img id="itxthook4icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> that outlines usage and penalties for usage or let it go where it goes. </p> </blockquote> <p>Jeff brought up a very practical point here. That a contract ideally will state a (reasonable) consequence for a breaching the contract as to usage issues. I probably would refer to it as a penalty or for involving 'breach of contract'. It is more freindly to present it as the additional fees for additional uses. If the client's use of the image exceeds the allowed use or is otherwise non compliant without these extra fees, your only remedy may be to file a copyright infringement claim which must be done in federal court which is very complex, burdensome and is usually too difficult to bother with. The penalties or extra "fees", also lets you go to state court including small claims courts for a simple breach of contract claim if not paid and makes it easy to determine what you should get. You might be able to file a breach on contract claim for non-infringing contract violations (like failing to give credit) if the consequences are not spelled out but it will be very difficult for a judge to assess what damages you are entitled to as the value of such things are highly speculative and often not of much value anyway. You could wind up winning but basically getting nothing.This goes beyond your questions but do relate to your inability to do much, in a practical sense, about the breach of contract in this instance. It suggests that you should structure your contract terms more carefully if you want to be able to enforce your contracts.</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>I was extremely upset because I thought she was a friend and that as an emerging singer she would understand the importance of credit. </p> </blockquote> <p>As an emerging professional photographer you may soon learn that the importance of credit is often minimal or nonexistent. I suggest asking other photographers about situations where they, if ever, had any genuine benefit from them.</p>

<p>Good question Steve. Is is often the case in the U.S., it depends on what state the event occurs. Usually, however, a proper liquidated damages clause will be upheld. Without one, it is extremely unlikely any paid funds can be kept except to cover expenses paid and a difference, if any, where the subsequent booking is less than the prior.</p>

<p>As to U.S. Law, it varies from state to state. They generally require good faith effort to mitigate of damages before a vendor can keep 100% of a contract price. There are ways to address or avoid that. One is to have a contract clause that allows no refund for expenses incurred prior to cancellation. A court may protect such expenditures from refund in some states but it is good to have it spelled out just in case. <br /><br />The second typical method is to have a liquidated damages clause which is designed to resolve uncertainty over what is a fair refund when there is a mitigation obligation. It is hard to measure exactly how much, if any, money should be refunded if mitigation is unsuccessful. It may be easy in a scenario like William describes. He can easily show the futility of rebooking one month out. But what about three or four months? How likely is rebooking? If challenged in court, the tribunal would have to make its best estimate based on evidence presented. <br /><br />If you set up "liquidated damages" in advance, the parties know what the amount will be at a given time. Most states require the amount to be what is a 'reasonable" measure or estimate of what the damages would be at a given time as seen at the date the contract was formed. Others also factor in what appears reasonable the time of cancellation or breach as well as the formation date. Since wedding contract losses are less risky and easier to replace with new clients far away from the wedding date, liquidated damages should be less then those that will arise near a wedding date.<br /><br />Hypothetically, a contract could require a one third fee down to book and also have that amount as the liquidated damages. Which makes sense because the photographer has possession of it. It is easier to keep funds in hand than to collect funds from a cancelling client. A contract could have a one third second payment a few months out and a similar damages clause. It may have a final 1/3rd payment right before the wedding with 100% damages clause. Obviously re booking is not possible and it is much more likely a court will allow a full forfeit of the contract price at that time.<br /><br />This doesn't change because a death or other misfortune led to the cancellation. But a backlash and negative publicity will ensue in that event if a photographer were to keep the liquidated damages because society sees that as immoral even though the cause of cancellation is still a contract breach. But keeping expenses already paid out is more forgivable. If the contract said you have to travel and pay for lodging and you can't get that money back from the hotel, you shouldn't have to eat that expense. Just make sure its in the contract that expenses incurred are not refunded. You don't see caterers have to forfeit custom food they bought for a cancelled event that no one else will buy or use. Photographers should not have to live with double losses for refunding money they already spent either.<br /><br />So that's it...<br /><br />An expense clause and a cancellation refund clause based on reasonable ability to seek replacement work at various (usually three) dates. See a local lawyer to draft it up correctly.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"If no retainers were required, a couple could cancel a wedding for any reason, which would result in me losing not only their commission, but all of the potential clients I had turned away in the process."</p> </blockquote> <p>If they do so in advance and you fail to mitigate damages by making a good faith effort to book a replacement or arbitrarily turning down a replacement booking, you will find that a court will cut the amount you are allowed to keep. The further in advance the cancellation, the worse for you it will be. Automatic 100% liquidated damage clauses absent a last minute cancellation are not going to fly.</p>

<p>You know your sister and family best James. I'm sure you'll take whatever advice you deem worthy of consideration under advisement and use you best judgment. One way or another, you'll be there for your sister which is good.</p>

<p>MLM and I obviously disagree with whether Option #1 is the only choice but, his observations are sound. People frequently react that way. </p>

<p>This is an example of why it is perilous to mix business with family. The sister, knowing the reason the shoot was offered, has repudiated the agreement. We don't know if the offer to pay for the accommodations was out of kindness and appreciation or to soften the blow of announcing that the video cannot be used for the reason agreed to. or both. James is in a much better position to access that. Personally, I would choose my option #3 above. I didn't include in that the necessity of offering to forgo the funds for accommodation since that is probably considered part of the deal to the sister. If #3, is met with resistance and James caves in, then the next best option is #1. That is a viable option as a first choice, of course, but the runner up in my own personal opinion. It is unfortunate that the sister knew why the offer was made and apparently never offered to let James off the hook or to pay him in exchange. Could she be under the impression this is a gift overall and not appreciate the amount of work and value of the resulting sample?</p>

<p>This is more of a question for a social advice type column than a photography issue so I will try to answer it in that context. They don't want their wedding video and likenesses on it shown as sample work. As a family matter that will only spell doom if you defy their wishes. Forget about using their wedding as the subject of a promotional sample video. Its a dead issue. Even IF they were to relent, they are likely to change their minds again. Probably after they got the video and you did all the work.<br /><br />Your choices now, other than skipping town and being absent the day of the wedding are 1) Shoot the video for free as a favor, gift, practice or combo of those, 2) offer to shoot it for a more robust fee and face the potential fallout 3) Decline to shoot the video. The best way to initiate the third choice and successfully get out of this potential 'obligation' is to say... <br /><br />"<em>It really</em><em> wasn't a good idea to shoot the wedding in the first place. Its an enormous amount of work and concentration to get everything captured just so in order to make the many hours of tedipus editing work after that worthwhile. I wouldn't be participating as a brother and share the experience with you during this once in a lifetime event. Family is so much more important than this business work exercise. I'm really relived and looking forward to being a actual part of the wedding".</em> Maybe throw in an "<em>I love you sis</em>" at the end as well.</p> <p>Don't leave open ANY hints that you are open to considering anything else. It must be presented as the decision was made. Not some wishy washy, 'I've been thinking that it not would be a good idea not to video record the wedding'. This is a loving and firm announcement that you are not shooting the wedding with the guilt trip featured in any discussion otherwise being shifted in advance to her, not you.<br /><br />Make sure to do this right away so there is plenty of time for them to find a videographer to take your place. Have some names handy as referrals you can give them.</p>

<p>I appreciate your perspectives Anders. I had not thought of those concerns.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"The most annoying experience I have had with oversimplified ratings systems like the one Photonet has used for years is when I received top marks from an anonymous individual and you do not have the faintest idea why ! !"</p> </blockquote> <p>Most complaints in the past arose from the low votes. The complaints often featured a justification for the complaint. Namely that low votes without critiques explaining why the vote was made didn't help the complainer learn. Mysteriously, there were scant complaints about high votes with no explanation of why it was made. Casting doubt on lack of learning being the motivation for the complaint as opposed to bruised egos.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"Sometimes they make you feel as if you are canoeing upstream without a paddle. It is better to find a niche of real people who will appreciate your work.</p> </blockquote> <p>That's great if you are looking for a pat on the back. If you want genuine critiquing, it should include those who may not.</p>

<p>The issue is whether the performance of the obligations was satisfactorily discharged or justifiably excused if not. Then if there is evidence to back it up. It sounds like that is the case with maybe some issue about doing close ups at best. <br /><br />In any industry one will encounter obsessive fussy customers. Wedding photography is particularly vulnerable to this with people with elevated self conscious concern about their appearance. Now you're obsessing about your own portrayal and writing long chronicles about it. Being "extremely nerve wracked over this, and completely distraught" and "truly anxiety ridden" <br /><br />Get a grip and chill out. Let the bride live in drama instead. If she makes a claim (Which is very unlikely. You have been getting payments) you just defend it methodically. You got a slew of evidence including her admission that 'she was feeling "off" that day, and her mood had affected a lot'. You've got this thing. You just have a whack job of a client. It happens. Don't sweat it. Treat this for what it is, a business issue, not a personal one. The one with the bigger problem in the future is the groom. <br /><br />Screening more thoroughly for appearance obsessed clients in the future will help avoid these situations. Not everyone who is self conscious is a bad client but, given your own insecurities, they may be more unsuitable the usual for you.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"I bought an external flash and a wired remote too."</p> </blockquote> <p>Which wired remote? I read a review where there was some problem finding one that worked or something. I consider it an important feature for outdoor flash use. Especially for casual portraits and some action shots. Shutter synch speed compliant ones of course. Maybe you will have one for sale soon ;).</p>

<p>I rejected the idea of the FZ300 because B&H has the lens listed in its specs as a f/2.8 to f/8. I just looked at other sites which indictes it as a continuous 2.8 like the 200. I do a variety of different shooting so a general all purpose can be suitable. I would use my DSLR gear for low light when planned in advance.</p>

<p>I'm considering swapping my full set of gear for the FZ200 for non professional uses. I really hate changing lenses when I'm in the middle of shooting a scene and lugging them all around even using a waist belt system which helps. The FZ200 has a f2.8 continuous ultrawide to super tele lens and my research shows it has much less distortion and other such issues usually attendant to such lenses. It has fast focus but can hunt tele in low light. I can get a rotate and swivel lens flash for it and maybe a cord for off camera flash use. The camera is light and I can buy another one if it malfunctions with out spending a grand. Heck, I could have a spare handy too. <br /><br />I can pick up one of them and see how it is but am interested in learning about experiences others might have with the FZ200 or other insight first. Thoughts?<br /><br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>http://www.dijifi.com/</p>

<blockquote> <p>There are strong electromagnetic fields in Switzerland (only occurring inside the borders) that cause a phenomenon called the "neutrality effect" which effects digital cameras.</p> </blockquote> <p>Do we know what happens to digital cameras in the Korean demilitarized zone?</p>

<blockquote> <p>Those who are not proficient in an art form become critics.</p> </blockquote> <p>To the extent that is accurate, they often serve well in that role. In the converse, talented artists sometimes are poor reviewers.</p>

<p>I experience about an 85% consent rate. It is an anecdotal figure as there are many factors involved and I don't know what other people experience or do in comparison. My interactions are usually for having someone in a scene to make it more interesting in a variety of ways rather than making portraits per se. If they are walking or riding by, they will oftenagree to one or two more quick passbys so I can get a few takes. I usually will mention they are not the main subject or that they will appear as a silhouette (if that's true). I'll occasionally show a couple images from the card that doesn't look like a snap shot hoping they will take me more seriously as a result. In any event, having a cheerful attitude and letting them know what you are doing and that it won't take long seems to work. It is also a good countermeasure for people that appear in your desired scene in an unhelpful way. You can coax them in to being a integral part of it instead without being rude or giving up on the shot.<br /><br />I'm interested in hearing what is helpful for others in recruiting or interacting with random nearby people to include in their shots.</p>

<p><em>"my approach is more like John's - every time that I'm in a different situation, I prepare a new model release."</em><br /><br />I would advocate that approach for every image made that is likely to be marketed for commercials use but L see nothing wrong with a batch release if it has sufficient details to demonstrate it applies to all the associated images. Legally at least. Whether stock agencies accept that is another issue. </p>