cre8tiveparadigm

<p>crabbe they have a budget, tonai is right about coypyright</p>

<p>I find it astounding that anyone on a site that exists as a forum for persons interested in and engaged in making money from their photographs would advise a person to provide an image to a commercial enterprise for gratis. Notwithstanding the issue of copyright pointed out by John Tonai, Gary Crabbe is right - they have a budget. If not as others point out vanity will lead them to a free image. They can pull one from their own circle of family and friends. Because this reality exists is no reason for any person to short change themselves. Be assured that they are doing everything in their power to protect their rights to the copyright of their film.<br>

Sadly, they are not alone. Major Hollywood players have just made a film called "A day in the Life" if memory serves that contains major if not all footage from films submitted from a "YouTube" contest. I understand that the submissions are not being compensated. I believe this is unethical. In todays world of digital data there is no excuse for not recording who the submitters selected are and compensating them on a per second basis of used footage. It is simply stock footage. At a rate of $50.00 per second with a one minute minimum the cost of a 90 minute film's stock usage would range somewhat above $270,000. This is small change in a Hollywood Feature budget. Big action sequences can spend that in a days shoot. In Hollywood $10,000,000.00 is a low budget film. (note: $50.00 is a very low rate for this type of use but given that they are amateur films $300.00 minimum compensation seems reasonable. It constitutes that stipend mentioned).<br>

While this is beyond the scope of the request here, Patricia, copyright not being an issue has a right to compensation pure and simple. </p>

<p>I was in the process of signing into jalbum based on recommendations here when I encountered this:<br>

"The User is not allowed to use the Services as part of a commercial offering without Jalbum's prior express consent. Such consent shall be in Jalbum's sole discretion."<br>

So now I am wondering if they mean that hosting a photographic portfolio in the interests of a photography business requires getting written permission from them to host photos on jalbum or to use the desktop app on a different site. Or do they mean that you cannot offer photographs or services for sale on the jalbum web site.<br>

I look forward to your feedback.</p>

<p>Early in my career I worked a non-union film as a gaffer and camera assistant. Yes, I performed both of those jobs on the film and for low pay. I happened to shoot stills with my own camera while we were in production. Every image I shot was at my own direction. I shot not one image at the request of the director or producer. I was using motion picture short ends in 36 frame rolls from a Hollywood stills lab. The producer offered or agreed to pay for processing of images and I told him I would provide one set of prints. I was not paid any additional wages for my photography. I was in his office during post production fighting to get the second camera assistant I had brought in for two days paid. The producer wanted more prints for his promotion of the film. I told him we could talk about that after my friend got paid. He pulled out a wad of cash despite claiming moments before he had no money. My friend got his money but I never got my sale of images. I told him to review the prints and contact me for reprints. Never heard from him. <br>

In your situation if this director is truly big name you will likely never get the job because it will most likely be a union feature and your not in the union. If director has amazing clout and can grandfather you into the IATSE you will have to pay many thousands of dollars in dues and fees. Upfront. You will likely get union scale for pay - thirty odd dollars an hour. Still if you do get the job work for hire is what you want. You can own the copyright all you want for your images but you cannot publish them without the releases from the subjects (but you know this). The production company will have all the releases in their names plus the big name stars will have right of refusal on all images behind the scenes.<br>

Enjoy the heck out of the job if you get it. It will be an amazing experience. </p>

<p>""if they don't pay you, you're basically paying (out of your own pocket) for THEIR advertising, with the HOPE that you MIGHT get work in the future. last time i checked, HOPE didn't put food on the table or buy you a new camera lens."</p>

<p>So what you need to do is translate that to your negotiation. Don't forget KISS. Keep it Simple Stupid. Since you have already given them a freebie, I for one think you would be a fool to now give them your copyrighted work. <br>

Here's what I see:<br>

" Media cards handed out to potential investors". Investors are interested in a return. Only solid business financial will indicate return. The companies owner knows that he must make money or show that he will make money to get backers. It is about business and all businesses deliver a product.<br>

He wants to promote his business with your images.<br>

Your initiative created that product. It has value.<br>

You could not provide that product without your investment of skill and knowledge.<br>

You have a right to make a profit. Don't be cowed by reminders that you were not contracted to shoot.<br>

Learn the usage of the images because that determines the value - the licensing.<br>

Negotiate the payment based on it's profit for you. Forget their desires, pay attention to market. (The Alamay research).<br>

Go in positive. You already know they like your product - They asked for it, even telling you how they want to use it. And it's not social use, they don't want to be reminded of the fun day - they want to make money. <br>

Finally, this business has nothing to do with your boyfriends employment. It's about your product and this companies need for that product. It's just lucky for them he has a girlfriend in the photography business.</p>

<p>Antonio:</p>

<p>I think you answered your own question... "...some result that are quite similar...." I don't know about Italy but in the US you cannot copyright an Idea. For example, a picture of a soccer player kicking a goal is an idea. Two photographers will shoot the same player making a goal in a game. The pictures will be dang close in content however each will be unique and a photo editor will choose the one he/she prefers for publication. Each photographer can still sell the photos for what they can get as long as they do not violate any laws related to the subjects rights - those rights may extend beyond the player to the league and even the teams uniform. Sans a spaghetti sauce logo I think your images are yours to market as you want - no photographer will sue you for infringement.</p>

<p>"...this ALWAYS comes with the caveat of them having to produce what I hired them for at my specifications - otherwise, they get zilch..."<br>

Mario: <br /><br />I don't know where you are based but in the US of A and in the State of California this is illegal. Both Federal and state law prohibit employing anyone without paying them. Furthermore when using interns they must meet 6 criteria for Federal law the main one being that the intern cannot be used to provide a benefit to the employers bottom line. Interns are there to learn not to provide "work". Take a look at this link: http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/23795 </p>

<p>Here's a thought, and I apologize if it's already been suggested, send a copy of your image to her publicist or manager and explain that you were the photographer at her event and are promoting your business and request permission to use it in the context you described. Be sure to CC the request to her as well and I would advise being very specific about how you want to use the image. I suspect asking for blanket permission to promote your photography would not be well received whereas an ad in an A list magazine is likely good publicity for her. And here's an afterthought, send a proof of the ad you the way you plan to publish it. I'd say a formal no to this is better than assuming a no based on celebrity status. Who knows perhaps she'll like the work and ask you to shot a portrait for her. Stranger things have happened.</p>

<p>Kelly Flanigan you contradict yourself when you say "I disagree with Allens statement of "Buyers are not obligated to pay the sales tax. " vs stating that "...unless they are reselling; or have some legitimate charity that is registered; you will get holding the bag."<br>

And since you note that you have had a business in California for at least two decades I think you know what Allen Hale clarifes with<br>

"<strong>What is the difference between sales tax and use tax?</strong><br /> The California sales tax is imposed on all California retailers. It applies to all retail sales of tangible personal property in the state. Retailers making sales in the State of California are required to remit the sales tax to the Board of Equalization. Retailers are required to pay and report sales taxes to the Board of Equalization and they have the option of collecting sales tax reimbursement from their customers. Almost all retailers utilize this option. <em><strong>Whether or not a retailer collects the sales tax, the retailer is liable to remit the tax due."</strong></em><br>

<br /> Buyers of goods are not supposed to pay sales tax as you claim, business retailers in California are charged with the responsibility of paying the state of California the tax rate per the county of sale on the goods they sell. It is as Allen points out in bold now cultural practice in most cases for the retailer to advertise goods with out the tax figured in the cost effectively passing that cost on to the consumer.<br>

<br />What I think is happening with the tax on photographic services is not being addressed here. It is a double taxation for the service provider in as much as the photographer will be taxed on income at the end of the year. Therefore that portion is being double taxed. I will note that I could be wrong here, but if the sales tax portion is deducted from business income and not from taxes owed after business expenses are calculated then a percentage of it is being double taxed. <br>

I am glad to find this thread tho since I am just starting up a business after years of being an employee in California and will need to know how to budget my expenses. I was not aware of the taxation on the service portion of income. <br>

Please keep in mind that any taxes you pay in California on purchasing equipment or services (printing) are deductible when preparing taxes at the end of the year. As noted above if you show a resale certificate when buying the "business" equipment you do not have to pay the sales tax at purchase but don't try to deduct the sales tax from your income then. You'll be in big trouble. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I would like to ad my perspective on the cop not identifying himself and drawing the gun. I must assume that the motorcyclist stopped for a reason. Let's face this fact. If the guy can do wheelies at 100 he is not going to stop for an unidentified motorist in a car gesturing for him to pull over. The cop either had a flashing light on his dash or he waved his badge at the biker. The biker stopped. Then sat waiting as the cop came out of the car. My point is that the biker had a reasonable expectation that he was lawfully pulled over. <br /><br />That said I think the drawn gun was wrong. Clearly no felony warrant was out on the biker. He was stopped. No gun needed. He could have his hand on the gun and his badge in his free hand. <br>

As to the recording. Obviously the bike was on so the biker could not turn the camera off at least until the bike was off he had his hands on the controls and gloves on. That said I agree with Jeff the biker was well within his legal and constitutional rights to continue to roll camera . Nothing about recording video would indicate he was not complying with getting a ticket. If he were arrested they would likely take his helmet. At that point they could presumably legally turn the camera off. He was not arrested at the scene so the point is mute.<br>

Something I have not seen mentioned in any of the responses I read bothers me as much as the arrest for wiretapping. Why does CNN blur the cops face. Since when has policing become an anonymous profession. Since when does journalism protect the police and kow tow to police wishes in obvious public actions. I can understand concealing the identity of an undercover cop in interview situations. But c'mon, he is making a public arrest while wearing a gun and a badge. I don't know about you but this feels police state like to me. That and the now ubiquitous public official "spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak" Dang journalist go speak to the official who is authorized. We need transparency in our governments.</p>

<p>He sounds quite deadly serious after a male blew up a police station, hmmm males are suspicious. That's the level of logic he quoted.</p>

<p>I have news for you Mr Wilson, Obstinacy is not a crime. In some situations it is the most healthy response. Non-cooperation is not a crime. In the US it is actually a guaranteed right - at least by the constitution. No one can be forced to testify in particular against themselves. No one can be dragged to a police to answer questions without evidence <strong>against</strong> them. Cops have been violating these rights well since there have been cops. A few years back an article ran in the LA times about LA police officers stationed at the California border (outside their legal jurisdiction) during the depression and turning people away if they did not have a check account or other "required" credentials. Power will always be a problem.</p>

<p>Ken Papai:<br>

Your points are well taken, although I would not call him a smart judge. He glossed over a lot of facts, not hearing and sometimes ignoring what was said. Case in point: "Judge: those were just "proofs, correct?" (smart guy) Plaintiff only willing to pay $300 for the photog's time and wants $1,000 back as restaged photos were done." If you go back and listen to the plaintiff she actually says "That's the idea". She was stating that she "will" have photos redone. Personally I did not believe her on that but my opinion there is worth nothing.<br>

I found his question regarding the speed of the tele zoom lens interesting but not on point. A 2.8 lens is not necessarily adequate to shoot in a dimly lit church. More to the point is the shutter speed used. Consequently the ISO used inside the church would be germane to the ability of the photographer to get a quality image without flash during a ceremony. Of course if she were a professional she would have known that and one would think at least attempt to communicate having done so to defend her professional work.<br>

One other note about his judgment. As you noted he berated her on the exterior photo; "that didn't appear all that badly shot". To us viewing it on a reduced size reduced resolution internet video it may have looked OK. However he did say that they were "fuzzy" or "soft" or words to that effect. He stated that he was a photographer. I wonder if we were able to examine those images if we might not equally find them to be substandard in resolution and print quality and make a judgment that it was due not to Walmart printing but poor photography.<br>

I also found it interesting that on the table in front of the plaintiff in one shot were a number of photo albums. Apparently she received delivery of the photographers finished work. If she disavows the work and wins her case is she entitled to keep the "substandard" product? Just curious about that.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The pictures I actually saw on utube were possibly the same quality as the above iphone photo. You can clearly see the colors are off in the concrete. Those pixels are not resolving and would not make a quality photographic enlargement. If that is what the judge saw it is likely at the heart of his ruling against her. That said he did not allow her to answer his questions. He hammered her on tripod/pro gear vs photographic skill. Many churches will not allow flash. Why would you want to freeze motion with flash in a half lit church? Your background will go too dark and the images will not have the quality they should have. He should have asked her what her shutter speed was without flash and what iso she chose with the camera. He could have then asked her about noise. But the images inside the church, were not seen. We the audience and if that were the whole case arguably a jury could never have had the facts to make a decision. In realty he was arrogant but that may or may not mean he was wrong. The photographer was not highly skilled (or prepared). Most likely the images shown were low resolution and pixilating. She probably set her rebel to the maximum number of photos which equals thumbnails, low quality images not right for enlargement. While I could see nothing wrong with the pictures on a utube video there may have been more wrong with them than the one pictured above. That said the above is a cool shot of a high contrast back lit composition. It is amazing a phone can do that. I like the picture. I'd be upset to pay a pro 1300 dollars for a weddings worth of iphone pictures. </p>