newfacepics

[Phildate]

hey JoHo,

Wasn't responding to your post in particular but I was prompted to respond after a shoot yesterday for a client. She actually told me that, in her opinion, I had completely under-charged her (doh!) and thus the difficulty of charging and the concept of self-worth is very much on my brain.

My client was an artist so we got into a discussion about how she prices her paintings and does she find it difficult to do that. We both agreed that it an extremely tough part of being a creative person, trying to place a value on what is essentially time and basic materials. She now lets an agent handle all that but she admits she baulks at some of prices he sets. Made me think about how little I charge sometimes and yes, a print does only cost $0.50 but in reality, there is so much more to it than a piece of paper and inks.

Anyway, the good thing was she gave me an additional $100 on top of what I asked. So I figure my work is worth a bit more than I think and just maybe everybody else's is too.

 

[jOhO]

hey JoHo,

Wasn't responding to your post in particular but I was prompted to respond after a shoot yesterday for a client. She actually told me that, in her opinion, I had completely under-charged her (doh!) and thus the difficulty of charging and the concept of self-worth is very much on my brain.

My client was an artist so we got into a discussion about how she prices her paintings and does she find it difficult to do that. We both agreed that it an extremely tough part of being a creative person, trying to place a value on what is essentially time and basic materials. She now lets an agent handle all that but she admits she baulks at some of prices he sets. Made me think about how little I charge sometimes and yes, a print does only cost $0.50 but in reality, there is so much more to it than a piece of paper and inks.

Anyway, the good thing was she gave me an additional $100 on top of what I asked. So I figure my work is worth a bit more than I think and just maybe everybody else's is too.

good client! :thumbsup:

yes agree that it's tough pricing ourselves. got an example that's quite the opposite of yours, just to set the context.

got an enquiry for wedding photography. client mentioned she saw my work a couple of years ago and found out that i could be had for $XXX, and wat i've quoted her now is much higher. nevertheless she still likes my work very much but will prob have to give it a pass.

then she passed another comment: "maybe ur prices have raised becos u are part of WPJA now?" i was like.....errrr.. but then again, if my work has improved, and i put more time and effort into it more now than ever b4, whether or not WPJA recognises me doesn't matter, the rate will still go up. and actually, am thinking of going higher come next year.. which is not too far away..

so.. there we have it. i was a little fazed at the lost "business" opportunity, but then i remember the "debates" about selling ourselves short and felt better after that.

but perhaps we're digressing eheheh..

if that client of urs has a wedding and you're not shooting it, u know who to look for! ;p ;p

 

[Sion]

... somemore these are pics of pple, so even more sensitive, i guess no need model release since it was in public??

Personally I would consider those photos of girls in an public event would not worth much commercially to a photographer unless they are accompanied by model releases. No agency would possibly want to touch them without releases. At best they could only be used in an editorial situation.

It doesn't mean that if anyone doing something in public you could shoot it and sell the photos to anyone for whatever purposes. An Australian woman was in a trishaw with her family in Hong Kong. Someone took a photo of it and it ended up in the front cover of a travel brochure. The woman raised hell and the travel agency had to compensate her by giving the family a free trip.

Another case is an American photographer wanted to illustrate the idea of hot phone. He shot a popular mobile phone burning in flames. The photo was rejected because the agency wanted to avoid the possibility of being sued by the phone company.

A few of my Rubik Cubes and Monopoly photos were taken off the site of an agency because Rubik Cubes and Monopoly are very protective about their brands. In the end I had to design a game board using miniature houses to illustrate the idea of real estate instead of using Monopoly.

An agency I submit my works to has a full-time in-house lawyer to take care of the legal issues. I think this illustrates how important it has become as companies and people are getting more protective about their rights.

I guess it's best to keep informed of the legal aspects of photography if you want to sell what you shoot.

 

[CanonUser]

Why everyone talking about sell photos, got other ways to win-win.

I see what you're getting at but (1) requires much less effort and commitment than (2), unless the model herself needs a portfolio too. In which case, it would be a situation of mutual convenience and need. The difficulty that you say photographers face here is perhaps due not to the fact that models aren't willing to volunteer to do so, but that they just don't have the chance to meet. If there could be a common platform for them to gather, then it would greatly facilitate this portfolio "favour".

Anyway, my sympathies are with the photographers. You guys really have it tough - so much "investment" needed just to get started and build up your portfolio! And I do agree - sometimes we tend to take your kindness for granted, so apologies if I've made any of you feel that way.

Not surez if (1) requires less effort and commitment than (2). Dont the photog have effort to transport, camera costs, jostle with crowd etc? Just cos the photog intends to take photos for himself anyway doesnt mean that he expends no effort - and therefore give his fruits just cos a girl model expects it.

As for (2), maybe I not clear, but in (2), the photog is a noob/louya photographer. The model may not get any good photos at all in return. The situation in (2) is to is to make only the photographer benefit, just like in (1), where only the model benefits.

If the model is expecting good photos or even photos at all, then its no longer a situation in (2), but a simple TFP situation where both parties benefit. How does a photographer in (1) benefit?

Why I created (1) and (2) is simple, in (1), LARGELY the model benefits, and in (2), LARGELY the photographer benefits. The question is then, in why (1) has often been done and sometimes even expected, whereas in (2), when it comes to the model having to expend effort to benefit the photographer, that seldom, if never happens.

Anyway, at least you did acknowledge that somtimes models take photographers for granted and this is appreciated.

Perhaps we should see more photographers posting here asking for free models and lets see if any free models take up the offer, without questioning whether the photographer's portfolio is good or if it is worth their time, but helping out of the same goodness that the photographers in (1) are helping.

Or another food for thot - why not when the model ask for free photos in (1), the photographers can say give and but in return the models model for him in (2) - lets see if any model will ask for photos if they have to do (2) in return for (1). Then we no need to talk about $$ because all the rebutts here against helping models centre around $$. Take $$ away from the story and see if there's any rebutts.

A lot of people in Singapore want free thing only (whether $ or with effort). And since they know there's lots of ppl here who will give free.

And when lots of peple give free, no need to ask for return liao, cos model always get free thing when they ask, but photog don't get free thing when they ask.

 

[CYRN]

Personally I would consider those photos of girls in an public event would not worth much commercially to a photographer unless they are accompanied by model releases. No agency would possibly want to touch them without releases. At best they could only be used in an editorial situation.

It doesn't mean that if anyone doing something in public you could shoot it and sell the photos to anyone for whatever purposes. An Australian woman was in a trishaw with her family in Hong Kong. Someone took a photo of it and it ended up in the front cover of a travel brochure. The woman raised hell and the travel agency had to compensate her by giving the family a free trip.

In Sg, you can take photos in public places... but if the pic clearly defines the subject, then without a release you can't sell or use it for commercial purpose.

You may have the rights to your "creation" of the pic you've taken... but it ain't "all rights".

 

[vince123123]

here we go again on model releases....are you sure they are applicable in Singapore?

In Sg, you can take photos in public places... but if the pic clearly defines the subject, then without a release you can't sell or use it for commercial purpose.

You may have the rights to your "creation" of the pic you've taken... but it ain't "all rights".

 

[Sion]

here we go again on model releases....are you sure they are applicable in Singapore?

You could test the case by shooting a top model from a model agency in Singapore on a fashion show and use it in an ad without model release.

 

[CYRN]

here we go again on model releases....are you sure they are applicable in Singapore?

you dunnoe, they dunnoe, dosen't mean that the lawers dunnoe. :bsmilie:

 

[Sion]

A lot of people in Singapore want free thing only (whether $ or with effort). And since they know there's lots of ppl here who will give free.

And when lots of peple give free, no need to ask for return liao, cos model always get free thing when they ask, but photog don't get free thing when they ask.

When a photographer buys a camera, he gets a "free" body cap or a strap even without asking for it. :bsmilie:

I think we like to pay newbie models because this is the cleanest transaction without fuss. "You pose I pay" and you don't ask for photos and you don't see photos and you don't worry if photos don't turn out Swui Swui or not. Because I already paid you liao. :bsmilie:

 

[jOhO]

hey thanx for all inputs re selling of photos. would be good if there's substantial backing to wat's written here, not saying u all sprouting hogwash. sion what u say makes total sense too.

 

[jOhO]

hey thanx for all inputs re selling of photos. would be good if there's substantial backing to wat's written here, not saying u all sprouting hogwash. sion what u say makes total sense too.

 

[CYRN]

haiz...make me go through so many words...:sweat:

pls see here regarding the protection of "performers".

para 246 - defination

Take note of para 249 and 252.

*a public runway show is still considered a public performance... ultimately the organisers have the so-called "rights".... not the photogs. as explained in para 252 -(1) (a).

 

[smallaperture]

My two pence worth:

As a photographer, one of my biggest challenges is underestimating the value of my work and from what I hear and read on Clubsnap, the same is true for many photographers on Clubsnap. Even if you are a newbie (which seems to be 85% of people here ), you have still taken the expense (in time and monetary investment) to take those pictures and I think people have every right to ask for something in return.

One of the major problems is that we always compare our work to each others, that is photographer to fellow photographer. We look for minute flaws, a touch of noise here and there, a hand that could be posed differently etc etc. We lose sight of the fact that this is a high quality photo that could not be taken by Joe Public with their PnS camera. Many of us are perfectionists and we set ourselves the highest standards,maybe too high. Show the same photo to someone in the street and they will say 'Wow' and be blown away. Yes, even you newbies.

So, for those of you who took the time to buy your camera and lenses and flashes and memory and computer and back-up and lightshpere (you see what I am getting at) and took the time to shoot at the event, took the time to post-process them, they are worth something. In these pictures you have invested much time and money and I think anyone who wants a copy should buy them. They are yours and you own them.

Who else gives stuff away for free in Singapore? Last thing I can think of was the McDonalds Hello Kitty thing and look what happened there.

To another photographer here they might just be ordinary shots of an event, but to a non-photographer, they are great photos and something they could not take themselves.

Let's all start to realise the value of our work/time/efforts/expenses and maybe the community will too.

Very well said here. There is a big difference between the amateur and the pro. For the amteur, it's just shoot for fun, play-play during their leisure time. Time and money is not an issue - more importantly is to get wonderful pictures that we are happy with and sometimes we post it here in CS for the purpose of sharing or getting comments to improve.

IMO, those who think of money in photo are the pro, whose survival and livelihood depends on it.

Now, then what is the value of our pictures? There is no doubt about the quality of many serious or seasoned amateurs. I think it all boils down to simple economics - supply and demand.

 

[Deadpoet]

I think we like to pay newbie models because this is the cleanest transaction without fuss. "You pose I pay" and you don't ask for photos and you don't see photos and you don't worry if photos don't turn out Swui Swui or not. Because I already paid you liao. :bsmilie:

Cannot say it better myself. A business transaction with the model is a simplest. No pressure to produce the image for someone else. Everythign I shoot is for my own portfolio, if I screw up, I jsut frown. If it were a TCP, I have to explain.

 

[student]

They are yours and you own them.

Who else gives stuff away for free in Singapore? Last thing I can think of was the McDonalds Hello Kitty thing and look what happened there.

To another photographer here they might just be ordinary shots of an event, but to a non-photographer, they are great photos and something they could not take themselves.

Let's all start to realise the value of our work/time/efforts/expenses and maybe the community will too.

The threadstarter asked, on her friend's behalf, if anyone would give her friend some images.

Photos belong to the photographers.

Photographers can chose to do "anything" they want (within legal and moral limits) with their photos. Nobody doubt that time and money and efforts had been expensed in the production of these photos.

What has a simple request for some photos taken at a public event to so with one self-worth?

Must everything be measured in dollars and cents? I dread to imagine where all this will lead to!

Perhaps we should all start by charging the newbie for advice given in this forum. Afterall, do we not get to where we are by a lot of hard work and expense? Why should I give tips to the newbies?

Who gives away things free? Within limits, I do! And those I call friends do also! I had people come to me learning darkroom work using my chemicals, and paper, and time, etc. Hey, it took me time and money to learn these! Should I charge? According to you, I should!

Thankfully, I am not you. I do not measure everything by dollars & cents. There is something I value more. I do not need to elaborate.

So this is just a simple request for some photos which cannot be replicated. The model in this case can have many beautiful images taken by very qualified photographers now and in future. But there will be no images for this event. The event is gone.

If those who have these images do not want to give, so be it. The photos are yours. It is not necessary to talk about self worth etc.

But I would prefer to be generous. Making another friend is more valuable than the images you keep in your computer files.

 

[vince123123]

Don't worry, I have the same feeling when I saw your message as well. Anyway here goes:

[SIZE=+0]First off, I noticed that you have confined to scope of your original message, which is that "In Sg, you can take photos in public places... but if the pic clearly defines the subject, then without a release you can't sell or use it for commercial purpose." to merely photos taken of fashion shows. There appears to me a big difference between photos taken in a public place, and photos taken of a fashion show.[/SIZE]


Second, since your second post has appeared to shift to a fashion runway show, presumably to confine the scope of your discussion only to the subject matter of this thread, I noticed that the subject matter is actually a beauty contest show, rather than a fashion runway show. I therefore assume that you meant beauty contest show (which may include elements of catwalking) rather than the normal fashion runway show.

Anyway, assuming that you only wish to discuss fashion shows and assuming that your original message is now only confined to fashion shows, lets continue the discussion.

First Issue - Performance?

First up lets see if the beauty contest show falls within the performers rights defined in the sections you have quotd:

The definition of performance is, for easy reference,

"performance" means —

(a) a performance (including an improvisation) of a dramatic work, or part of such a work, including such a performance given with the use of puppets;
(b) a performance (including an improvisation) of a musical work or part of such a work;
(c) the reading, recitation or delivery of a literary work, or part of such a work, or the recitation or delivery of an improvised literary work;
(d) a performance of a dance; or
(e) a performance of a circus act or a variety act or any similar presentation or show,
being a live performance given in Singapore or by one or more qualified persons, whether in the presence of an audience or otherwise;
This is a broad definition and may cover the usual performing arts, musicals, plays, concerts, dance, variety shows etc. In fact, the intention of this rights appear to be targetted at these kind of performing arts, going by the cases which have been litigated so far.

What is not so clear however is whether it covers a beauty contest show - is the contestant even considered to be a performer? A possible difficulty in the definition of performance is that it is a performance of a "dramatic, literary and musical work". Under the Copyright Act, a work is only considered as one of the three if it is first reduced to writing or some other material form. Contrast with the other definitions of performance where circus acts or other similar presentation or show are considered as performances. Might this suggest that the drafter intended a broader approach and not require reduction to material form for works? This point is not clear and awaits judicial clarification.

Perhaps you may try to argue that the contestant is a "performer", in which case the question is, what is he/she performing? Is there a work being performed or for that matter, even a performance? The burden of showing that it is a performance for the purposes of s252 would rest on the contestant.

Next issue, s252(1)(a):

Section 252(1)(a) provides that the making of a direct or indirect recording of the performance is unauthorised.

The definition of "recording" in s246 states that "recording" means a sound recording other than exempt recording.

Sound recording is definied as "an article in which sounds are embodied.

Hence, photography will not be covered as it is not a sound recording. Further, it is the opinion of a local legal academic that the making of a cinematograph film of the performance is not at present covered (presumably because it includes both sound and visual, but this is my deduction, not his).

Third issue, s246(1) - exempt recordings

Even if for some reason, the first two fails (which is still under debate), a defence under S246(1) shows that a recording made for the purposes of the private and domestic use of the person is an exempt recording - ie there can't be unauthorised use of an exempt recording. Granted that the exempt recording has to be destroyed within 6 months, it is still a valid exemption.

As can be seen, it is not such a clear case as you may have put it out to be - indeed the burden of showing the first and second issues lies with the contestant and it appears that the task may not be that easy to discharge.

Look forward to your further thoughts on this.

PS, this is just for healthy and constructive discussion and is in no way intended to be advice or any attempt to flame anyone.

haiz...make me go through so many words...:sweat:

pls see here regarding the protection of "performers".

para 246 - defination

Take note of para 249 and 252.

*a public runway show is still considered a public performance... ultimately the organisers have the so-called "rights".... not the photogs. as explained in para 252 -(1) (a).

 

[wiki]

I really agree with student over here. I am really surprise why some photographers took things so seriously? Someone just request for the photos and perhaps there are amateur photographer who have took the pictures and are willing to give it free so be it. If you think your photographers are really good and only want to sell it, it is fine also.

What's the big deal in asking for free stuff? Perhaps the person who request the photos just want some simple shots of the event. I really admire photographers in here who are kind to share their tips and techniques without just keep talking about $$. I am fine with those who are offering services only by paying but do not complicate such a simple request.

 

[CYRN]

The threadstarter asked, on her friend's behalf, if anyone would give her friend some images.

If those who have these images do not want to give, so be it. The photos are yours. It is not necessary to talk about self worth etc.

But I would prefer to be generous. Making another friend is more valuable than the images you keep in your computer files.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[Phildate]

Thankfully, I am not you. I do not measure everything by dollars & cents. There is something I value more. I do not need to elaborate.

To Student: In an open and interesting discussion, your post seems an overtly personal attack on me to the point that I find it offensive. You have no right to judge me as an individual based on my views on this particular subject.

 

[CYRN]

Don't worry, I have the same feeling when I saw your message as well. Anyway here goes:

PS, this is just for healthy and constructive discussion and is in no way intended to be advice or any attempt to flame anyone.

Wah!! your reply I read until :faint: :sweat:

Firstly, I must apologise "There appears to me a big difference between photos taken in a public place, and photos taken of a fashion show." I was linking somethings that I forgot where I found it in the past... I only vaguely remember 2 incidences.. 1. Someone took a pic of our favroit "durian" and used it in a concept proposal... was told to seek permission from the management first. 2. Some resort used LKY photos in promotional brochure... kenna wacked. :sweat: I can't find a link to "public individual" and copyrights though.

To clarify the whole Interpretation to the act is as linked in part II.

Secondly, I actually ment public performances... which would include "artistic work", as defined means —

(a) a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph, whether the work is of artistic quality or not;

(b) a building or model of a building, whether the building or model is of artistic quality or not; or

(c) a work of artistic craftsmanship to which neither paragraph (a) nor (b) applies,

My point is as a photog...anyhow snap snap can be considered somewhat an "artist" where our photos are preceived to have value... the models and talents are likewise... a "pose" is considered an art work too.... some are naturals, but most do have some form of experience and training which I also draw a parallel to the photogs in Sg. Thus the model's pose can be subsumed in (c).

Thus can it be concurred that a fashion show encompasses 2 "artist".. the designer of the appreal and the model? And the fact that they are putting on a "show" also implies that they are putting on a "performance" of sorts in public?

In 252 (1) (a) makes a direct or an indirect recording of the performance in any manner or medium;... does not only imply sound but as defined:

Reproduction of works
15. —(1) For the purposes of this Act, reproduction, in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, includes a reproduction in the form of a sound recording or cinematograph film of the work, and any record embodying such a recording and any copy of such a film shall be deemed to be a reproduction of the work.

(1A) For the purposes of this Act, reproduction, in relation to any work, includes the making of a copy which is transient or is incidental to some other use of the work.
[38/99]

(1B) Without limiting the meaning of the term “reproduced”, for the purposes of this Act, a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, including a reproduction of such work in the form of a sound recording or cinematographic film, is reproduced if it is converted into or from a digital or other electronic machine-readable form, and any article embodying the work or reproduction of the work in such a form is taken to be a reproduction of the work.

Where photography is defined as:

"photograph" means a product of photography or of a process similar to photography, other than an article or thing in which visual images forming part of a cinematograph film have been embodied, and includes a product of xerography, and photography shall have a corresponding meaning;

So it actually means if a photog records an "organised" performance even in public... it cannot be used for commercial purpose, distribution and broadcasting... because there isn't "sufficient acknowledgment" from the initial "artist" where the photog have made "infringing copy" of their arts?