I agree with much of what you’re saying as you’ve obviously had experience with some photographers in these respects. I do feel though that I probably represent the views of a huge amount of photographers in this industry. To put it into perspective, last financial year we spent £234 (UK) on advertising. The massive majority of our work is coming from referals which demonstrates just how valuable that avenue is to us. If our clients are showing others badly printed images (and I’ve seen many, many examples of this) then we’re simply not going to cut it. We try extremely hard to educate clients who buy high-res images. But when many a photographer doesn’t even understand it, you must appreciate we’re on a hiding to nothing. We even have Labs in the UK who don’t have a clue what they’re doing!!

We never hand over copyright. Why would we? Copyright can belong with us for life without any penalty to the client. We can still give them high-res images to print as they like or share with friends, make webshows etc. All we prevent them from doing is saying “we took these images - they belong to us” and subsequently selling them to magazines etc. Similarly, we never ever use their images for any kind of marketing without their agreement. It’s absolutely fundamental that regardless of whether you own copyright, you cannot use an image of someone else for personal gain without their permission. Whilst many still do, they do run the risk of having to pay damages should the subject find out and pursue a claim. Obviously laws vary greatly from country to country but this is quite commonly the case.

Also, we rarely meet clients face-face. We are primarily serving ‘destination clients’ and it’s simply not practical to meet up before a wedding. Everything indeed does depend on your website and subsequently the interface you build up with a client through emails or if necessary phone calls. Again, recommendations help hugely here.

I agree there are many absolutely horrible photographers out there who are in it completely for the quick buck. Interestingly, many have absolutely horrible websites as well :) There are even more who are very serious about their work and their reputation - I’m sure.

There are some really great open, honest and passionate photographers out there, and there’s a lot of really dodgy people out to screw you.

I also have to note, having spoken to an awful lot of photographers, not one of them raised this as a concern, nor would I think it reasonable to assume that this was the motivation for any of them. They were all either happy to hand over the copyright or they were pretty clearly in it for the extra cash. The only other reason to want the copyright that became apparent was so they could use the images for promotion (for which they could just get a release).

If the photographers have failed to explain why they want copyright clearly and accurately, they’re not upfront and honest enough and they need to rethink how they present their business. Part of managing client relationships is taking the time to explain important concepts like this. Sounds like you have at least started along that route so that’s good.

Currently, in an over-saturated market, many photographers rely on recommendations for their businesses. When you part with your high-res files you lose every aspect of quality control that you apply to your reprints and thus how you’re perceived by others who see your images once they’ve left your hands. Are they no cheaply printed on low-cost mass-produced home printers? Are those printers colour corrected to match the monitor on which Mr Amatuer photoshop has adjusted them with? Does the client even know what colour space the files have been provided with and thus which labs to use or not to use without having the files converted to a generic colour-space or one which the lab prefers to use? So much work goes into colour-correction that it’s soul-destroying to see one of your images printed horrifically and it does nothing but damage your reputation as a photographer. The people that see these images are going to naturally assume that you [the photographer] aren’t half as good as the guy who took their other friends photographs - which look great in comparison! Of course, they’re hardly going to tell the happy couple that their prized wedding images look crap :)

I agree it’s a more comfortable prospect having control over the archiving of your images. For that reason we’re more than happy to sell our high-res files but we do so only after ensuring that the client knows exactly what they’re buying and with the knowledge that they’re unlikely to get quite the same results that they see in their album. Suprisingly, we have had clients that come back to us for reprints even though they have the high-resolution files.

I hope that explains some of the reasoning in this industry. I acknowledge that it’s not always going to be the case but believe me, it’s one of the biggest concerns for many a modern-day photographer.

Ciao
Andy