Received: from  ([206.46.170.173])
 by fonix.org (wcSMTP v5.5.450.2)
 with SMTP id 725477390; Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:04:35 +0000
Received: from BobDial ([67.248.207.48]) by pop016.verizon.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.05.20 201-253-122-126-120-20021101) with ESMTP
          id 
          for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:04:30 -0600
Message-ID: 
From: "Bob Dial" 
To: 
References: 
Subject: Re: left fieldBobD
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:05:16 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at
pop016.verizon.net from [67.248.207.48] at Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:04:08 -0600


----- Original Message -----
From: 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: left fieldBobD


> There would be no print involved, which is just the point I'm trying to
> make. Selling a digital file is not the same as selling a print.
> ->
> -> Selling an original (or copy) of a digital file is equivalent in my
view to
> -> selling negatives from conventional cameras.
>
> Well, it would be closer to selling a negative.  They could manipulate it
> anyway they wanted then, right?  But I'd still have the original file
here,
> and available for other things, whereas with a negative, it would be gone.

Please take the following to be a general discussion, only, not legal
advice!    

Depends upon what you sell,  If you transfer your rights then the customer
would own the protections now available only to you.  "Specified Use" is
what you apparently need to settle upon with the buyer.  Being so far out of
the loop as I am on what you even shot or plan to shoot there is little to
go on as to what would be the better course to pursue.

>
> -> Sometimes I've sold only the film.. Just shoot the event they wish
> -> covered and put the raw film on the next flight direct to their
publication.
>
> That's how I did newspaper work.  They gave me the film, and I only ever
> saw what they printed in the paper.

Don't throw a snow ball at me, but that's what we used to call a reporter
with a camera!
We discouraged the practice at every opportunity!  

> Hmmmm....selling someone a negative doesn't mean they would necessarily
> come up with what I'd consider the ideal print either, so I suppose
selling
> a digital file is a lot like that.

There are similarities but the bottom line is: Sell all rights, sell
decisions about use of the image.  You either have the rights and a say so,
or you don't.  In between there are many stages dealing with use of the
image you own which are under your control, provided you so specify same as
a condition of said use.

>It's what they do with it once they get
> it and whether or not I would want my name attached at that point.
> Something new to think about, for sure.

You bet.  That's why it's usually so much less hassle to sell for a named
use only with all other rights reserved to you.  If you sell repeat use for
the same purpose by the same customer at future dates, then you'd need to
take that under consideration with the price they pay for that privilege,
whether they actually ever use it again, or not.

If you work through an ad agency you might be able to get a percentage of
use deal.
Both you and the agency would be paid in relation to cost of that use.  The
same image in a community publication might be dirt cheap but used in a high
profile publication like Esquire, for example, it could be worth thousands
to you because the space cost in that quality magazine is quite high.  Like
most everything else, this has advantages and it's disadvantages, too.  The
main thing is that photogs seldom know all the space rates but advertising
agencies must keep up with them because they place the ads.

>
>   In so many words, a customer
> -> would have to be willing to pay the equivalent value for a file as for
a
> -> negative, and it is up to you to set its value.

>
> I can live with that :)
>
> ->
> Any hobby that suddenly becomes a job ceases to be fun.  I wish people
> would just let me play in peace!

I've always enjoyed photography so much that the 'jobs' are mostly fun, too!
The few that aren't sorely try my soul..  O:-)

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5