Received: from saf.tzo.com ([140.239.225.181])
 by fanciful.org (wcSMTP v5.6.450.3)
 with SMTP id 243324281; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:14:32 -0800
Received: from 199.185.220.221 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003011520171064017 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Thu, 16 Jan 2003 01:17:10 GMT
Received: from pii400 ([66.222.145.239])
          by priv-edtnes10-hme0.telusplanet.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.05.17 201-253-122-126-117-20021021) with SMTP
          id 
          for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:16:25 -0700
Message-ID: 
From: "Larry N. Bolch" 
To: 
References: 
Subject: Re: left fieldBobD
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:17:04 -0700
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 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

karen.wattie{at}fanciful.org known by followers as "the Wise", thus proclaimed
unto all the People:

> -> > I agree, but I feel I have more control selling a print than a
> digital -> > file.
> ->
> -> If you restrict it to selling a print there's no difference called for,
> -> methinks.
>
> 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.

The difference between selling a print (art) to an individual and file
(commercial) to a company is that in the first case, you are selling an
object, and in the second case you are licensing the rights to use an
image - generally only once.

> -> 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.

Exactly.

>  -> As I understand it, if you deliver that customer a print from a
> digital -> camera's origin they are entitled to use it in the same manner
> as those from -> conventional sources, no more and no less.
>
> 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.  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.

Again, it depends upon what rights you sell, and it makes no difference what
the origin. At an early stage in the production schedule, the slide or
negative is scanned into digital format, so it really does not matter. From
then until it is made into a printing plate, it remains digital. In fact
there are now printing presses that image the page files right on their
rollers. During the process, it will with out doubt be adapted to the page
and to the printing press and inks. No picture EVERY goes directly from the
shooter to the printing press, even before digital.

> -> At the rate your work is attracting
> -> people with purchase offers I'd think it to be money well spent to get
> a -> legal foundation, first, and then stick to it. 
> ->
> Any hobby that suddenly becomes a job ceases to be fun.  I wish people
> would just let me play in peace!

This is certainly true to an extent. However, it is generally a lot more fun
doing a job that you really enjoy compared to the meaningless job so many
people do.

larry!
ICQ 76620504
http://www.larry-bolch.com/

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