Client is asking for rejected files?

jerry12953 said:
That wouldn't work as each file is numbered sequentially as it is taken. I went through all this with the Wales Tourist Board / Welsh Government years ago.
Click to expand...

I never supply files with the original names. So the customer does get sequential file names
 
andyscott said:
It's not a lie if you don't have them.

It's also more polite than NO, as being impolite to customers is a worse strategy IMO hey ho
Click to expand...
But your advice wasn’t ‘delete them and then tell them they don’t exist’. ;)

And nor would it stop future requests to NOT to delete stuff.

No is the right answer (as you’ll have seen from every business owner above). And if you can’t say no without appearing rude, you probably shouldn’t be in a customer facing role (or ever have to manage staff or even reply to colleagues).

By the end of the conversation the customer should be of the opinion that your No is doing them a favour.
 
andyscott said:
It's not a lie if you don't have them.

It's also more polite than NO, as being impolite to customers is a worse strategy IMO hey ho
Click to expand...

Telling someone 'no' doesn't have to be impolite. Saying no and explaining why, is a way to make it sound like you want to help, but there's no benefit to either side in going down this route.

Going back to the original issue...

I work in an ad agency. We commission photography a lot. Not as much as we used to perhaps, because our own clients don't always see the value in commissioned work, but that's another digression.

Our normal way of working will be to agree a number of shots upfront - these will be delivered fully retouched.

The actual amount is staggeringly small given that there may be thousands taken during a shoot.

The process may be that we view unretouched selects, make our recommendations, and then depending on the level of trust we have with OUR clients, we either instruct the photographer to process the shots, or await client approval.

The agreed amount will be retouched and supplied, anything 'extra' will be negotiated after the fact.

there may be some to-ing and fro-ing on the selected images, but this is often when you're dealing with people as models. Their hand looks odd in that shot, their smile is a little crooked etc.

What I would say is that I can't think of any occasion during 25+ years of working in this way, where we've asked for all the assets and found anything 'better' than the supplied images.

Admittedly, I've not done loads of food photography, but the shoots I've been on, we agree the angles on the day and shoot those. The rejects might be ones where the flash didn't fire in sync and would be unusable anyway, but this is all a learning curve and maybe they don't understand it.

With food photography, I can't see the benefit in asking for more. The only scenario I can think of is if you'd rotated the food and took shots from different angles, then rejected that angle for one reason or another - either on the day or in PP. And they think they'd be getting more variety this way.

So I genuinely can't see what they'd be gaining. Or what they think they'd be gaining.

I think, perhaps a little explanation of the processing process might help your clients understand why they can't just have 'more'. Explaining that you only process the ones you think are worthy and that anything else is in an unusable state might help sway it.

You could offer to come in and show them the rejects (on your laptop) with a view to coming to an agreement for post-processing and supply of any new images.

But, I definitely agree with @Phil V that supplying them any new images should be an absolute no.

One thing I can almost guarantee is that if you supply your worst image as a way to try and convince them not to use it, they'll use it...
 
jerry12953 said:
So are you saying that raw files are not covered by copyright? I find that difficult to believe.
Click to expand...
Raw files did not exist when the law was created. Files like negatives are owned by the photographer. Only images are subject to copyright. When you sell a print or other image copyright does not go with it. Copyright is a separate tangible asset. It is the right to make copies.
 
Kell said:
Telling someone 'no' doesn't have to be impolite. Saying no and explaining why, is a way to make it sound like you want to help, but there's no benefit to either side in going down this route.
Click to expand...
Correct, but the post was.

A polite no

No is full sentence

This is impolite in my view, and it will not change. Its great isn't it having different views.
 
andyscott said:
I never supply files with the original names. So the customer does get sequential file names
Click to expand...

Kell said:
Telling someone 'no' doesn't have to be impolite. Saying no and explaining why, is a way to make it sound like you want to help, but there's no benefit to either side in going down this route.

Going back to the original issue...

I work in an ad agency. We commission photography a lot. Not as much as we used to perhaps, because our own clients don't always see the value in commissioned work, but that's another digression.

Our normal way of working will be to agree a number of shots upfront - these will be delivered fully retouched.

The actual amount is staggeringly small given that there may be thousands taken during a shoot.

The process may be that we view unretouched selects, make our recommendations, and then depending on the level of trust we have with OUR clients, we either instruct the photographer to process the shots, or await client approval.

The agreed amount will be retouched and supplied, anything 'extra' will be negotiated after the fact.

there may be some to-ing and fro-ing on the selected images, but this is often when you're dealing with people as models. Their hand looks odd in that shot, their smile is a little crooked etc.

What I would say is that I can't think of any occasion during 25+ years of working in this way, where we've asked for all the assets and found anything 'better' than the supplied images.

Admittedly, I've not done loads of food photography, but the shoots I've been on, we agree the angles on the day and shoot those. The rejects might be ones where the flash didn't fire in sync and would be unusable anyway, but this is all a learning curve and maybe they don't understand it.

With food photography, I can't see the benefit in asking for more. The only scenario I can think of is if you'd rotated the food and took shots from different angles, then rejected that angle for one reason or another - either on the day or in PP. And they think they'd be getting more variety this way.

So I genuinely can't see what they'd be gaining. Or what they think they'd be gaining.

I think, perhaps a little explanation of the processing process might help your clients understand why they can't just have 'more'. Explaining that you only process the ones you think are worthy and that anything else is in an unusable state might help sway it.

You could offer to come in and show them the rejects (on your laptop) with a view to coming to an agreement for post-processing and supply of any new images.

But, I definitely agree with @Phil V that supplying them any new images should be an absolute no.

One thing I can almost guarantee is that if you supply your worst image as a way to try and convince them not to use it, they'll use it...
Click to expand...


Excellent post from someone on the other side of the table. Thanks. From the OP's posts it appears that the the "client" is trying to build up a collection of "assets" without paying for them.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
Raw files did not exist when the law was created. Files like negatives are owned by the photographer. Only images are subject to copyright. When you sell a print or other image copyright does not go with it. Copyright is a separate tangible asset. It is the right to make copies.
Click to expand...


I know all that but thanks anyway. I've been a photographer long enough, and I did a lot of commissioned work.. I was expressing surprise that your post contained the sentence -

"Copyright begins from the time the image is processed."

If I have misunderstood it I apologise but to me it reads like you're telling us that RAW files (prior to processing) would not be subject to copyright. Surely that's not correct? I think it would be a good idea to clarify that for the benefit of the less experienced people here.
 
or indeed, did it mean that unprocessed film did not have copyright?
 
andyscott said:
Correct, but the post was.

A polite no

No is full sentence

This is impolite in my view, and it will not change. Its great isn't it having different views.
Click to expand...
You’ve only read half the thread. And chosen to take one post out of context.

Pro photographers don’t delete all images that aren’t used. To do so may be a big mistake, and so the only ways that the OP can say they’re deleted is to lie, or delete them to their own disadvantage.

Which were you suggesting?

The client is almost certainly aware that dozens if not hundreds of images were taken. And that they only received half a dozen. So saying ‘there’s no such thing as rejected files’ is simply disingenuous.

I’ll say it again, an intelligent adult ought to be able to say no without upsetting the client.
 
jerry12953 said:
I know all that but thanks anyway. I've been a photographer long enough, and I did a lot of commissioned work.. I was expressing surprise that your post contained the sentence -

"Copyright begins from the time the image is processed."

If I have misunderstood it I apologise but to me it reads like you're telling us that RAW files (prior to processing) would not be subject to copyright. Surely that's not correct? I think it would be a good idea to clarify that for the benefit of the less experienced people here.
Click to expand...
I do not believe that the law is clear on this, in the case of film copyright does not exist until the film is processes. It is probably true that the same applies to raw files. However the raw file does contain a fully processed jpeg thumbnail of the image. And it is images that are copyrighted. Files like unprocessed film is not. They contain
only potential images.

A raw file or any data file can be processed to provide numerous individually copyright images. Data is protected under different laws.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I do not believe that the law is clear on this, in the case of film copyright does not exist until the film is processes. It is probably true that the same applies to raw files. However the raw file does contain a fully processed jpeg thumbnail of the image. And it is images that are copyrighted. Files like unprocessed film is not. They contain
only potential images.

A raw file or any data file can be processed to provide numerous individually copyright images. Data is protected under different laws.
Click to expand...


Do you have any reference for that? Copyright exists from creation, which to me would be the initial exposure of the negative.
 
I forgot to add to the above that our process is a lot easier for everyone.

Between client and photgrapher there are several layers of protection and knowledge/experience.

The client has us, the agency, as advertising experts.

We on the agency side (used to have) what were called Art Buyers*. These were the people you'd go to when choosing or requesting a particular style of photography. They'd know all the people to recommend. And they were always on top of the licensing and what was expected to be provided with the quote.

They'd, obviously, be fighting the agency's corner to get the best price/most flexible usage etc. So they'd deal with allthe copyright issues, i.e. whether the images were wholly owned by the client and could be used in perpetuity or whether they could only use them for a selected period. It would also cover market usage.

On the photographer's side, they'd be represented by an agent that would take their cut. In return, they'd be fighting to get the best deal they could for the photographer. i.e. getting more money for wider usage and things like that.

As creatives, we don't care about any of that detail and TBH I never get involved so I can only speak broadly about the process and not about the specifics of copyright.

But I would add to the mix that while you might be able to retain copyright of the images, if the chef in this case has created a specific dish, then surely they'd own the copyright to that... so you'd end up in a scenario where you as the photographer couldn't use their product to advertise yourself without their permission as it's their work, and they couldn't use your images to advertise themselves without your say so as that's your work.

Especially as in a lot of our cases, the image might contain their branding.

I like to think most that people are fairly honest and would not like to 'cheat' people out of work, so I suspect it's ignorance rather than arrogance.

But then over the years I've also worked with massive egos (on both sides) who think the world owes them a favour.

I also think that the advent of things like Amazon's immediate delivery, or on demand streaming services like Spotify or Netflix, has meant that people now expect a lot more for a lot less. Plus - 'everyone's a photographer' these days. And like a lot of things that become more accessible, they become seen as less valuable.

Hence suggesting going along with your laptop and rejected images could be an opportunity to educate your client.

I'd also like to add that I don't like dealing with people and in particular try to avoid conflict, so while I'm dishing out this advice, if I were in your shoes, I'd have a hard time implementing it.

*Art Buyers used to be a very specific role. Bigger agencies had them on staff, smaller agencies would bring them in freelance. The job pretty much doesn't exist any more and has been folded in to a more generalised 'production' role. So the person in charge of the shoot will have a knowledge base, but it will be more general as their role now also includes trafficking the work, arranging meetings, liaising with clients and working on timelines.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I do not believe that the law is clear on this, in the case of film copyright does not exist until the film is processes. It is probably true that the same applies to raw files. However the raw file does contain a fully processed jpeg thumbnail of the image. And it is images that are copyrighted. Files like unprocessed film is not. They contain
only potential images.

A raw file or any data file can be processed to provide numerous individually copyright images. Data is protected under different laws.
Click to expand...

Setting aside the possibility that some RAW file produced by some cameras may not contain any embedded JPEG, you seem to be saying that he moment of creation occurs when the RAW file is decoded (or the film is developed)?

The logical conclusion of this line of thinking s that if the RAW file is handed by the photographer to someone else, and they open the file in their copy of Lightroom before the photographer, then the other person owns the copyright to the photograph thereafter, not the photographer.

In the analogue world, then if a photographer gives his film to a processing laboratory to develop, in the absence of any other contract, it implies that the lab owns the copyright to the photo (since they 'created' the image by developing it from its previously latent, 'potential' state).

Garry Winogrand's estate might have a lot of complaints about this state of affairs if it applied in the US!

That does not make sense; I'm with DemiLion on this - copyright exists from the moment of initial exposure of the negative (or digital capture).
 
Last edited:
Musicman said:
Setting aside the possibility that some RAW file produced by some cameras may not contain any embedded JPEG, you seem to be saying that he moment of creation occurs when the RAW file is decoded (or the film is developed)?

The logical conclusion of this line of thinking s that if the RAW file is handed by the photographer to someone else, and they open the file in their copy of Lightroom before the photographer, then the other person owns the copyright to the photograph thereafter, not the photographer.

In the analogue world, then if a photographer gives his film to a processing laboratory to develop, in the absence of any other contract, it implies that the lab owns the copyright to the photo (since they 'created' the image by developing it from its previously latent, 'potential' state).

Garry Winogrand's estate might have a lot of complaints about this state of affairs if it applied in the US!

That does not make sense; I'm with DemiLion on this - copyright exists from the moment of initial exposure of the negative (or digital capture).
Click to expand...


Thanks, I agree. It would be helpful if Terrywoodenpic would come back and explain his thinking.
 
Musicman said:
Setting aside the possibility that some RAW file produced by some cameras may not contain any embedded JPEG, you seem to be saying that he moment of creation occurs when the RAW file is decoded (or the film is developed)?

The logical conclusion of this line of thinking s that if the RAW file is handed by the photographer to someone else, and they open the file in their copy of Lightroom before the photographer, then the other person owns the copyright to the photograph thereafter, not the photographer.

In the analogue world, then if a photographer gives his film to a processing laboratory to develop, in the absence of any other contract, it implies that the lab owns the copyright to the photo (since they 'created' the image by developing it from its previously latent, 'potential' state).

Garry Winogrand's estate might have a lot of complaints about this state of affairs if it applied in the US!

That does not make sense; I'm with DemiLion on this - copyright exists from the moment of initial exposure of the negative (or digital capture).
Click to expand...

You are confusing ownership of the raw file or tangible image with copyright of the image.
The raw file undoubtedly belongs to the photographer, processed or not. Copyright is to do with the right to reproduce images not own them.

You can have the only existing print of a photograph, and not own the copyright...
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
You are confusing ownership of the raw file or tangible image with copyright of the image.
The raw file undoubtedly belongs to the photographer, processed or not. Copyright is to do with the right to reproduce images not own them.

You can have the only existing print of a photograph, and not own the copyright...
Click to expand...

But aren't you moving the goal posts now? In an earlier post you told us that copyright only existed once an file had been processed. I questioned this with regard to RAW files.

Most of us understand that copyright is the right to reproduce an image whether it is a print, negative, transparency, raw file or processed file. We know that you can own a print but cannot copy it without infringing copyright.

I must admit I can't see what you're getting at. While copyright can be complicated this seems to be a situation where a simple understanding of copyright is quite enough.

EDIT: In my opinion the confusion is not ours........
 
Last edited:
I've had this happen to me at work and the marketing team are young and didn't appreciate the need for quality work.

I stuck to my guns but said, for social media or other uses why don't we agree a different look and feel and a set number of shots etc.

Generally it's down to communications and expectations.

There was one lady that was quite vocal, in the end I said, "Remember all the designs we rejected for the new branding?", "Yes", "Well why don't we make do with some of them?"

That kinda made my point and I said it's important the brand look remains good quality, customers are very, very savvy and make micro judgements about all products. We don't want to lessen either by putting out poor quality, if anything we want more quality photographs to build a library to draw upon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top