NYCPHP Meetup

[inforequest]

Michael Sims jellicle-at-gmail.com |nyphp dev/internal group use| wrote:

>Contractors that insist that they retain ownership of the code that I pay 
>them to produce... would not be hired by me.  Nor would I hire a wedding 
>photographer who insisted that they owned the negatives to the pictures 
>that they took on my dime.  
>
You just eliminated the majority of professional wedding photographers, 
c.1990 (yes, I got married back then). Before the digital revolution, 
control of reprints was an essential part of the business. You could of 
course negotiate ownership of the negatives, but it changed the price of 
the shoot to a more realistic (expensive)  number than it would 
otherwise have been.

 I hired a celebrity wedding photographer because of his art, not his 
performance. A big part of that was executed in the darkroom... owning 
the prints was not especially of interest to me. Like someone else here 
said... they may have the code (negatives) but they don't have the 
architecture (can't make the magical images).

It's a different world today....and I point this out because most of the 
law covering these issues was written "way back when" and really doesn't 
fit too well anymore (like my wedding tux). But when you say :

>Both situations suggest the contractor is planning to extort money from me at a later date, to make me pay twice for 
>the same work, and I find that rather slimy.
>  
>
I have to disagree. It's a deal, and you are free to decline. The guy 
has to make a living, so he can make it off reprints or the shoot. 
Either way there's some risk, and some reward.

I can't see it as extortion or slimy unless you made a deal for other 
than what you're gonna get.