Wedding Photography?

koffiejunkie said:
Dude, get the real thing. I hear of too many problems with the 3rd party ones.
Click to expand...

Did quite a bit of research on this specific one - only read good things - some even prefer it to the original because it has better sealing.
 
**sigh** stumbled on my own thread... Its now my turn to do this - and all the photographers my other half likes are well over R15,000
 
koffiejunkie said:
That looks like someone's photoshop dream. 15-85mm? The bodies of those two lenses look more like Sony's styling than Canon's. And the 7D body looks like a mix between xxxD and xxD lines. The rumours have been flying over a 7D for years, and it's never come true. Why 7 anyways? A 3D makes much more sense.
Click to expand...

:D
 
xrapidx said:
**sigh** stumbled on my own thread... Its now my turn to do this - and all the photographers my other half likes are well over R15,000
Click to expand...

Since you're in Cape Town, maybe check out Eden. I know the guys who run it, and they're good (helps that one of them works for Nikon and thus get lots of nice toys to "demo" at each wedding ;-)
 
koffiejunkie said:
That looks like someone's photoshop dream. 15-85mm? The bodies of those two lenses look more like Sony's styling than Canon's. And the 7D body looks like a mix between xxxD and xxD lines. The rumours have been flying over a 7D for years, and it's never come true. Why 7 anyways? A 3D makes much more sense.

SiriS said:
:D
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Ha ha! I totally forgot about this - I was so wrong. And now I own one :D
 
BigAl-sa said:
That's very kind of you! Remember, the photographer retains intellectual and artistic rights to the photograph, unless he or she sells those rights to you. Paying for the photographer's services does not imply that you are paying for the copyright on the photos.

I'd love to know what you consider reasonable...
Click to expand...
Funny this thread should resurface now but according to this article the opposite it true. Unless there is a agreement in place the person commissioning the shoot has all the rights to the photos, not the photographer.
Where South African law differs from international law is in the line “commissioned photographs are owned by the commissioner (client)” This means freelance photographers have no rights to their work.
Click to expand...
 
Interesting

The photographer she chose has a clause in the agreement stating that you may not give the photo's to anyone else unless otherwise agreed - it also says that if the photo's are published anywhere, the photographers address must be shown.

And that the photographer retains the rights to the photo's, and may use them as they see fit without permission.
 
xrapidx said:
Interesting

The photographer she chose has a clause in the agreement stating that you may not give the photo's to anyone else unless otherwise agreed - it also says that if the photo's are published anywhere, the photographers address must be shown.

And that the photographer retains the rights to the photo's.
Click to expand...
That's fair enough then. If you agree to those terms you have to abide by them.
But fortunately this issue can be circumvented by mutual agreement even when it takes the form of a verbal agreement. The act allows for negotiation of these default terms, and consequently any agreement negotiated comes under contract law which then overrides the Copyright Law.
Click to expand...
 
Ah - well at least now I know what to look out for, and I'll be careful what I say, not keen on someone owning something I paid almost 20k for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X