From the point of view of the OP, I can see how annoying it is that he has spent x amount for a shoot, y amount for prints, and is now being charged £20 more for a single image.
I completely disagree with everyone who is saying that the £20 is cheap when you consider the time taken. All of his files will already be archived I would assume, ready for any future copies to be made. The £20 charge is there because thats what people will pay, it will have little to no bearing on actual costs. I wouldn't be suprised if the actual costs were well under £1 to reprint work thats already been photographed and edited. In business cost is irrelevent, it's all down to how much people will pay. The photographer can use the copyrght laws (there in theory for his protection) to his advantage, and can expoilt them to increase his profits. Welcome to business
I personally would have no problem making a copy of a photograph for my own personal use (for example if I wanted it as my desktop wallpaper). I do however feel it is only fair to pay (the excessive) £20 fee for a re-print.
I completely disagree with everyone who is saying that the £20 is cheap when you consider the time taken. All of his files will already be archived I would assume, ready for any future copies to be made. The £20 charge is there because thats what people will pay, it will have little to no bearing on actual costs. I wouldn't be suprised if the actual costs were well under £1 to reprint work thats already been photographed and edited. In business cost is irrelevent, it's all down to how much people will pay. The photographer can use the copyrght laws (there in theory for his protection) to his advantage, and can expoilt them to increase his profits. Welcome to business
I personally would have no problem making a copy of a photograph for my own personal use (for example if I wanted it as my desktop wallpaper). I do however feel it is only fair to pay (the excessive) £20 fee for a re-print.
