"I want your RAW files.." What would you do

Johnny|lucidcomposure

Johnny|lucidcomposure

Johnny|lucidcomposure

Soldato
Joined
5 Nov 2004
Posts
9,302
So I got asked for the RAW files from a recent fashion shoot and although my answer is always no it made me wonder, how much is your breaking price to allow a client or clients relationship partner, parent or friend have the RAW files

£?

I have an idea what would make me break but I guess it really varies on the image.

We are of course talking about your best set here and not just your new lens duck shots.

Johnny
 
Mmmmmhhhh, interesting question. I'm not sure I have an answer.

You would have to take into account the type of photography as well. Fashion photography I would think can pay very well, where as aviation photography doesn't (magazine front cover shot around £150 with no repeat fee). If you got the front cover of Vogue I would think you would get paid many times £150!

For a single aviation RAW (my very best ever shot), I'd hand it over for £3k.

Why £3k? Because that would buy me a 300 f/2.8 IS L.
 
Handing over the RAW file doesn't mean you are handing over your ownership of copyright does it? They have it, but to use it commercially they would still need to pay you? Or is this part of the deal too?
 
Well by handing it over basically does give copyright as it could turn into a right meal with people claiming its their file.

By me keeping the RAW separates me from people who have a massive jpeg. It is the argument ender "I have the negative" basically

You could give someone it and say I still own it but whos to say they wont use it and not tell you.
 
I see your angle here...can you not embed your name into the EXIF??

I probably wouldn't give it away for a fair share of cash, but the amount would depend on how likely it is that the picture will make any money in the future! Only you are in the best position to judge that!
 
I just wouldn't

And I would expect 4 digit numbers before I sold a raw too. I would give up ownership of the image so thats what I would expect. For REALLY good shots of course. Thing is there are shots in my portfolio now that mean way too much to me for me to ever give up. Not many but a few which I am super proud of.
 
If you do, get them to sign a contract, clear that the copyright still belong to you. All they are buying is the higher res original, not distribution rights.
 
does giving somebody owning a RAW file actually constitute owning the copyright though ?

yes it gives them a different format of the image, but i cant see how the law can discrimate against JPEG and RAW. in the eyes of the law, its still your photo as you took it

as raymond says, sell them if you want, but with a written agreement that the images are still copyright to yourself and are for their own personal use only and cannot be reproduced or published / sold on without your permission

if your semi pro, id look at having something legally binding drawn up by some1 for a fee, then just re-use the same disclaimer evertime you sell on the photos.

raw is an image format, nothing else in copyright law.
 
No, but it does, similar to a negative, go some way to proving ownership.

If you have the RAW and no one else does, it'll be hard to argue against it being your photo. If however you dish out a copy of the RAW, then you've little left to prove the picture is originally yours because they've got pretty much everything you have.
 
divine` said:
No, but it does, similar to a negative, go some way to proving ownership.

If you have the RAW and no one else does, it'll be hard to argue against it being your photo. If however you dish out a copy of the RAW, then you've little left to prove the picture is originally yours because they've got pretty much everything you have.
Click to expand...

Not when you have his signature in a contract, and it all depends what kinda photo it is. If its something like a wedding and the groom has it then it's hard to argue he took them since he's in pretty much all of them.
 
I think we've all drifted lazily to the left one this one.

I just wondered if you were in a position to give away the digital negative then what would your price be.

I just do not make copies of my RAW files. If someone wants a RAW file then it is to play with the vast adjustments it offers or for the highest possible print which it is likely to be for the editing purpose which to me comes across as insulting as they are basically saying they are not happy with what you have done with the image which in the end. Is part of the overal package that photographer offers.
 
No chance I'd give anyone a RAW file. No way, not happening! I see no reason at all why anyone would need it. A high quality TIFF would be more than suitable for any client if they wanted the best quality.

If you shot film you wouldn't hand over the negative (ok so slightly differnet as you can copy a RAW file but you see the point). As has been said, handing over the RAW could cause massive problems if they ever used the image without your permission as you'd then have to prove who took the shot to start with.
EDIT: If someone asked my price, I'd say £10k, but only because I know they wouldn't pay that so they'd stop asking lol
 
Fstop11 said:
I think we've all drifted lazily to the left one this one.
Click to expand...

i dont think the thread has gone off topic. Some people have said they wouldnt consider selling them because in their eyes its giving the copyright away

as others have said, it isnt in any giving copyright away at all. So your view as to price depends on what camp your in. The camp that think raw = copyright will probably not want to name any price

but those of you willing to clarify copyright ownership through some other means (eg agreement), could ignore the "insult" to their skills and just take the cash and make a tidy profit. Yes they may not think your work is good enough, but they obviously think the photograph is half decent, so if they want to pay for the work, then your the one thats gets the money. Its their losss.
 
Last edited:
What about letting them have a DNG copy of the RAW file, it'll have all the info, but you still keep the original?
 
I wouldn't sell RAW files unless I had some kind of signed agreement between me and the person stating that the work was originally mine and not to be used again for commerical gains without my permission.

I would happily sell them though under the above pretext, but I would be saying 1K per individual RAW file

As someone stated above - I wouldn't think it was insulting - some people / companies just want to have the original for other uses, and if they are prepared to sell them to you for a tidy sum, who are you to argue?

Rich
 
I'd say it depends on the shoot you've done that they're after the RAW(s) from. If it's something you know damn well they will make a fortune from, charge them accordingly.

I suppose you could apply a somewhat nooby approach (as I've thought of it I'll call it a nooby approach :D) and if they would make 10 edited copies from the RAW, then charge the for the cost of 20-30 normal shots, and get something from them to acknowledge the shots have been altered from the photographers original shot.

That way you've got money and acknowledgment. I suppose you could just ask for them to make certain it's clear they are not how you intended the shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom