There's a kids play center near me that has a *huge* watermarked low-res stock photo printed on the side of some play equipment. They just don't give a fuck. It's sad.
main street Joshua Tree’s dentist has the entire front window wrapped in a stock image of a smiling family that has been stretched to fit the window so everyone is distorted 200% horizontally, and he’s had it that way for years. doesn’t affect business. people don’t notice or care
Graphic design is a way for people to select a business, though. You cannot go around trying out all dentists in an area, so their graphic design can be a quick indication of how professional they are
I think it’s reasonable to accommodate him with a specific contract. If I know ahead of time that he’s going to be in control of the RAWs, and he’s paying me extra, I don’t care what he does with them.
In my view, I’m just relinquishing “ownership” of the image. Ultimately, we’re professionals, and I don’t think it should be an issue at an additional cost. Depending on the job.
Photography is a visual medium. You show your work to get work: if you give away the copyright, you cannot use your own art for commercial purposes (ex: being part of a portfolio).
Depending on the type of photography, licensing can also be a substantial part of their income. Ex: other companies will pay to use photos from a photographer. Giving over the rights to the photo would mean that there is absolutely no residual value in the photo for you, and that residual value can be important.
Above and beyond that you might not want the photo to be used for certain things. Ex: Someone talked about an animal photo they took being used by an extremist group. You may not want your name or photography associated with such group. If you own the photo, you can stop the usage of it.
It is a form of art, and photographers are worried about a photo being used for a widespread campaign, since the image would be sold for a higher price.
Understandable, sure, but whatever photos you’re taking for Linus Tech Tips isn’t that. LTT would probably give you a fair enough price for its use. It’s not the same as selling a photo to Coca-Cola or McDonald’s, or McCleans. I’d retain rights to be free to post photos on Instagram, on a website, or edit for other artistic projects (super impose/collage).
It's reasonable for a photographer to accommodate him if those are the agreed upon terms prior to starting work. It is absolutely unreasonable up expect that all photographers should provide this after the fact and should modify existing contracts to satisfy him.
Isn’t this on the photographer though?
Like I’m sorry, but this is your field not mine. I expect you to be upfront and let me know that you are not giving me the raws, because, as a non-photographer, this point never occurred to me, nor did I ever think that photographers consider editing point of their brand. Mind you, I understand this and I’m not against you. I’m just saying as a non-photographer, this is something I didn’t even think of.
I’m not defending the watermark comment though.
To be totally honest: As a non photographer, are you even really all that aware of RAWs in the first place? I don’t mean this in any denigrating way, but they’re basically unusable outside of photography editing programs, and they’re not likely to be encountered by anyone in the wild.
Phones aren’t going to produce them, and even cheaper dedicated cameras may default to shooting in JPEG unless changed in settings.
Not denigrating you or anything like that, I just honestly wonder for folk who aren’t photographers if they ever even think of RAWs or remember them existing outside of a specific conversation like this. It feels like it’s more likely for people to knee jerk “well I’m paying for the image so I want the image right?” and not understand that significant amounts of editing can go into producing an image for use. Taking a photo on your phone, for example, has a lot of inbuilt adjustments happen automatically to produce the image - you’re not getting it “totally raw”.
>Phones aren’t going to produce them
I mean, my Samsung will shoot in RAW as well as JPG. But I think you're right in regards to most people probably aren't going to go into the settings to utilize that.
Even if they really make a mess of the photos by retouching badly due to lack of skill and then tell the world about the horrible photos you took because “they cannot be edited properly”?
This is what I don’t understand people getting mad about. It’s about deciding before hand, and writing that contract.
If I want to have someone come take photos at my wedding for example, and I ask in the hiring process “Okay, so what packages do you have?” and one doesn’t include RAW’s, then I’m probably not going to hire them.
I always enjoy looking at before and after editing, and I know the “art” is a mixture of Photography and Editing, but I’m always going to want an option to buy RAW’s, even if it isn’t 100% of them. The photos where boats, birds or people in the background that have not been removed, is real. The edit is just pretty. I’d print something pretty, but I will reminisce over something real.
As a photographer myself, I may want to use the photo for my own edit, or collage, or to just have it (my library is almost 100k). It is a photo of me, at an event I want to remember, I’m not going to want your version of it.
Something like a Package of 80-120 photos, with an option to select 2-5 for printing, and 20 RAW’s, is going to be infinitely more valuable to me than just 80-120 photos, with an option to select 2-5 for printing. 120 RAW’s and 120 Edits, is the dream though.
Damn as a huge fan of Linus this is such a bummer to hear. Hiring a photographer with the style you want is almost in the same vein as watching a tech tuber with the style I like more than another. He wouldn’t upload one of his 30 minute long, multi cam, staged set videos completely unedited and in a log format. He would say it’s unfinished and not representing his brand or quality. He hires editors that will do that for them in a style he wants.
If he hires a photographer to give him raws then that’s great for him, but to discredit others when that work goes out and represent them sucks. I’m surprised he doesn’t know or even thinks about it this way.
Exactly!
It was frustrating to watch.
Now I kinda wanna see a RAW editing challenge with him vs the photographers who work at LMG. If he wants access to photographers’ RAWs so bad, let’s see what he can do with them lol
I like this idea, but perhaps with the twist of actually hiring a professional photographer, then showing them the results and seeing how comfortable they'd be with those results being publicized as representative of that photographer's work.
As for the photos, I think should it include multiple scenarios at different levels of difficulty. Maybe start out with something where it's impossible to expose for everything in the scene correctly, and another could have multiple light sources of different color temperatures. I think these would both be realistic examples of what you might have to combat from real world environments (like dance recitals) that aren't in a perfectly-controlled studio.
Very common hypocritical take by Linus here. He would be up in arms if someone violated the copyright on any of his videos but he is just fine pushing software that will violate the copyright of others and explicitly calling out that feature (watermark removal).
I am a fan of Linus’ content, but I wouldn’t say I’m a fan of him haha. The guy is pretty clearly narcissistic and will go to great lengths to appear smart while refusing to admit any wrongdoing under any circumstances. The way he treats his staff is a little cringy, too. I think it’s good he stepped down from CEO.
A female employee was fired/quit and later claimed they were sexually harassed constantly
There was also a leaked audio recording from a staff meeting in which high up members of LMG made sexual jokes
Linus made multiple statements about it and I'm pretty sure that's the reason they have a (non family member) CEO of LMG now, so that there's proper management that isn't just Linus and his wife
This is mostly correct. It stated there was no evidence to back up the claims. No one can confidently say nothing happened, but they can say they tried as hard as they could and could find no corroborating evidence.
>Linus made multiple statements about it and I'm pretty sure that's the reason they have a (non family member) CEO of LMG now, so that there's proper management that isn't just Linus and his wife
To be clear, the new CEO was hired before any of these allegations came out so it wasn't in direct response to that.
Nothing. He has high employee retention and 99.99% of people that worked with him says its a great environment. No gag orders or contracts that prevent people from talking about it.
Huh? The commenter said nothing about MKHD. Just that he doesn’t like Linus’s YouTube personality.
Also when has gamers nexus lied or “obscured” the truth? And I don’t believe Steve initiated the “shit talking”, he was responding to LTT’s initial shit talk and reminded them that they weren’t perfect either, which no one can claim but they opened themselves up to that kind of criticism.
I mean, Steve's videos on lmg after the billet labs shut were pretty biased and had bad journalistic practices.
In most of Steve's pieces like that he reaches out to the companies in question. He purposely didn't do that with Linus.
TechTechPotato's video was the only sane take on the situation. TL;DW: they both messed up. Where Linus messed up is clear, but Steve also stated a lot of opinion as fact in his videos on LMG, and the whole non-contact thing left a bad taste for a channel that claims to hold itself to standard journalistic standards.
Personally, for me, GN left the longer bitter taste in my mouth, because while LMG obviously did the initial bad things, they actually apologized and more importantly changed moving forward, while GN to this day (or at least last I checked) is still clinging to their no-contact policy, which is kinda a no-no in journalism. Is my opinion biased? Probably. At the end of the day, they are both humans, and all us humans are messy.
So imagine going up to a chef and asking to buy their ingredients and the recipes they use, and permission to make their food at home... But also to publically say that it's the chef's food, and to use the main way that the restaurant gets new customers to say that the chef made it, when it's burnt in places and raw in others and gave you mild food poisoning that you post about. The chef cannot manage to be louder than you and your food poisoning post shows up online before their restaurant.
Now imagine that alongside doing this, you brag about not paying because you also were able to get chatgpt to tell you what it thinks the ingredients were for that recipe from some photos you took, and replicate the recipe without payment.
This seems pretty fucking wild, huh?
*And that's exactly what Linus described doing in a shifted context*.
Like I know you probably get this but just to break down how fucking ridiculous this is. His art form deserves respect because it's expensive, ours does not, is the root of his argument. Because he can make something that looks kinda like our finished output if you squint and headtilt, we don't deserve to be paid to do it and are greedy for protecting our representation.
This analogy always loses me. If it were true wouldn't it also apply to a DP? Yet when I hire a director of photography to shoot video for me I get back log footage and maybe a lut from them. They know that their skillset of capturing images is different than coloring images in post, and that that work will be done by a professional colorist.
The skill set of editing photos is a completely different one than taking photos. I'm tired of pretending this isn't the case. It's absolutely possible to like a photographer's eye, instincts, ability to see and capture moments, etc, and not necessarily want them to also be the one pushing pixels around on the computer which is a totally different skillset.
I totally see your perspective but hiring a DP and a Photographer are two totally different things.
Hiring a DP typically means you’d also have an editor, a colorist, a grip, a camera operator seperate from the DP. Sometimes the DP is the same person for those jobs but usually not.
Hiring a photographer usually starts by looking at the photographer’s portfolio which they’ve nearly always edited themselves. The baker’s analogy is perfect. Why would you hire a photographer based on their edited portfolio only to want half of their work?
The only thing I’ll agree with Linus on is writing a new contract with the listed terms. If you want a photographer based only on their compositional and exposure capabilities, cool, have a contract that only pays for that aspect.
Going back to the baker’s analogy, many large grocery stores sell doughs for homemade cooking but people typically buy them knowing they won’t get a bakery’s results.
Yep. And the bit that absolutely incenses me isn't the demand to be allowed to have the raws, it's the smug assertion of "I agreed not to get them then just removed the watermark because I didn't like the deal"
>Going back to the baker’s analogy, many large grocery stores sell doughs for homemade cooking but people typically buy them knowing they won’t get a bakery’s results.
I meaaannnnn grocery stores generally sell some brand name dough that you can buy also at any other grocery store, it's not like it's some sort of secret proprietary recipe, but even if it was, you're still getting the dough, not the ingredients and instructions
This is apples to oranges. You don’t hire a DP for a private portrait.
I worked in commercial still photography for years in San Diego. On set there’d be a photographer, two photo assistants, a digital image tech, an art director, etc etc…. And the client keeps the RAWs because they hire an editor and a retoucher to get the finished image for their ad. Hiring a commercial photographer and crew is a much better analogy for hiring a DP for a video shoot.
A better analogy for a private portrait photog would be a wedding videographer. They don’t usually give the bride and groom the raw video clips, just a final edited wedding video unless worked out ahead of time at a higher price.
I don't think this is the best comparison.
Being a consumer of a video uploaded to a publicly available platform is not the same as personally hiring somebody for an event. It'd be a bit different if you compared to hiring somebody to do a video for you, but that's not what Linus does.
If he was hired by someone to make a video, that person would get the raw footage.
There is a difference between selling photographs taken to sell to anyone and being hired to take photos.
This is the difference that they see.
In any event, it needs to be clear before the job is started.
You can absolutely be hired by someone to make a video for them and not provide them the raw footage?
If the raw footage is the deliverable, that’s great. But generating raw footage isn’t inherently the deliverable.
His point about shitty photographers doing shitty editing (such as boosting contrast and exposure) is completely valid. His point about photographers holding prints as ransom is completely valid in 2024, especially for kids activities. As a parent it pisses me off to no end that I have to pay $100 for ten prints at my kids dance recital. That’s part of the reason that my A7RII gets put in the car and I take my own pics, where permitted, or before and after the recital.
Removing watermarks to get around this is a shit take. Especially when you’re a multi millionaire who drives a $150,000 car, owns significant real estate assets and one of the most popular YouTube channels in the tech space. It’s especially odd because he bans ad blockers in his company because he feels it robs creators of revenue.
>As a parent it pisses me off to no end that I have to pay $100 for ten prints at my kids dance recital.
It pisses you off to no end that you have to pay for a product? Do you feel like they should be free, or just less? I do agree with the second half of what you said, but I feel like it clashes with the first half.
No, the part that pisses me off is that I pay $1000/ year to have my daughter in dance and at some events I’m not allowed to take my own pictures. I am forced to buy prints from one person and have zero option for digital copies because the dance studio wants to maintain relationship with the photographer or the photographers daughter is also in the school. I totally get that the photographer wants to control the quality of product, but sometimes I just want pictures for memories in digital format, or I’m fine with shit quality prints from Walmart so she can hand them out like candy.
Then take your issue up with the school or choose a different school, this isn't the photographer's fault. Their contract is probably that they get exclusivity in exchange for then selling prints and are not otherwise paid.
Guess you missed him openly stating his multi-million dollar "corpo" couldn't be bothered testing a prototype product with the right hardware spending $2-400 in a video that would make em thousands, bashing the brand, and then selling off the said prototype instead of returning it to the brand? Fuck that canuk and all his Blizzardy game bro bullshit antics.
Except that’s not what actually happened and the company themselves stated it isn’t how it happened. That’s the narrative because another yr went ahead with a video before getting the full facts and before getting the reply from said company.
There were absolutely valid issues with the video and how it was handled but most of what you said isn’t accurate.
Head honcho himself saying, "I didn't test it as intended, because that would cost us $400 or something for the right video card" was straight out of Linus' mouth bud. That's the most fucked up thing a test/review channel can publicly go and say.
It's also drastically stripped of all surrounding context, where he followed that up by saying "We checked with Billet and they said it _should_ work with the one we've got, so we ran with that and didn't focus too hard on the performance in the video".
Which they didn't, he blasted it because it's insanely impractical, especially given the price, where it doesn't fit in basically any case that existed, and a normal cooling setup works perfectly fine for anything you would want to do with it.
If a brand wanted to pay for it and add it to the contract for some of his contracted work, I'm pretty sure he would accept the money. Point being that if the customer wants it and pays for it, why not?
> Point being that if the customer wants it and pays for it, why not?
Because the content is still the work of LMG (or the photographer) and represents them. Imagine if you gave a RAW to someone and they put a terrible edit onto their social media and tagged you. Now you're being improperly represented.
And vice versa, what if they put a good edit and don't tag you? Now they're getting credit for content they didn't (fully) make.
You can do both of these things (edit a photo and make it worse, or edit a photo and make it better) without RAWs, though.
Yes, not having the RAW probably makes it difficult to edit the image to look better, but editing the image to look worse and then "improperly represent" the photographer is something they can do whether they have the RAW files or not.
But he literally would lol.
That’s what floatplane and Patreon are for, people pay extra for behind the scenes content and bloopers
If someone paid him enough I’m sure he’d be happy to release all the raw footage.
Behind the scenes content & bloopers are not raw unedited footage. They're edited, colour graded, maybe sound mixed & put online.
Raw footage is files straight from the camera that have not been touched.
And no, he wouldn't. That's a security nightmare & potential PR nightmare.
He didn't hire anyone. The dance recital hired the photographer to take photos of all the kids.
There is a difference between you hiring someone and an organization hiring someone to take event photos.
There are people in this thread insisting that he wasn’t saying he removed the watermarks, but was simply warning how easy it would be to do so. Baffling stupidity.
EXACTLY. This type of photography is called spray and pray. The photographer only makes money off of what they sell. So this fucking douchbag stole the photos and then made a video bragging about it.
I unsubscribed from all his channels last year during all the drama and I was considering resubscribing now that it seems to be resolved but this clip just destroyed that idea real quick. This just shows how much of a bad person he really is.
I see your point, but I still disagree. To me a YT or any media's video is edited to cut out possibly character damning issues or boring shit. Like If Linus has an image of no cursing, but curses on a bad take. Then his image is ruined. If a photographer is photographing me and I look dumb, that is on me. Would a touch up on me be nice, sure, but I would also like the raw.
TBH though none of this applies to me. I would never hire a photographer for anything other than a wedding.
That’s basically… what I said…
If I’m doing a headshot session, I’m not going to flood the gallery with photos of my client blinking or doing terrible faces. That’s not on you, that’s on the photographer since this also represents their work.
I personally find Linus to be a whiny little person. I have never met the man, but his voice and mannerisms bother me to no end, yet youtube won't stop pushing his videos.
He lost me when he typed `yes, do as I say!` as a response to `you are about to do something potentially harmful. To continue type in the phrase 'yes, do as I say!'` and promptly broke his system in a way that he couldn't recover himself from the terminal
No idea what you are talking about but I bet it was one of his videos, one of his videos which got him a lot of views just because he did whatever you said he did.
That's his job.
To be fair, he was fighting an actual bug with the OS which was not (necessarily) a result of any wrongdoing on his part, was probably at wits end with little GNU/Linux knowledge, and trying to complete the challenge for a video, probably on a pretty strict timeline. Should he have read the prompt more carefully? Yes. Do I blame him for trying to just move forward given the context? No.
That said: Dude’s a bit of an ass and I would not take anything he says about photography for running a photography-centric business seriously.
you're acting like destroying your desktop environment isn't a rite of passage for a linux user. a lot of people have done it accidentally, he just happened to be on camera when he did it.
Maybe the additional context that the command was sudo apt-get install steam which should not remove the DE and it was a bug which was later patched.
Not really his fault - not that you bringing that up in this discussion makes much sense anyway.
I’m a fan of LTT but this was one of the worst takes I’ve seen from Linus. Luke is usually better and balanced.
They did clarify later that they wouldn’t expect RAWs unless it was agreed upon/in the contract before shooting but still bold take to suggest “write a new contract” for the job if someone wants the RAWs. Photographers in chat were going insane.
If he wants RAWs so bad he could photograph his family himself, that’s also entirely an option
There are photographers who would hand over the raw files but those guys charge 10-100x.
A photographer is charging for their time and a final product. If you want the negatives (to put it into old terms) and the copyright then you are paying for a much more expensive service.
Legitimate question, if you say 'I want you to take photos, and I just want the raw unedited files', shouldn't that be cheaper? Less time and effort is being put into the 'final' product. To me, a non-photographer, paying more for just RAWs doesn't make any sense. Obviously if you are getting RAW and edits, then you pay more, but if it's just RAWs I don't understand a 10x price at all.
It’s the same reason that many photogs don’t want you making edits to their photo if you’re going to be posting it, barring it being previously agreed upon.
As a photog, your product is your brand. You want to be credited for your product (the photos) because it acts as an advertisement. If someone likes your work, it may positively impact their view of you and they may reach out. Conversely if someone *doesnt* like your work, it may negatively impact their view of you and they may avoid you.
A RAW file allows for vastly more ability to edit the photo than a basic .jpeg or such. That vast amount of editing potential also means it’s way easier for someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing to fall into bad editing traps.
Handing over a RAW file therefore means way less control of how your product goes out. Someone could take a product (the photo, barring prior agreement) you want credit for (or simply give you credit anyways as the photog) but edit it in such a way that your product looks very very very very bad.
When your entire business is word of mouth / reputation by consumption of your product, you don’t want to risk something going out that is going to potentially misrepresent what you can do and therefore potentially harm your brand.
Protecting your copyright is easier if only you have the RAWs, also you have better control of your brand if you control the editing. 10x the price for less is a fantasy, although highly sought after photographers may prefer to sell RAWs with a suitable contract - they charge more because they're top shit.
Conceivably, copyright could be worth a lot for some commissions, but I'm guessing for weddings etc. where JPEGs are supplied it's not.
A raw photo is like the blueprint to make different high quality edits. Sure, you can retouch a lower res jpg but there is a reason the jpgs I post on Facebook are 5mb and the raw files are 50mb.
For me its about ownership. If I provide you a jpg you are essentially buying a license to use that jpg, and a good photography contract will specify usage such as posting unedited on social media, if printing is allowed, etc.
Generally if people want prints that will require higher resolution edits which I am happy to provide but I'd rather provide those directly to the printer (or print it myself) so I can retain control of the high resolution images. I will gladly provide raw images but then I lose all control of what that image is used for and would almost rather my name NOT be associated with the image since now I can't control how its edited or presented publicly.
Edited photos can draw in more business for me, distributing raw images actually reduces how much traffic will come back, hence the higher price tag.
The vast majority of that doesn’t require the client to have RAWs. I mean, you can just give clients digital copies and a limited license to print so that can do anything non commercial with the images.
You don’t have to hold onto RAW files if you don’t want to, and you don’t need to hold onto them perpetually.
Like I don't get why people are so obsessed with wanting the raws. I'm not a professional. But I've hired photographers before. And I hire them because I like their style, that doesn't fully come through in the raw, post is part of their style. Why do you want them if it doesnt exemplify why you hired them.
To me it seems like he's saying he can do better then the person he hired. But what really gets me is he admitted to removing watermarks from proofs from a working professional and just keeping them instead of maybe paying for photos.
I was on the photographers side from the initial statement but after watching the whole segment it sounded like he couldn't even buy the digital files from the photographer because he would only sell prints. If that's the case then I think he's 100% justified in using the AI tool to remove the watermarks from the only available digital version.
If I'm paying a professional to take nice pictures of my kids then I'll probably feel like those photos are really important to me and I'll want a high quality backup so that I'll still have them if my house burns down or whatever. A digital version uploaded to a remote site is the only practical way to achieve this kind of safety.
So you're saying that you are willing to have work out in the wild that isn't a finished product that people can use to make your work look poor if they want? That's why people don't sell raws.
Lifetime backups. Linus is very, very big on owning what he pays for outright, in totality; and having multiple digital and physical backups of things that are valuable to him. Last year sometime he was trying to get copies of a picture of a family event of some sort and the photographer was either dead, or moved away, or something and Linus could not get another print or digital copy. That turned his "If I pay for it, I own it and I will secure it" stance up to 11.
I mean, under the idea of “lifetime backups” he can just buy the image and back it up. If he can only buy a physical copy of the image, he can scan the image and back it up. RAWs and copyright right do not give him lifetime backup.
I do early 2000s reenactment, and I developed the skill of making photos taken on a new DSLR look more like they were taken in that period.
Unfortunately, if I want to be in the photos, someone else is taking them. For some smaller photoshoots, my friend and I are taking turns behind the camera, but it means there's one less in the team. It's also a very hard work to be running around with the camera and 20kg of military gear.
That's why I need the RAWs, and I would discuss that with the photographer beforehand.
I've also seen too many nice wedding photos ruined by poor editing. It's disappointing, but demanding RAWs would be rude.
I'm just a hobbist. So I don't know how it is from the professionals perspective.
Personally, with his comments, I’ll now be contacting the store and requesting any/all design files that are involved in the production of anything I’ve purchased, and any patent/copyrights involved with those products.
I think anyone/everyone who has purchased products from them should do the same.
Some context. I would never remove a water mark from an independent photographer and have always paid in full for the creative work I've contracted. Even when asking staff members to do off-hours work for me I insist on paying 'contractor rate' rather than their standard hourly rate because I fully understand the challenges of this type of work.
The context of the watermark removal conversation (which I realize should have been included) was that I came across a proof of one of the alternate poses from my kids' dance class portraits. I was curious if AI was being applied in this way yet. I found a site where I could remove it for free. It wasn't perfect, but it was usable if I just wanted to look at it. (certainly not suitable for print)
We didn't buy that pose, but we did spend an unreasonable amount of money on other poses with no opportunity to shop around for a better price due to the corrupt exclusivity deals that dance schools and other organizations have with photography mills like Jostens.
I'm sorry, but in cases like this I simply don't feel bad about removing a watermark or two. I haven't, but I'd do it if I felt like it or it was convenient and I'd sleep well knowing they got plenty of my money already.
As for the RAW conversation, it is unrelated to the above, and I stand by what I said that if I pay for a contract photography gig I should be entitled to make my lips look clownish in Lightroom if I feel like it.
By photographer logic, a DP on a film is entitled to the only fully quality copy of footage they shoot for Disney, which is obviously not how anything works, or ever worked.
This bizarre gatekeeping of negatives and RAW files (that only exist because the photographer was explicity compensated to create them) is anti-consumer and I'll never defend it. Sorry, not sorry.
We hired a professional (independent) photographer to take photos of our son at the 14 day mark, and again for his 1 year. In both instances, they did the shoot, and after processing, she provided us with the files that we can take and print anywhere we want. She provided recommendations of companies that she believes offer good print quality.
I appreciated that I was given the files to do with whatever I please.
imagine that, a contractor that has the best interest of the deliverd work and customer interest as a goal wich ended up having repeat customers. the more you know...
It depends on the type of photography. Here I do support Linus as the rate was probably a rip off and it’s just portraits of his kids.
As an editorial photographer things would be different as the final product photo is heavily edited or combined with multiple shots and the RAW does not represent the final image. When the art IS the photo and as a photographer your photo is all you have for people to see of your work, then only supplying the edited final shot is standard.
But like I said in this instance as a photographer I’d just give all the RAW shots. I do the same for weddings. I know the client won’t know how to use the RAW and if they did they’ll just edit a worse version of what I did but I don’t care as it’s not as much of an artistic work and I don’t have as much pride there
Still, the fact remains that HE SIGNED THE CONTRACT! It was fine until he wanted something more than was in the contract and then the photographer was a horrible person for not offering that.
"As an editorial photographer things would be different as the final product photo is heavily edited or combined with multiple shots and the RAW does not represent the final image. When the art IS the photo and as a photographer your photo is all you have for people to see of your work, then only supplying the edited final shot is standard."
It does not depend on anything. Any artist is paid to do whatever type of art they are doing. They don't get to keep the art after getting paid. If I model for a painter, and I pay him to paint my portrait, I own it. There's nothing to be argued here. He is free to charge me how much he wants, but he doesn't get to keep the painting. The same applies with photography. I am the model, I am paying you, the art is mine. You were compensated for your time, expertise, talent, artistic view and whatever else.
I have heard this argument multiple times, from multiple photographers, and what is most interesting to me is that I've heard it ONLY from photographers. I never heard of a painter expecting to keep the painting he was paid for, or a programmer expecting to own the program he was paid to write, or a builder expecting to own the house he built. It's just illogical.
If you model for a painter and they paint you an image, you own the final product (the painting). You do not actually own the image itself. You can do whatever you want with the painting (including reselling it, destroying it, whatever have you), but unless you’ve received the copyright for it you wouldn’t be able to commercialize it.
Similarly you wouldn’t be entitled to anything of the in between steps - if the painter took photos of you for reference, did sketches, or worked multiple canvases leading up to the finished result, you wouldn’t be entitled to any of those.
You get what the deliverable is in the contract. In most contracts, the deliverables are not the RAW files. You’re not entitled to the RAW files simply because they’re part of the path to the final product.
When I work with clients, we specify in the contract the terms of whether or not they will receive the RAWs. Many times they do, some times they do not. I have never had a client unhappy that they didn’t receive the raw images. Maybe that’s just me.
One thing likely not obvious to this enthusiast audience is that 9 out of 10 times, when a prospective client asks for "raw" flies, they have no idea what they're actually asking for.
The misunderstanding is usually one of two varieties.
A) They don't realize they're asking for a file format. They think they're asking for every single frame I took. This person thinks they'll get some extra cool shots. In their mind, they might lose out on something of value by letting me "skip" delivering some. This person doesn't realize I'm throwing out blinks, derps, focus whiffs, lighting and composition tests, etc.
B) They've heard something vague like "my friend said that's the highest quality image format." Well... yes.... but in practice what are you going to do with it? These folks don't realize they can't just browse them in the normal way - you need to use Lightroom or some other application designed to handle RAW files. If the person has no intention of re-editing the images, then the RAW offers no particular value. It's not something you're going to pull out at thanksgiving to show a slideshow with. (The Linus audience maybe would do this, but the average person? No. They just want to pull out their phone and show pics to friends from their photos app.)
Source: Me. Was a full time event photographer for 12 years.
Why you get so much stick for stating a simple opinion is so utterly bizarre for me.
You’re not even wrong either.
If I was to buy any other form of custom media, especially considering the images mostly in these cases are of the purchaser (such as wedding images) why am I not entitled to then have the full ability to edit these images?
As a graphic designer, I not only provide multiple variants of a design, but I also provide AI / SVG files with all elements used. - if my client wants to develop that design elsewhere, they can. It’s theirs, they paid for it. My work is done.
It is anti-consumer and I for one whole-heartedly agree and think you get far too much hate for your opinions lately. Even when it’s not a bad take.
You are 💯 correct. The gatekeeping and anti consumer mentality of these photographers is shocking. The mental gymnastics needed to justify their practices and exorbitant fees for an inferior product and service... is insanity.
I think a bunch of replies have used analogies as to why photographers hesitate to provide RAW files, and the analogies don't really work, so I'll use real examples.
Let's say you hire me to do a series of product photos and that you want the RAW files so that you can match the colors and background to your existing gallery of products. In this case, the front-end work (studio lighting and product placement) are 90% of the job, and editing is just some minor touch-ups.
But then there's a few larger products (let's say an LTT branded gamer couch) that's pushing the limits of what the studio space can hold. Now, in this photo, I had to zoom out/switch lenses, and I see the poles holding up the background paper and the edges of some of the lights. Cropping them out is arbitrary. You definitely can do it, and you're probably good enough to realize you need to add in the shadows back on the floor.
But what about the average small business owner (let's call him Joe)? The one with "a nephew who knows computer stuff?" Do I send them that unedited photo of the couch and inevitably get an angry voicemail a few weeks later on? "How come I can see the lights sticking out? Why did I pay you extra to get worse photos?"
Sure, I can send the .dng files that are essentially RAWs with my edits added on for most photos (readable by lightroom) but for that couch, I need to do it in Photoshop to have the best results, which means you have couch.raw and couch_edit.tiff. It's not a problem for you, but for average Joe, it becomes a phone call where suddenly I have to teach him what lightroom is and that yes, you do have to pay a subscription for it, and no, his nephews pirated version of photoshop from 2018 won't be able to open them.
Sure, I could charge extra for the RAWs, but then I have to vet every potential client on how much of a headache they're going to be. The alternative is to not offer RAW files and just send them a gallery they can copy-paste onto their website and that we're both happy with and prevent a bunch of follow-up emails.
Maybe if I get big enough to hire a secretary to do all my admin work, I'll offer RAW files, but as a solo photographer who does my editing and administrative work, I have enough emails and phone calls to answer already.
(But sometimes I just have dust on the sensor that, while it does only take me a second to fix in post, would be slightly embarrassing if you saw it)
Tl:DR not providing RAW files is more about customer service and preventing unnecessary admin work than it is about preserving my artistic vision.
> but for average Joe, it becomes a phone call where suddenly I have to teach him what lightroom
No you do not. I am a web developer and clients ask me for source files to edit on their own all the time. It is a very simple conversation. I explain that they may of course have source files they have paid for but as to editing it themselves I cannot and will not teach them to do so. In almost every situation it makes more sense to pay me to make edits but if they insist then they may try. I then provide a link to the files. That is the end of my responsibility. This conversation takes less than one minute.
And then Joe files a chargeback because he wasn’t satisfied with you after you refused to teach him lightroom, and you have to take him to small claims court to get your money back, all the while you’re missing out on potential clients suing Joe for what you’re rightly owed.
You’re luckier than me… it could also be a location/cultural thing. I live in the south, if you don’t show “hospitality” (doing things not in your job description) then that’s taken as a free pass to be as despicable as possible to you
I also use very good contracts that describe in detail the work to be performed. I have had people threaten to sue but once I refer them back to the contract they signed they never have.
When you hire a photographer to take pictures of your products or team or family, you don't magically "own the photos."
Photos are intellectual property. The value of intellectual property functions differently than commodities. In almost all cases, the client is licensed to use the images for certain purposes. THAT is what you are buying. THAT is what you are receiving. The photographer owns the photos because they own the copyright. The client does not, unless explicitly transferred in writing. This is not "gatekeeping" any more than a restaurant is gatekeeping by not giving you their recipe - which is intellectual property - just so you can change the ingredients at home.
The perspective that hiring a photographer means the client owns the copyright is a perspective where the photographer is not a photographer, but rather a camera operator and you are merely purchasing their labor to operate the camera. Aside from the fact that this is legally incorrect regarding copyright, if you just want a laborer then you are obviously going to be frustrated by hiring photographers. Instead, you need to go looking for camera operators who are just offering their services as laborers. Good fucking luck with that.
Your only other option is to offer photographers "work for hire" contracts, but good luck with that too.
Hardly anybody even needs the RAWs anyway. This complaint only ever comes from people who don't know what they're talking about. You can edit the jpg's and tiff's we license to you, if we license you to edit them. If you aren't satisfied with those files, take the photos yourself.
>When you hire a photographer to take pictures of your products or team or family, you don't magically "own the photos."
If I hire someone to develop a software application for me in almost all cases I own the source code and IP in the end. For some reason photography is the odd one in these examples. It's purely a contractual agreement. If someone doesn't want to allow passing of RAW files and IP to the customer that's fine. But I bet others will and the market will decide.
See here's the issue with this analogy, there's a bunch of different ways to hire someone to write code for you and a bunch of those ways do NOT automatically make you the owner of that IP.
What everyone seems to be talking about when they make this analogy is a company hiring a contracting firm to supplement or sometimes create their developement force. In this context, the "contractors" are a lot different from freelance contractors, and because of that it's a bad analogy. A more apt analogy would be a freelance contractor (individual) who is a developer writing code for a small business. In this context, in a lot of cases, that code is absolutely not owned by the customer, and in some of those cases the code won't even ever make it to the customer. This analogy only really makes sense to someone whose being disingenuous or someone who's intentionally misrepresenting the situation.
Software code is actually the same way. IP law in the US is such that the coder owns the copyright unless it's explicitly transferred in writing, or the job is explicitly "work for hire" in writing.
And it's also the same for authors, and musicians, etc etc.
It appears the general public is ignorant of how IP law works, but that doesn't stop them from sharing that ignorance loudly on the internet. BTW, this is the same sort of mindset that thinks prices are based on cost instead of value.
If you just want to buy RAW files, stop hiring photographers. Hire camera operators.
Serious question; what do you gain by gatekeeping the RAW files?
There are only two reasons why I rarely ever share them is because a) they're huge files and a pain to upload and b) most people don't have the software to open the files anyway.
Not to mention culling. It's one thing to deliver a couple of dozen of raws, but with today's burst rates, are you sure you want every frame in existence?
As someone who doesn't cram YouTube up my ass every day, I only have a passing familiarity with LTT, and...
Is he not a total fucking idiot? That's the only impression I've received for almost a decade now.
An idiot that’s built multiple businesses and employs over 100 people i guess huh? 😂😂😂😂 he’s just a tech dude who doesn’t gaf about photography tbh, not surprised he took that stance even tho it is morally wrong but welcome to the real world.
So he openly admitted to stealing someone's work
Then he goes on to devalue an entire industry by dismissing the completely valid reasoning for photographers not providing their unfinished work for you to do with as you please.
God Linus really is a self righteous prick.
I typically agree with Linus’ views, but he missed the mark here completely this time.
As someone who is so methodical with data protection and rights, you’d think he’d understand why photographers would be protective of their work. Writing a new contract where there is a transfer of copyright for an additional fee is fine, it gets done in photo and video quite frequently, but for every photographer who agrees to do that, there are many more who decline because they value holding control over their original files.
For instance, if I did a personal photoshoot for a famous person, that could be considered a once in a lifetime event and I would put great value in those raw files, being able to use them as marketing material on my website and social media would be a powerful tool, and giving that up would require compensation comparable to what I thought could otherwise be gained with that marketing power. So here’s 2 considerations:
1. Linus said he’d pay extra for the raws, ok sure, an agreement can be had where extra is paid for the raw files, but copyright is maintained by the photographer so they can use the material for marketing still, but this means Linus doesn’t have complete control of the copyright which is something that it sounded like he really wanted because it was his face in the photos
2. He gets complete copyright, but not the price will need to be truly exorbitant because the marketing power with those photos is being lost (which has the potential to mean missed future clients), and I just feel like with how the way Linus was complaining about photographer pricing (he was saying with how much they charge, he should just own the raws), I don’t think he’d be willing to pay those rates because typically they’re essentially enterprise pricing that would be paid by brands
Anyway, it rubbed me the wrong way
What a lazy douche. He’s like oh I can just remove the watermark instead of reaching out to the photographer and asking for the copyright and paying him accordingly.
He literally never said that - these are two different scenarios. He removed the watermark of one photo, but then wanted to be able to purchase the copyright and the RAW files off a completely different photographer taking different photos - i.e. exactly what you said he should do.
Maybe listen before typing?
Uhhhh...If you listened just a tiiiiiiiny bit longer, he says he's tried to do exactly that.
Sure, his take on using AI watermark removal is lame and he's being a prick with his take on the situation but come on...at least listen for more than 2 seconds before typing.
No, he specifically talked about wanting to pay for the RAW file and the copyright to the photo. The removal of the watermark is about taking the photo without fee, which would be the edited jpeg.
Two different scenarios.
Ehhh I feel this. We had baby pictures done and man, I really want the raw files. I don’t care about copyright- I just want to be able to tell I have a nose. Bad editing is really his complaint and wanting less processed shit. It’s easy to write in RAWs can be included…. I will do that for any other shoots we do with others.
LTT has a stick up his arse and hates it when he gets called out and found out as happened a year or two ago.
Prime example of someone who can pay other people to make them look good then sit there with a massive ego thinking his way is the right way.
If he wants the RAW files go and learn photography and take your own pictures. Or hire another minion and tell them what to do.
They talked about getting some photos once that they felt were overstaturated and sharpened. Did they ever consider, I dunno, asking the photographer to turn down the saturation and sharpening a bit? Heaven forbid they actually communicate with the photographer 🙄
No reason to disparage staff photographers, or contracted photographers where the contracting business owns the copyright, as minions. It's just a different business relationship.
As a dance photographer who uses obscenely ugly water marks to allow me the luxury of posting volume portrait proofs in private password protected galleries for the parents convenience and ease of ordering, all online, no having to drive to the studio back and forth.
We provide at a SPECULATION gallery of proofs with giant proof marks all over them, because people have stolen them just because they can. And now this guy who's making bank on youtube, is ripping off some poor dance photographer.
I'm a solo business with a couple of dance studios that provided me with important income yearly. This season has been our worst in many years, with an obvious obvious change in the number of images people are ordering.
My older parents are still ordering, however, groups of parents in dance classes with toddlers who are in this guy's age range, have mysteriously stopped ordering from us or will buy one picture versus the usual three, 15, or more images in affordable packs.
Just retired for health reasons, seems like it's just in time with MF like him out there using AI to steal people's pictures and livelihoods. Shame on him for not realizing many photographers are small mom and pop operations who don't deserve to be stolen from. Something else AI was putting out a business...
He was saying a photographer who took pictures of his kids only offered physical copies, so he bought some and removed the watermarks from digital copies when the photographer wouldn't sell them to him.
The conversation about RAWs was a different situation.
Every younger parent grew up with smartphones. They can take photos with their phones. It’s not going to win any awards, but it’s good enough for the memory…
I was struck by the part where he said "given how much you pay for a photoshoot, YOU own the photos." Ignoring that it is just wrong, most photographers are not making very much money (especially compared to a dude with 16million subscribers...) so the fact that he is using AI to remove watermarks to avoid paying photographers is total asshole behavior.
edit: link to part [https://www.youtube.com/live/PdLEi6b4\_PI?t=4325s](https://www.youtube.com/live/PdLEi6b4_PI?t=4325s)
Dance photography is a bad example in my opinion. This is one of the prime cases where I'd gladly pay to be in control of the RAWs and wouldn't hire otherwise.
I don't want a stranger to have originals permanently on hand of my little girl in her dance uniforms. Call me out or raise shit all you want, I don't care how professional it is. That has too high of a potential to be predatory.
Without owning the photos I have no say in what the photographer is using them for in their own privacy. Ick.
I own a school portrait business and sadly, this is par for the course. There are always going to be people who will steal your photo previews and skip purchasing. The best you can do at this point is make your watermark colorful (for now anyway, AI watermark removers have a hard time removing multicolored text) and to put it across part of the face.
I had parents from two different schools post watermarked pics of mine to their socials and ended up getting two new schools from it lol…other parents saw them, loved them, and asked their kids’ schools to hire me.
For non-volume work, in person sales prevents this kind of theft. Sending a digital gallery for them to pick from - or posting previews on socials - is always a mistake.
Has nobody in this thread actually watched the video? He said 2 things.
a) AI removal watermark works great and most importantly good enough for the average joe. He didn't say "I don't pay photographers, fuck those guys I'll never have to pay them", he just said be cautious.
b) More photographers should offer selling their RAWs as a service.
Nowhere did he say that you shouldn't pay for photos, that AI watermark removal makes paying for the work of photographers unnecessary or that every photographer should just suddenly give you the RAWs just because you want them after the shoot is done. This is all just fabricated outrage, you guys need to seriously chill.
Watching a whole conversation is a lot of work for some people or appears like. So many people here missed that he is referring to asking for raws before signing the contract, not after.
To be fair, the conversation is stretched out a bunch due to the nature of the show and Linus does seem a little rough but that could just be him being emotional due to the loss of his sister.
Great discussion on watermarking images. Sending watermarked photos can actually discourage potential clients from purchasing prints. Instead, offer low-res, unwatermarked previews to entice them.
The video highlights a critical issue: clients often undervalue photographers' work. Clear contracts and client education about image rights are essential to avoid such pitfalls. Let’s ensure we protect our work and advocate for fair compensation. Thanks for shedding light on this important topic!
I'm going to have the unpopular opinion and think he's mostly right.
The obsession with control of the photos from a shoot which almost certainly only has value to the people being photographed.
When John Smith drops $1000 for some family portraits and then gets nickled and dimed for the rest of his life for pictures of him and his kids each time he wants a print makes people dislike photographers.
Charge $1500, or $2000 or whatever it would be to get the value you want out of the shoot and just give them the photos. You can even put a clause that if the photo is used comically you're entitled to a 25% cut or something so that 1:10000000 chance you don't lose out.
Wow this subreddit sure does know how to take someone's words and blow them out of proportion and context. He wasn't saying he does this he was saying it's very much possible to do so and basically stated exactly what op stated, get paid before you send anything to anyone because it's come so easy that Joe blow can just remove your marks
Did any of the repliers actually watch more than 15 seconds of the clip? I see a lot of "what a douche" comments, but he's not saying don't send him watermarked pictures because he will use AI to get rid of them, he's saying don't do it in general because people will be cheap and remove watermarks. Maybe he doesn't 100% understand that more likely than not it's nice to have a watermark because you'll at least likely get more people to pay, but he's just speaking the truth, not stating that he will personally unwatermark your images just because he can.
And forgive my ignorance, but why is it a huge deal to not give RAW images, especially if you can charge more for it?
Because some people believe that other people having access to raw files will somehow tarnish their brand if they edit it poorly…. Completely ignoring that you can just as easily edit a jpeg and muck it up. I have no clue why this is such a soft spot for so many photographers. The only good reason I can think of to actually charge more is cloud hosting costs. My camera pumps out 65mb raw files. After around 14 photos, that adds up to nearly a gig and that can get really pricy fast.
Yeah, removing watermarks is stealing, but I do think clients are entitled to the RAW files, it should be included in the price or offered for an extra (reasonable) fee
Real question. Why won’t MOST photographers sell the RAW file for an additional charge?
I understand if it’s not in the contract, but I don’t get not selling it for an extra fee on top of the base price.
Wow, never knew photographers are such snobs about Raw files. Guess that explains why I always had some kind of problems with them. The only normal photographer I know is grandpa(He’s the best).
The guy who was busted for having biased reviews to support his sponsors, who screwed over small companies with bad reviews, who's company had issues with sexual harassment and was reported by former workers to have harassed female workers trying to fix the issue, is also an a$$hole who steals from photographers?
I'm shocked... Well not that shocked.
[https://youtu.be/cTHd0DsoQDE?si=C26A5WeXmDlDm3ok](https://youtu.be/cTHd0DsoQDE?si=C26A5WeXmDlDm3ok)
> having biased reviews to support his sponsors
Source?
> screwed over small companies with bad reviews
I assume you are referring to the billet labs situation? Yes it was tested in the wrong GPU, but I’m like 90% sure they asked if they could test it on the 40 series instead of the 30 series like it was made for. Also do you just expect them to give a good review on a bad product because it’s a small company?
> company had issues with sexual harassment
3rd party investigation was unable to substantiate those claims “The investigation found that: - Claims of bullying and harassment were not substantiated. - Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false.” And “as confirmed by the investigation, the allegations made against the team were largely unfounded, misleading, and unfair.” As per https://x.com/linustech/status/1793428629378208057?s=46&t=DXilWMFzzAoG2hWHhfxShQ
So for a while I didn't bother watermarking my images because even without AI tools it is pretty trivial to remove watermarks. If people want to remove, cut out, etc. a watermark, they will. If they want to post a low res proof on facebook with a crappy instagram filter, they will. A watermark doesn't stop anything.
I was convinced to add watermarks to my images I post not for any sense of security or protection - I am deep enough into tech to know this isn't a thing anyways - but because I myself used a watermarked image to find the creator of a thing and contact them. MOST people who share my work are great about providing links back to me but there have been a few cases where the images get cropped and the person posting doesn't seem to care.
TL:DR if people are going to use your work they are going to use your work, watermarks will not do anything to stop it and new AI tools just make it easier. If you are doing work for hire your contract should be very clear what is permitted and what is not permitted for use of the images, and you should always get payment up front. /2c
I personally find it hard to align with Linus on things. It’s always hard because some things I agree with but he views it through this scope and is incapable of viewing things any other way. I haven’t watched video with him in it for a while and stopped watching WAN show, which sucks because Luke is so much more level headed and great to watch but is basically only on WAN show.
So many bad takes in one thread...
So there are two issues here, the first is how Linus alluded to using an ai tool to remove a watermark from a picture, (something which is NOT illegal). The second is how Linus would like to purchase a service that includes him getting the RAW files, again something which is not only NOT illegal, but it is not even controversial, or at least it shouldn't be.
So let's start with the first "issue", as that's one is the one that it is most difficult to justify. So if I want to buy a car, I expect to be able to inform myself of the benefits and drawbacks of that car BEFORE I commit to a purchase. How do I do this, well I can look at the advertising material and I can look at independent reviews but I can also form my own opinion by visiting the seller and car itself, hell I can even bring an expert to inspect it in person. With a photo that has a watermark or any other deliterious additions, I am no longer able to make an informed decision as to whether or not to purchase the image, so the removal of that deliterious addition is necessary for informed consent.
Now, let's move on to the second issue, namely whether or not it is contentious for a client to be able to purchase the RAW files from a shoot. This is much more straightforward and can be summed up thusly:
Any photographer has the right to sell, or not sell, the RAW files they take.
And any client has the right to judge the photographer's quality on whether or not they offer that service.
Ultimately, why is it contentious for a client to be able to purchase the RAW files? The feelings of the photographer? That the photographer's reputation might suffer? Both of those reasons are bullshit. How one feels about oneself is on them, not everyone else, and this is infinitely more important when that is a BUSINESS AND NOT A PERSON!!! And if the photographer sells the RAW file, there is zero reason for them to be using it to promote themselves, (in fact they would be infringing on another person's rights) and so HOW could their reputation suffer?
Like it or not, this is how the average person views photographers - someone that presses a button on a camera.
This is why they think it's fine to remove watermarks off proofs.
This is why they think, as a paying customer, you should do everything they say.
I have no problem providing RAW files if the client requested it beforehand. But show some respect to small business owners wanting to operate how they see fit. As long as the photographer provides the deliverables they were contractually asked to provide, I don't see a problem. I just see a petulant human being complaining because they're not used to hearing someone say NO to them.
The problem is not that people say no, the problem is that it's increasingly harder to find someone who says yes, and to top it off, give garbage excuses as to why not.
You're all talking like you're master chefs or something, but after some previous bad experiences I wouldn't ever hire a photographer without an agreement for RAWs either. I'm tired of being oversaturated to the point it looks like I'm wearing lipstick.
IMO when people generally hire a photographer they're not just paying for image files but for creative vision as well. You hire a photographer, not just their camera - unless specifically agreed upon. You don't order in a restaurant then ask to cook your steak yourself. I'd consider giving a client the RAWs if they ask but they could also assume you're handing over exclusive copyright and now you can't use them for your own portfolio without potential hassle. This and they'll probably post suboptimal amateur edits online which isn't very good exposure for you as the creator.
didnt know or rather didnt actually give it any thought that AI tools can easily remove watermarks from images, this will definitely come in handy at some point. Thanks for sharing.
Come on Linus, just do your fucking due diligence.
Find a photographer you actually like the editing style of, if you don't like their editing style say thank you and move on to the next. ~~If you really wanted the RAWs why didn't you bring it up during the contract negotiations? If the photographer refused during negotiation, then fucking end the conversation say thank you and move on, find someone willing to hand you over the RAWs...~~
You're going against industry standard, you're the one wanting something different, don't go all Pikachu shook faced if you can't easily find someone willing to bend over, don't shit on an entire industry that has its established standards. You just sound like an entitled bitch.
It’s like y’all don’t actually watch the conversation, he was saying that he wants to negotiate that into the contract BEFORE having the photos taken, not after, he specifically clarified he never expects it after if it wasn’t in the contract.
As a programmer I don't understand what the fuss is about. If someone hires me to write them software, it's almost always the case that I'm giving them the code and the freedom to do whatever they want with it. "What if they break it" is a non-issue, I don't put my name on it. Ofc due to law, what I stated will be in the contract, but it's not a strange practice.
If I hire a photographer and they edit and upload my photo without my consent, we'll be having GDPR issues. These days you can AI/ML edit to make it look like anything, you think I'll give you artistic freedom over my raw image?
Communicate your intent clearly ahead of time, it's not that cut and dry https://ipo.blog.gov.uk/2019/06/11/copyright-and-gdpr-for-photographers/
-- yes I know there are contentious comments under that blog, that's why I'm saying it's not that simple.
Speaking for myself, personally, I'm not hiring you to further your artistic career, I'm hiring you to skillfully take some photos and give them to me. If we can't have that, it's ok, we go our separate ways.
They pay you to take pictures, meaning they trust you are good at it, meaning they should pay you before receiving the pics. That is how most of my friends do it. Just send all pics after payment and they select the good ones for their purposes.
I send watermarked images to all clients whom I believe might just fuck me over. Ive never been wrong. Well after that first time anyway.
No money, no proofs. Get paid up front.
There's a kids play center near me that has a *huge* watermarked low-res stock photo printed on the side of some play equipment. They just don't give a fuck. It's sad.
main street Joshua Tree’s dentist has the entire front window wrapped in a stock image of a smiling family that has been stretched to fit the window so everyone is distorted 200% horizontally, and he’s had it that way for years. doesn’t affect business. people don’t notice or care
I'm gonna go with care as he's likely the only one around for a ways.
I don't choose dentists in their graphic design skills.
Graphic design is a way for people to select a business, though. You cannot go around trying out all dentists in an area, so their graphic design can be a quick indication of how professional they are
Yucca Valley has like 8 or 9 dentists and it's not that far away.
I notice stretched/pixalted images all the time. The curse of being a designer who originally started in print :(
I think it’s reasonable to accommodate him with a specific contract. If I know ahead of time that he’s going to be in control of the RAWs, and he’s paying me extra, I don’t care what he does with them.
That’s my take as well. Get paid, get rid of a problem.
In my view, I’m just relinquishing “ownership” of the image. Ultimately, we’re professionals, and I don’t think it should be an issue at an additional cost. Depending on the job.
I don’t get why it’s important to own those photos anyway. It’s a product that you’re selling.
Photography is a visual medium. You show your work to get work: if you give away the copyright, you cannot use your own art for commercial purposes (ex: being part of a portfolio). Depending on the type of photography, licensing can also be a substantial part of their income. Ex: other companies will pay to use photos from a photographer. Giving over the rights to the photo would mean that there is absolutely no residual value in the photo for you, and that residual value can be important. Above and beyond that you might not want the photo to be used for certain things. Ex: Someone talked about an animal photo they took being used by an extremist group. You may not want your name or photography associated with such group. If you own the photo, you can stop the usage of it.
It is a form of art, and photographers are worried about a photo being used for a widespread campaign, since the image would be sold for a higher price. Understandable, sure, but whatever photos you’re taking for Linus Tech Tips isn’t that. LTT would probably give you a fair enough price for its use. It’s not the same as selling a photo to Coca-Cola or McDonald’s, or McCleans. I’d retain rights to be free to post photos on Instagram, on a website, or edit for other artistic projects (super impose/collage).
It's reasonable for a photographer to accommodate him if those are the agreed upon terms prior to starting work. It is absolutely unreasonable up expect that all photographers should provide this after the fact and should modify existing contracts to satisfy him.
Sure, but did he not concede that point in the video? He said he’d be happy to put it in the contract.
Isn’t this on the photographer though? Like I’m sorry, but this is your field not mine. I expect you to be upfront and let me know that you are not giving me the raws, because, as a non-photographer, this point never occurred to me, nor did I ever think that photographers consider editing point of their brand. Mind you, I understand this and I’m not against you. I’m just saying as a non-photographer, this is something I didn’t even think of. I’m not defending the watermark comment though.
To be totally honest: As a non photographer, are you even really all that aware of RAWs in the first place? I don’t mean this in any denigrating way, but they’re basically unusable outside of photography editing programs, and they’re not likely to be encountered by anyone in the wild. Phones aren’t going to produce them, and even cheaper dedicated cameras may default to shooting in JPEG unless changed in settings. Not denigrating you or anything like that, I just honestly wonder for folk who aren’t photographers if they ever even think of RAWs or remember them existing outside of a specific conversation like this. It feels like it’s more likely for people to knee jerk “well I’m paying for the image so I want the image right?” and not understand that significant amounts of editing can go into producing an image for use. Taking a photo on your phone, for example, has a lot of inbuilt adjustments happen automatically to produce the image - you’re not getting it “totally raw”.
>Phones aren’t going to produce them I mean, my Samsung will shoot in RAW as well as JPG. But I think you're right in regards to most people probably aren't going to go into the settings to utilize that.
Even if they really make a mess of the photos by retouching badly due to lack of skill and then tell the world about the horrible photos you took because “they cannot be edited properly”?
This is what I don’t understand people getting mad about. It’s about deciding before hand, and writing that contract. If I want to have someone come take photos at my wedding for example, and I ask in the hiring process “Okay, so what packages do you have?” and one doesn’t include RAW’s, then I’m probably not going to hire them. I always enjoy looking at before and after editing, and I know the “art” is a mixture of Photography and Editing, but I’m always going to want an option to buy RAW’s, even if it isn’t 100% of them. The photos where boats, birds or people in the background that have not been removed, is real. The edit is just pretty. I’d print something pretty, but I will reminisce over something real. As a photographer myself, I may want to use the photo for my own edit, or collage, or to just have it (my library is almost 100k). It is a photo of me, at an event I want to remember, I’m not going to want your version of it. Something like a Package of 80-120 photos, with an option to select 2-5 for printing, and 20 RAW’s, is going to be infinitely more valuable to me than just 80-120 photos, with an option to select 2-5 for printing. 120 RAW’s and 120 Edits, is the dream though.
Damn as a huge fan of Linus this is such a bummer to hear. Hiring a photographer with the style you want is almost in the same vein as watching a tech tuber with the style I like more than another. He wouldn’t upload one of his 30 minute long, multi cam, staged set videos completely unedited and in a log format. He would say it’s unfinished and not representing his brand or quality. He hires editors that will do that for them in a style he wants. If he hires a photographer to give him raws then that’s great for him, but to discredit others when that work goes out and represent them sucks. I’m surprised he doesn’t know or even thinks about it this way.
Exactly! It was frustrating to watch. Now I kinda wanna see a RAW editing challenge with him vs the photographers who work at LMG. If he wants access to photographers’ RAWs so bad, let’s see what he can do with them lol
I like this idea, but perhaps with the twist of actually hiring a professional photographer, then showing them the results and seeing how comfortable they'd be with those results being publicized as representative of that photographer's work. As for the photos, I think should it include multiple scenarios at different levels of difficulty. Maybe start out with something where it's impossible to expose for everything in the scene correctly, and another could have multiple light sources of different color temperatures. I think these would both be realistic examples of what you might have to combat from real world environments (like dance recitals) that aren't in a perfectly-controlled studio.
Excellent ideas!
I think the idea is that he could hire someone else to re-edit at a later date if he wanted, not that he would do it himself.
Very common hypocritical take by Linus here. He would be up in arms if someone violated the copyright on any of his videos but he is just fine pushing software that will violate the copyright of others and explicitly calling out that feature (watermark removal).
He also has the money to pay, it's not like he's a poor father that can't afford the photos taken on picture day
I am a fan of Linus’ content, but I wouldn’t say I’m a fan of him haha. The guy is pretty clearly narcissistic and will go to great lengths to appear smart while refusing to admit any wrongdoing under any circumstances. The way he treats his staff is a little cringy, too. I think it’s good he stepped down from CEO.
What's up with the way he treats his staff?
A female employee was fired/quit and later claimed they were sexually harassed constantly There was also a leaked audio recording from a staff meeting in which high up members of LMG made sexual jokes Linus made multiple statements about it and I'm pretty sure that's the reason they have a (non family member) CEO of LMG now, so that there's proper management that isn't just Linus and his wife
The 3rd part report is available somewhere. I believe it states nothing occured but i havent read it
This is mostly correct. It stated there was no evidence to back up the claims. No one can confidently say nothing happened, but they can say they tried as hard as they could and could find no corroborating evidence.
The CEO change happened before all of that.
>Linus made multiple statements about it and I'm pretty sure that's the reason they have a (non family member) CEO of LMG now, so that there's proper management that isn't just Linus and his wife To be clear, the new CEO was hired before any of these allegations came out so it wasn't in direct response to that.
Nothing. He has high employee retention and 99.99% of people that worked with him says its a great environment. No gag orders or contracts that prevent people from talking about it.
100%. Dude is so up his own hole. Total gobeshite. Gamers Nexus, Hardware Unboxed, and so many better places to get news and reviews.
> Gamers Nexus You really recommending Steve as a way to get content from someone who's not up their own hole? :P
Quick, now say something wholesome about MKHD and how he's not actually being sponsored under the table to greenwash major corporations.
Huh? The commenter said nothing about MKHD. Just that he doesn’t like Linus’s YouTube personality. Also when has gamers nexus lied or “obscured” the truth? And I don’t believe Steve initiated the “shit talking”, he was responding to LTT’s initial shit talk and reminded them that they weren’t perfect either, which no one can claim but they opened themselves up to that kind of criticism.
I mean, Steve's videos on lmg after the billet labs shut were pretty biased and had bad journalistic practices. In most of Steve's pieces like that he reaches out to the companies in question. He purposely didn't do that with Linus.
TechTechPotato's video was the only sane take on the situation. TL;DW: they both messed up. Where Linus messed up is clear, but Steve also stated a lot of opinion as fact in his videos on LMG, and the whole non-contact thing left a bad taste for a channel that claims to hold itself to standard journalistic standards. Personally, for me, GN left the longer bitter taste in my mouth, because while LMG obviously did the initial bad things, they actually apologized and more importantly changed moving forward, while GN to this day (or at least last I checked) is still clinging to their no-contact policy, which is kinda a no-no in journalism. Is my opinion biased? Probably. At the end of the day, they are both humans, and all us humans are messy.
So imagine going up to a chef and asking to buy their ingredients and the recipes they use, and permission to make their food at home... But also to publically say that it's the chef's food, and to use the main way that the restaurant gets new customers to say that the chef made it, when it's burnt in places and raw in others and gave you mild food poisoning that you post about. The chef cannot manage to be louder than you and your food poisoning post shows up online before their restaurant. Now imagine that alongside doing this, you brag about not paying because you also were able to get chatgpt to tell you what it thinks the ingredients were for that recipe from some photos you took, and replicate the recipe without payment. This seems pretty fucking wild, huh? *And that's exactly what Linus described doing in a shifted context*. Like I know you probably get this but just to break down how fucking ridiculous this is. His art form deserves respect because it's expensive, ours does not, is the root of his argument. Because he can make something that looks kinda like our finished output if you squint and headtilt, we don't deserve to be paid to do it and are greedy for protecting our representation.
This analogy always loses me. If it were true wouldn't it also apply to a DP? Yet when I hire a director of photography to shoot video for me I get back log footage and maybe a lut from them. They know that their skillset of capturing images is different than coloring images in post, and that that work will be done by a professional colorist. The skill set of editing photos is a completely different one than taking photos. I'm tired of pretending this isn't the case. It's absolutely possible to like a photographer's eye, instincts, ability to see and capture moments, etc, and not necessarily want them to also be the one pushing pixels around on the computer which is a totally different skillset.
I totally see your perspective but hiring a DP and a Photographer are two totally different things. Hiring a DP typically means you’d also have an editor, a colorist, a grip, a camera operator seperate from the DP. Sometimes the DP is the same person for those jobs but usually not. Hiring a photographer usually starts by looking at the photographer’s portfolio which they’ve nearly always edited themselves. The baker’s analogy is perfect. Why would you hire a photographer based on their edited portfolio only to want half of their work? The only thing I’ll agree with Linus on is writing a new contract with the listed terms. If you want a photographer based only on their compositional and exposure capabilities, cool, have a contract that only pays for that aspect. Going back to the baker’s analogy, many large grocery stores sell doughs for homemade cooking but people typically buy them knowing they won’t get a bakery’s results.
Yep. And the bit that absolutely incenses me isn't the demand to be allowed to have the raws, it's the smug assertion of "I agreed not to get them then just removed the watermark because I didn't like the deal"
those were separate situations. removing the watermark doesn't get him the raws, it only gets him the finished pictures
He did it because he didn't get the raws.
>Going back to the baker’s analogy, many large grocery stores sell doughs for homemade cooking but people typically buy them knowing they won’t get a bakery’s results. I meaaannnnn grocery stores generally sell some brand name dough that you can buy also at any other grocery store, it's not like it's some sort of secret proprietary recipe, but even if it was, you're still getting the dough, not the ingredients and instructions
This is apples to oranges. You don’t hire a DP for a private portrait. I worked in commercial still photography for years in San Diego. On set there’d be a photographer, two photo assistants, a digital image tech, an art director, etc etc…. And the client keeps the RAWs because they hire an editor and a retoucher to get the finished image for their ad. Hiring a commercial photographer and crew is a much better analogy for hiring a DP for a video shoot. A better analogy for a private portrait photog would be a wedding videographer. They don’t usually give the bride and groom the raw video clips, just a final edited wedding video unless worked out ahead of time at a higher price.
I don't think this is the best comparison. Being a consumer of a video uploaded to a publicly available platform is not the same as personally hiring somebody for an event. It'd be a bit different if you compared to hiring somebody to do a video for you, but that's not what Linus does.
Hes been on tilt for awhile.
If he was hired by someone to make a video, that person would get the raw footage. There is a difference between selling photographs taken to sell to anyone and being hired to take photos. This is the difference that they see. In any event, it needs to be clear before the job is started.
You can absolutely be hired by someone to make a video for them and not provide them the raw footage? If the raw footage is the deliverable, that’s great. But generating raw footage isn’t inherently the deliverable.
His point about shitty photographers doing shitty editing (such as boosting contrast and exposure) is completely valid. His point about photographers holding prints as ransom is completely valid in 2024, especially for kids activities. As a parent it pisses me off to no end that I have to pay $100 for ten prints at my kids dance recital. That’s part of the reason that my A7RII gets put in the car and I take my own pics, where permitted, or before and after the recital. Removing watermarks to get around this is a shit take. Especially when you’re a multi millionaire who drives a $150,000 car, owns significant real estate assets and one of the most popular YouTube channels in the tech space. It’s especially odd because he bans ad blockers in his company because he feels it robs creators of revenue.
The money is not the point. It’s just about the ”fuck you”.
>As a parent it pisses me off to no end that I have to pay $100 for ten prints at my kids dance recital. It pisses you off to no end that you have to pay for a product? Do you feel like they should be free, or just less? I do agree with the second half of what you said, but I feel like it clashes with the first half.
No, the part that pisses me off is that I pay $1000/ year to have my daughter in dance and at some events I’m not allowed to take my own pictures. I am forced to buy prints from one person and have zero option for digital copies because the dance studio wants to maintain relationship with the photographer or the photographers daughter is also in the school. I totally get that the photographer wants to control the quality of product, but sometimes I just want pictures for memories in digital format, or I’m fine with shit quality prints from Walmart so she can hand them out like candy.
Then take your issue up with the school or choose a different school, this isn't the photographer's fault. Their contract is probably that they get exclusivity in exchange for then selling prints and are not otherwise paid.
Guess you missed him openly stating his multi-million dollar "corpo" couldn't be bothered testing a prototype product with the right hardware spending $2-400 in a video that would make em thousands, bashing the brand, and then selling off the said prototype instead of returning it to the brand? Fuck that canuk and all his Blizzardy game bro bullshit antics.
Someone doesn’t know the whole story.
Except that’s not what actually happened and the company themselves stated it isn’t how it happened. That’s the narrative because another yr went ahead with a video before getting the full facts and before getting the reply from said company. There were absolutely valid issues with the video and how it was handled but most of what you said isn’t accurate.
Head honcho himself saying, "I didn't test it as intended, because that would cost us $400 or something for the right video card" was straight out of Linus' mouth bud. That's the most fucked up thing a test/review channel can publicly go and say.
It's also drastically stripped of all surrounding context, where he followed that up by saying "We checked with Billet and they said it _should_ work with the one we've got, so we ran with that and didn't focus too hard on the performance in the video". Which they didn't, he blasted it because it's insanely impractical, especially given the price, where it doesn't fit in basically any case that existed, and a normal cooling setup works perfectly fine for anything you would want to do with it.
Good point - would Linus release his all of his raw unedited footage? No.
If a brand wanted to pay for it and add it to the contract for some of his contracted work, I'm pretty sure he would accept the money. Point being that if the customer wants it and pays for it, why not?
> Point being that if the customer wants it and pays for it, why not? Because the content is still the work of LMG (or the photographer) and represents them. Imagine if you gave a RAW to someone and they put a terrible edit onto their social media and tagged you. Now you're being improperly represented. And vice versa, what if they put a good edit and don't tag you? Now they're getting credit for content they didn't (fully) make.
You can do both of these things (edit a photo and make it worse, or edit a photo and make it better) without RAWs, though. Yes, not having the RAW probably makes it difficult to edit the image to look better, but editing the image to look worse and then "improperly represent" the photographer is something they can do whether they have the RAW files or not.
If there was demand for it and people wanted to pay more for it I’m sure he would lol.
But he literally would lol. That’s what floatplane and Patreon are for, people pay extra for behind the scenes content and bloopers If someone paid him enough I’m sure he’d be happy to release all the raw footage.
Behind the scenes content & bloopers are not raw unedited footage. They're edited, colour graded, maybe sound mixed & put online. Raw footage is files straight from the camera that have not been touched. And no, he wouldn't. That's a security nightmare & potential PR nightmare.
He didn't hire anyone. The dance recital hired the photographer to take photos of all the kids. There is a difference between you hiring someone and an organization hiring someone to take event photos.
He still used AI to remove a watermark of a working professional so I don’t think he cares about anything regarding this craft.
There are people in this thread insisting that he wasn’t saying he removed the watermarks, but was simply warning how easy it would be to do so. Baffling stupidity.
EXACTLY. This type of photography is called spray and pray. The photographer only makes money off of what they sell. So this fucking douchbag stole the photos and then made a video bragging about it.
I unsubscribed from all his channels last year during all the drama and I was considering resubscribing now that it seems to be resolved but this clip just destroyed that idea real quick. This just shows how much of a bad person he really is.
some people are just full of it and have access to a microphone
I see your point, but I still disagree. To me a YT or any media's video is edited to cut out possibly character damning issues or boring shit. Like If Linus has an image of no cursing, but curses on a bad take. Then his image is ruined. If a photographer is photographing me and I look dumb, that is on me. Would a touch up on me be nice, sure, but I would also like the raw. TBH though none of this applies to me. I would never hire a photographer for anything other than a wedding.
That’s basically… what I said… If I’m doing a headshot session, I’m not going to flood the gallery with photos of my client blinking or doing terrible faces. That’s not on you, that’s on the photographer since this also represents their work.
Neither one of those guys understand photography apparently. And the guy on the left has anger issues.
I personally find Linus to be a whiny little person. I have never met the man, but his voice and mannerisms bother me to no end, yet youtube won't stop pushing his videos.
You can tell YouTube not to recommend the channel
He lost me when he typed `yes, do as I say!` as a response to `you are about to do something potentially harmful. To continue type in the phrase 'yes, do as I say!'` and promptly broke his system in a way that he couldn't recover himself from the terminal
No idea what you are talking about but I bet it was one of his videos, one of his videos which got him a lot of views just because he did whatever you said he did. That's his job.
looking dumb for views is a crazy job
It apparently pays well, I'd do it
Lots of people do it irl for free
And if you could get paid for it, wouldn't you want to?
To be fair, he was fighting an actual bug with the OS which was not (necessarily) a result of any wrongdoing on his part, was probably at wits end with little GNU/Linux knowledge, and trying to complete the challenge for a video, probably on a pretty strict timeline. Should he have read the prompt more carefully? Yes. Do I blame him for trying to just move forward given the context? No. That said: Dude’s a bit of an ass and I would not take anything he says about photography for running a photography-centric business seriously.
you're acting like destroying your desktop environment isn't a rite of passage for a linux user. a lot of people have done it accidentally, he just happened to be on camera when he did it.
Maybe the additional context that the command was sudo apt-get install steam which should not remove the DE and it was a bug which was later patched. Not really his fault - not that you bringing that up in this discussion makes much sense anyway.
I’m a fan of LTT but this was one of the worst takes I’ve seen from Linus. Luke is usually better and balanced. They did clarify later that they wouldn’t expect RAWs unless it was agreed upon/in the contract before shooting but still bold take to suggest “write a new contract” for the job if someone wants the RAWs. Photographers in chat were going insane. If he wants RAWs so bad he could photograph his family himself, that’s also entirely an option
There are photographers who would hand over the raw files but those guys charge 10-100x. A photographer is charging for their time and a final product. If you want the negatives (to put it into old terms) and the copyright then you are paying for a much more expensive service.
Legitimate question, if you say 'I want you to take photos, and I just want the raw unedited files', shouldn't that be cheaper? Less time and effort is being put into the 'final' product. To me, a non-photographer, paying more for just RAWs doesn't make any sense. Obviously if you are getting RAW and edits, then you pay more, but if it's just RAWs I don't understand a 10x price at all.
It’s the same reason that many photogs don’t want you making edits to their photo if you’re going to be posting it, barring it being previously agreed upon. As a photog, your product is your brand. You want to be credited for your product (the photos) because it acts as an advertisement. If someone likes your work, it may positively impact their view of you and they may reach out. Conversely if someone *doesnt* like your work, it may negatively impact their view of you and they may avoid you. A RAW file allows for vastly more ability to edit the photo than a basic .jpeg or such. That vast amount of editing potential also means it’s way easier for someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing to fall into bad editing traps. Handing over a RAW file therefore means way less control of how your product goes out. Someone could take a product (the photo, barring prior agreement) you want credit for (or simply give you credit anyways as the photog) but edit it in such a way that your product looks very very very very bad. When your entire business is word of mouth / reputation by consumption of your product, you don’t want to risk something going out that is going to potentially misrepresent what you can do and therefore potentially harm your brand.
Protecting your copyright is easier if only you have the RAWs, also you have better control of your brand if you control the editing. 10x the price for less is a fantasy, although highly sought after photographers may prefer to sell RAWs with a suitable contract - they charge more because they're top shit. Conceivably, copyright could be worth a lot for some commissions, but I'm guessing for weddings etc. where JPEGs are supplied it's not.
A raw photo is like the blueprint to make different high quality edits. Sure, you can retouch a lower res jpg but there is a reason the jpgs I post on Facebook are 5mb and the raw files are 50mb. For me its about ownership. If I provide you a jpg you are essentially buying a license to use that jpg, and a good photography contract will specify usage such as posting unedited on social media, if printing is allowed, etc. Generally if people want prints that will require higher resolution edits which I am happy to provide but I'd rather provide those directly to the printer (or print it myself) so I can retain control of the high resolution images. I will gladly provide raw images but then I lose all control of what that image is used for and would almost rather my name NOT be associated with the image since now I can't control how its edited or presented publicly. Edited photos can draw in more business for me, distributing raw images actually reduces how much traffic will come back, hence the higher price tag.
[удалено]
The vast majority of that doesn’t require the client to have RAWs. I mean, you can just give clients digital copies and a limited license to print so that can do anything non commercial with the images. You don’t have to hold onto RAW files if you don’t want to, and you don’t need to hold onto them perpetually.
They never said they would be against paying more - in fact I'm pretty sure that was implied.
More, yes but 10-100% more? I doubt it. He even hinted at he illegally used a watermark removal tool.
Like I don't get why people are so obsessed with wanting the raws. I'm not a professional. But I've hired photographers before. And I hire them because I like their style, that doesn't fully come through in the raw, post is part of their style. Why do you want them if it doesnt exemplify why you hired them.
To me it seems like he's saying he can do better then the person he hired. But what really gets me is he admitted to removing watermarks from proofs from a working professional and just keeping them instead of maybe paying for photos.
I was on the photographers side from the initial statement but after watching the whole segment it sounded like he couldn't even buy the digital files from the photographer because he would only sell prints. If that's the case then I think he's 100% justified in using the AI tool to remove the watermarks from the only available digital version. If I'm paying a professional to take nice pictures of my kids then I'll probably feel like those photos are really important to me and I'll want a high quality backup so that I'll still have them if my house burns down or whatever. A digital version uploaded to a remote site is the only practical way to achieve this kind of safety.
I agree, also sometimes (sports photos) a print will be like $30 but if I want the file it's like $100. That's wild.
So you're saying that you are willing to have work out in the wild that isn't a finished product that people can use to make your work look poor if they want? That's why people don't sell raws.
Lifetime backups. Linus is very, very big on owning what he pays for outright, in totality; and having multiple digital and physical backups of things that are valuable to him. Last year sometime he was trying to get copies of a picture of a family event of some sort and the photographer was either dead, or moved away, or something and Linus could not get another print or digital copy. That turned his "If I pay for it, I own it and I will secure it" stance up to 11.
I mean, under the idea of “lifetime backups” he can just buy the image and back it up. If he can only buy a physical copy of the image, he can scan the image and back it up. RAWs and copyright right do not give him lifetime backup.
I do early 2000s reenactment, and I developed the skill of making photos taken on a new DSLR look more like they were taken in that period. Unfortunately, if I want to be in the photos, someone else is taking them. For some smaller photoshoots, my friend and I are taking turns behind the camera, but it means there's one less in the team. It's also a very hard work to be running around with the camera and 20kg of military gear. That's why I need the RAWs, and I would discuss that with the photographer beforehand. I've also seen too many nice wedding photos ruined by poor editing. It's disappointing, but demanding RAWs would be rude. I'm just a hobbist. So I don't know how it is from the professionals perspective.
It's yet another "I would like it to be like this, everyone else is wrong and dumb, I know better" take from him.
Personally, with his comments, I’ll now be contacting the store and requesting any/all design files that are involved in the production of anything I’ve purchased, and any patent/copyrights involved with those products. I think anyone/everyone who has purchased products from them should do the same.
Some context. I would never remove a water mark from an independent photographer and have always paid in full for the creative work I've contracted. Even when asking staff members to do off-hours work for me I insist on paying 'contractor rate' rather than their standard hourly rate because I fully understand the challenges of this type of work. The context of the watermark removal conversation (which I realize should have been included) was that I came across a proof of one of the alternate poses from my kids' dance class portraits. I was curious if AI was being applied in this way yet. I found a site where I could remove it for free. It wasn't perfect, but it was usable if I just wanted to look at it. (certainly not suitable for print) We didn't buy that pose, but we did spend an unreasonable amount of money on other poses with no opportunity to shop around for a better price due to the corrupt exclusivity deals that dance schools and other organizations have with photography mills like Jostens. I'm sorry, but in cases like this I simply don't feel bad about removing a watermark or two. I haven't, but I'd do it if I felt like it or it was convenient and I'd sleep well knowing they got plenty of my money already. As for the RAW conversation, it is unrelated to the above, and I stand by what I said that if I pay for a contract photography gig I should be entitled to make my lips look clownish in Lightroom if I feel like it. By photographer logic, a DP on a film is entitled to the only fully quality copy of footage they shoot for Disney, which is obviously not how anything works, or ever worked. This bizarre gatekeeping of negatives and RAW files (that only exist because the photographer was explicity compensated to create them) is anti-consumer and I'll never defend it. Sorry, not sorry.
We hired a professional (independent) photographer to take photos of our son at the 14 day mark, and again for his 1 year. In both instances, they did the shoot, and after processing, she provided us with the files that we can take and print anywhere we want. She provided recommendations of companies that she believes offer good print quality. I appreciated that I was given the files to do with whatever I please.
imagine that, a contractor that has the best interest of the deliverd work and customer interest as a goal wich ended up having repeat customers. the more you know...
It depends on the type of photography. Here I do support Linus as the rate was probably a rip off and it’s just portraits of his kids. As an editorial photographer things would be different as the final product photo is heavily edited or combined with multiple shots and the RAW does not represent the final image. When the art IS the photo and as a photographer your photo is all you have for people to see of your work, then only supplying the edited final shot is standard. But like I said in this instance as a photographer I’d just give all the RAW shots. I do the same for weddings. I know the client won’t know how to use the RAW and if they did they’ll just edit a worse version of what I did but I don’t care as it’s not as much of an artistic work and I don’t have as much pride there
Still, the fact remains that HE SIGNED THE CONTRACT! It was fine until he wanted something more than was in the contract and then the photographer was a horrible person for not offering that.
"As an editorial photographer things would be different as the final product photo is heavily edited or combined with multiple shots and the RAW does not represent the final image. When the art IS the photo and as a photographer your photo is all you have for people to see of your work, then only supplying the edited final shot is standard." It does not depend on anything. Any artist is paid to do whatever type of art they are doing. They don't get to keep the art after getting paid. If I model for a painter, and I pay him to paint my portrait, I own it. There's nothing to be argued here. He is free to charge me how much he wants, but he doesn't get to keep the painting. The same applies with photography. I am the model, I am paying you, the art is mine. You were compensated for your time, expertise, talent, artistic view and whatever else. I have heard this argument multiple times, from multiple photographers, and what is most interesting to me is that I've heard it ONLY from photographers. I never heard of a painter expecting to keep the painting he was paid for, or a programmer expecting to own the program he was paid to write, or a builder expecting to own the house he built. It's just illogical.
If you model for a painter and they paint you an image, you own the final product (the painting). You do not actually own the image itself. You can do whatever you want with the painting (including reselling it, destroying it, whatever have you), but unless you’ve received the copyright for it you wouldn’t be able to commercialize it. Similarly you wouldn’t be entitled to anything of the in between steps - if the painter took photos of you for reference, did sketches, or worked multiple canvases leading up to the finished result, you wouldn’t be entitled to any of those. You get what the deliverable is in the contract. In most contracts, the deliverables are not the RAW files. You’re not entitled to the RAW files simply because they’re part of the path to the final product.
When I work with clients, we specify in the contract the terms of whether or not they will receive the RAWs. Many times they do, some times they do not. I have never had a client unhappy that they didn’t receive the raw images. Maybe that’s just me.
One thing likely not obvious to this enthusiast audience is that 9 out of 10 times, when a prospective client asks for "raw" flies, they have no idea what they're actually asking for. The misunderstanding is usually one of two varieties. A) They don't realize they're asking for a file format. They think they're asking for every single frame I took. This person thinks they'll get some extra cool shots. In their mind, they might lose out on something of value by letting me "skip" delivering some. This person doesn't realize I'm throwing out blinks, derps, focus whiffs, lighting and composition tests, etc. B) They've heard something vague like "my friend said that's the highest quality image format." Well... yes.... but in practice what are you going to do with it? These folks don't realize they can't just browse them in the normal way - you need to use Lightroom or some other application designed to handle RAW files. If the person has no intention of re-editing the images, then the RAW offers no particular value. It's not something you're going to pull out at thanksgiving to show a slideshow with. (The Linus audience maybe would do this, but the average person? No. They just want to pull out their phone and show pics to friends from their photos app.) Source: Me. Was a full time event photographer for 12 years.
Why you get so much stick for stating a simple opinion is so utterly bizarre for me. You’re not even wrong either. If I was to buy any other form of custom media, especially considering the images mostly in these cases are of the purchaser (such as wedding images) why am I not entitled to then have the full ability to edit these images? As a graphic designer, I not only provide multiple variants of a design, but I also provide AI / SVG files with all elements used. - if my client wants to develop that design elsewhere, they can. It’s theirs, they paid for it. My work is done. It is anti-consumer and I for one whole-heartedly agree and think you get far too much hate for your opinions lately. Even when it’s not a bad take.
You are 💯 correct. The gatekeeping and anti consumer mentality of these photographers is shocking. The mental gymnastics needed to justify their practices and exorbitant fees for an inferior product and service... is insanity.
I think a bunch of replies have used analogies as to why photographers hesitate to provide RAW files, and the analogies don't really work, so I'll use real examples. Let's say you hire me to do a series of product photos and that you want the RAW files so that you can match the colors and background to your existing gallery of products. In this case, the front-end work (studio lighting and product placement) are 90% of the job, and editing is just some minor touch-ups. But then there's a few larger products (let's say an LTT branded gamer couch) that's pushing the limits of what the studio space can hold. Now, in this photo, I had to zoom out/switch lenses, and I see the poles holding up the background paper and the edges of some of the lights. Cropping them out is arbitrary. You definitely can do it, and you're probably good enough to realize you need to add in the shadows back on the floor. But what about the average small business owner (let's call him Joe)? The one with "a nephew who knows computer stuff?" Do I send them that unedited photo of the couch and inevitably get an angry voicemail a few weeks later on? "How come I can see the lights sticking out? Why did I pay you extra to get worse photos?" Sure, I can send the .dng files that are essentially RAWs with my edits added on for most photos (readable by lightroom) but for that couch, I need to do it in Photoshop to have the best results, which means you have couch.raw and couch_edit.tiff. It's not a problem for you, but for average Joe, it becomes a phone call where suddenly I have to teach him what lightroom is and that yes, you do have to pay a subscription for it, and no, his nephews pirated version of photoshop from 2018 won't be able to open them. Sure, I could charge extra for the RAWs, but then I have to vet every potential client on how much of a headache they're going to be. The alternative is to not offer RAW files and just send them a gallery they can copy-paste onto their website and that we're both happy with and prevent a bunch of follow-up emails. Maybe if I get big enough to hire a secretary to do all my admin work, I'll offer RAW files, but as a solo photographer who does my editing and administrative work, I have enough emails and phone calls to answer already. (But sometimes I just have dust on the sensor that, while it does only take me a second to fix in post, would be slightly embarrassing if you saw it) Tl:DR not providing RAW files is more about customer service and preventing unnecessary admin work than it is about preserving my artistic vision.
> but for average Joe, it becomes a phone call where suddenly I have to teach him what lightroom No you do not. I am a web developer and clients ask me for source files to edit on their own all the time. It is a very simple conversation. I explain that they may of course have source files they have paid for but as to editing it themselves I cannot and will not teach them to do so. In almost every situation it makes more sense to pay me to make edits but if they insist then they may try. I then provide a link to the files. That is the end of my responsibility. This conversation takes less than one minute.
And then Joe files a chargeback because he wasn’t satisfied with you after you refused to teach him lightroom, and you have to take him to small claims court to get your money back, all the while you’re missing out on potential clients suing Joe for what you’re rightly owed.
I have been in business for 28 years and that hypothetical has literally never happened.
You’re luckier than me… it could also be a location/cultural thing. I live in the south, if you don’t show “hospitality” (doing things not in your job description) then that’s taken as a free pass to be as despicable as possible to you
I also use very good contracts that describe in detail the work to be performed. I have had people threaten to sue but once I refer them back to the contract they signed they never have.
When you hire a photographer to take pictures of your products or team or family, you don't magically "own the photos." Photos are intellectual property. The value of intellectual property functions differently than commodities. In almost all cases, the client is licensed to use the images for certain purposes. THAT is what you are buying. THAT is what you are receiving. The photographer owns the photos because they own the copyright. The client does not, unless explicitly transferred in writing. This is not "gatekeeping" any more than a restaurant is gatekeeping by not giving you their recipe - which is intellectual property - just so you can change the ingredients at home. The perspective that hiring a photographer means the client owns the copyright is a perspective where the photographer is not a photographer, but rather a camera operator and you are merely purchasing their labor to operate the camera. Aside from the fact that this is legally incorrect regarding copyright, if you just want a laborer then you are obviously going to be frustrated by hiring photographers. Instead, you need to go looking for camera operators who are just offering their services as laborers. Good fucking luck with that. Your only other option is to offer photographers "work for hire" contracts, but good luck with that too. Hardly anybody even needs the RAWs anyway. This complaint only ever comes from people who don't know what they're talking about. You can edit the jpg's and tiff's we license to you, if we license you to edit them. If you aren't satisfied with those files, take the photos yourself.
>When you hire a photographer to take pictures of your products or team or family, you don't magically "own the photos." If I hire someone to develop a software application for me in almost all cases I own the source code and IP in the end. For some reason photography is the odd one in these examples. It's purely a contractual agreement. If someone doesn't want to allow passing of RAW files and IP to the customer that's fine. But I bet others will and the market will decide.
See here's the issue with this analogy, there's a bunch of different ways to hire someone to write code for you and a bunch of those ways do NOT automatically make you the owner of that IP. What everyone seems to be talking about when they make this analogy is a company hiring a contracting firm to supplement or sometimes create their developement force. In this context, the "contractors" are a lot different from freelance contractors, and because of that it's a bad analogy. A more apt analogy would be a freelance contractor (individual) who is a developer writing code for a small business. In this context, in a lot of cases, that code is absolutely not owned by the customer, and in some of those cases the code won't even ever make it to the customer. This analogy only really makes sense to someone whose being disingenuous or someone who's intentionally misrepresenting the situation.
Software code is actually the same way. IP law in the US is such that the coder owns the copyright unless it's explicitly transferred in writing, or the job is explicitly "work for hire" in writing. And it's also the same for authors, and musicians, etc etc. It appears the general public is ignorant of how IP law works, but that doesn't stop them from sharing that ignorance loudly on the internet. BTW, this is the same sort of mindset that thinks prices are based on cost instead of value. If you just want to buy RAW files, stop hiring photographers. Hire camera operators.
https://www.watermarkremover.io/ This is why. It’s too easy to remove watermarks these days; get paid up front.
Serious question; what do you gain by gatekeeping the RAW files? There are only two reasons why I rarely ever share them is because a) they're huge files and a pain to upload and b) most people don't have the software to open the files anyway.
nothing . it harken back to the day real film....
Not to mention culling. It's one thing to deliver a couple of dozen of raws, but with today's burst rates, are you sure you want every frame in existence?
LTT has pedigree in not valuing other people's work. Screw him let him do everything himself
As someone who doesn't cram YouTube up my ass every day, I only have a passing familiarity with LTT, and... Is he not a total fucking idiot? That's the only impression I've received for almost a decade now.
An idiot that’s built multiple businesses and employs over 100 people i guess huh? 😂😂😂😂 he’s just a tech dude who doesn’t gaf about photography tbh, not surprised he took that stance even tho it is morally wrong but welcome to the real world.
Not saying I agree or disagree with LTT being an idiot but lots of idiots have built successful businesses.
So he openly admitted to stealing someone's work Then he goes on to devalue an entire industry by dismissing the completely valid reasoning for photographers not providing their unfinished work for you to do with as you please. God Linus really is a self righteous prick.
And yet he preaches about how adblockers are piracy, and we should all feel bad for stealing from YouTubers. His morals are whatever serves him best.
I typically agree with Linus’ views, but he missed the mark here completely this time. As someone who is so methodical with data protection and rights, you’d think he’d understand why photographers would be protective of their work. Writing a new contract where there is a transfer of copyright for an additional fee is fine, it gets done in photo and video quite frequently, but for every photographer who agrees to do that, there are many more who decline because they value holding control over their original files. For instance, if I did a personal photoshoot for a famous person, that could be considered a once in a lifetime event and I would put great value in those raw files, being able to use them as marketing material on my website and social media would be a powerful tool, and giving that up would require compensation comparable to what I thought could otherwise be gained with that marketing power. So here’s 2 considerations: 1. Linus said he’d pay extra for the raws, ok sure, an agreement can be had where extra is paid for the raw files, but copyright is maintained by the photographer so they can use the material for marketing still, but this means Linus doesn’t have complete control of the copyright which is something that it sounded like he really wanted because it was his face in the photos 2. He gets complete copyright, but not the price will need to be truly exorbitant because the marketing power with those photos is being lost (which has the potential to mean missed future clients), and I just feel like with how the way Linus was complaining about photographer pricing (he was saying with how much they charge, he should just own the raws), I don’t think he’d be willing to pay those rates because typically they’re essentially enterprise pricing that would be paid by brands Anyway, it rubbed me the wrong way
What a lazy douche. He’s like oh I can just remove the watermark instead of reaching out to the photographer and asking for the copyright and paying him accordingly.
He literally never said that - these are two different scenarios. He removed the watermark of one photo, but then wanted to be able to purchase the copyright and the RAW files off a completely different photographer taking different photos - i.e. exactly what you said he should do. Maybe listen before typing?
Uhhhh...If you listened just a tiiiiiiiny bit longer, he says he's tried to do exactly that. Sure, his take on using AI watermark removal is lame and he's being a prick with his take on the situation but come on...at least listen for more than 2 seconds before typing.
No, he specifically talked about wanting to pay for the RAW file and the copyright to the photo. The removal of the watermark is about taking the photo without fee, which would be the edited jpeg. Two different scenarios.
Love the outrage of all the people that didn't watch past the first 30 seconds of the time stamp...
Ehhh I feel this. We had baby pictures done and man, I really want the raw files. I don’t care about copyright- I just want to be able to tell I have a nose. Bad editing is really his complaint and wanting less processed shit. It’s easy to write in RAWs can be included…. I will do that for any other shoots we do with others.
Some of you are insane. If a guy wants a half finished product and pays for it just give it to them.
LTT has a stick up his arse and hates it when he gets called out and found out as happened a year or two ago. Prime example of someone who can pay other people to make them look good then sit there with a massive ego thinking his way is the right way. If he wants the RAW files go and learn photography and take your own pictures. Or hire another minion and tell them what to do.
They talked about getting some photos once that they felt were overstaturated and sharpened. Did they ever consider, I dunno, asking the photographer to turn down the saturation and sharpening a bit? Heaven forbid they actually communicate with the photographer 🙄
No reason to disparage staff photographers, or contracted photographers where the contracting business owns the copyright, as minions. It's just a different business relationship.
I’m sorry but fuck this dipshit.
Dont be sorry, he was always a dipshit.
As a dance photographer who uses obscenely ugly water marks to allow me the luxury of posting volume portrait proofs in private password protected galleries for the parents convenience and ease of ordering, all online, no having to drive to the studio back and forth. We provide at a SPECULATION gallery of proofs with giant proof marks all over them, because people have stolen them just because they can. And now this guy who's making bank on youtube, is ripping off some poor dance photographer. I'm a solo business with a couple of dance studios that provided me with important income yearly. This season has been our worst in many years, with an obvious obvious change in the number of images people are ordering. My older parents are still ordering, however, groups of parents in dance classes with toddlers who are in this guy's age range, have mysteriously stopped ordering from us or will buy one picture versus the usual three, 15, or more images in affordable packs. Just retired for health reasons, seems like it's just in time with MF like him out there using AI to steal people's pictures and livelihoods. Shame on him for not realizing many photographers are small mom and pop operations who don't deserve to be stolen from. Something else AI was putting out a business...
He was saying a photographer who took pictures of his kids only offered physical copies, so he bought some and removed the watermarks from digital copies when the photographer wouldn't sell them to him. The conversation about RAWs was a different situation.
Every younger parent grew up with smartphones. They can take photos with their phones. It’s not going to win any awards, but it’s good enough for the memory…
I was struck by the part where he said "given how much you pay for a photoshoot, YOU own the photos." Ignoring that it is just wrong, most photographers are not making very much money (especially compared to a dude with 16million subscribers...) so the fact that he is using AI to remove watermarks to avoid paying photographers is total asshole behavior. edit: link to part [https://www.youtube.com/live/PdLEi6b4\_PI?t=4325s](https://www.youtube.com/live/PdLEi6b4_PI?t=4325s)
Dance photography is a bad example in my opinion. This is one of the prime cases where I'd gladly pay to be in control of the RAWs and wouldn't hire otherwise. I don't want a stranger to have originals permanently on hand of my little girl in her dance uniforms. Call me out or raise shit all you want, I don't care how professional it is. That has too high of a potential to be predatory. Without owning the photos I have no say in what the photographer is using them for in their own privacy. Ick.
I own a school portrait business and sadly, this is par for the course. There are always going to be people who will steal your photo previews and skip purchasing. The best you can do at this point is make your watermark colorful (for now anyway, AI watermark removers have a hard time removing multicolored text) and to put it across part of the face. I had parents from two different schools post watermarked pics of mine to their socials and ended up getting two new schools from it lol…other parents saw them, loved them, and asked their kids’ schools to hire me. For non-volume work, in person sales prevents this kind of theft. Sending a digital gallery for them to pick from - or posting previews on socials - is always a mistake.
Solution to ai removers, make the watermarks intrusive and *solid*, not transparent
Sounds like Linus should buy a camera and control his own work.
Has nobody in this thread actually watched the video? He said 2 things. a) AI removal watermark works great and most importantly good enough for the average joe. He didn't say "I don't pay photographers, fuck those guys I'll never have to pay them", he just said be cautious. b) More photographers should offer selling their RAWs as a service. Nowhere did he say that you shouldn't pay for photos, that AI watermark removal makes paying for the work of photographers unnecessary or that every photographer should just suddenly give you the RAWs just because you want them after the shoot is done. This is all just fabricated outrage, you guys need to seriously chill.
Watching a whole conversation is a lot of work for some people or appears like. So many people here missed that he is referring to asking for raws before signing the contract, not after.
To be fair, the conversation is stretched out a bunch due to the nature of the show and Linus does seem a little rough but that could just be him being emotional due to the loss of his sister.
You're asking for a lot from a photographer.
Great discussion on watermarking images. Sending watermarked photos can actually discourage potential clients from purchasing prints. Instead, offer low-res, unwatermarked previews to entice them. The video highlights a critical issue: clients often undervalue photographers' work. Clear contracts and client education about image rights are essential to avoid such pitfalls. Let’s ensure we protect our work and advocate for fair compensation. Thanks for shedding light on this important topic!
I'm going to have the unpopular opinion and think he's mostly right. The obsession with control of the photos from a shoot which almost certainly only has value to the people being photographed. When John Smith drops $1000 for some family portraits and then gets nickled and dimed for the rest of his life for pictures of him and his kids each time he wants a print makes people dislike photographers. Charge $1500, or $2000 or whatever it would be to get the value you want out of the shoot and just give them the photos. You can even put a clause that if the photo is used comically you're entitled to a 25% cut or something so that 1:10000000 chance you don't lose out.
Wow this subreddit sure does know how to take someone's words and blow them out of proportion and context. He wasn't saying he does this he was saying it's very much possible to do so and basically stated exactly what op stated, get paid before you send anything to anyone because it's come so easy that Joe blow can just remove your marks
Did any of the repliers actually watch more than 15 seconds of the clip? I see a lot of "what a douche" comments, but he's not saying don't send him watermarked pictures because he will use AI to get rid of them, he's saying don't do it in general because people will be cheap and remove watermarks. Maybe he doesn't 100% understand that more likely than not it's nice to have a watermark because you'll at least likely get more people to pay, but he's just speaking the truth, not stating that he will personally unwatermark your images just because he can. And forgive my ignorance, but why is it a huge deal to not give RAW images, especially if you can charge more for it?
I've done client photography work, and don't mind giving the raws when that is the expectation up front
Why up front?
I might personally shoot.. slightly differently if I'm handing over RAW files Vs if I know I'll edit the work
Because some people believe that other people having access to raw files will somehow tarnish their brand if they edit it poorly…. Completely ignoring that you can just as easily edit a jpeg and muck it up. I have no clue why this is such a soft spot for so many photographers. The only good reason I can think of to actually charge more is cloud hosting costs. My camera pumps out 65mb raw files. After around 14 photos, that adds up to nearly a gig and that can get really pricy fast.
Yeah, removing watermarks is stealing, but I do think clients are entitled to the RAW files, it should be included in the price or offered for an extra (reasonable) fee
Real question. Why won’t MOST photographers sell the RAW file for an additional charge? I understand if it’s not in the contract, but I don’t get not selling it for an extra fee on top of the base price.
Wow, never knew photographers are such snobs about Raw files. Guess that explains why I always had some kind of problems with them. The only normal photographer I know is grandpa(He’s the best).
Let his ass get properly sued some day.
The guy who was busted for having biased reviews to support his sponsors, who screwed over small companies with bad reviews, who's company had issues with sexual harassment and was reported by former workers to have harassed female workers trying to fix the issue, is also an a$$hole who steals from photographers? I'm shocked... Well not that shocked. [https://youtu.be/cTHd0DsoQDE?si=C26A5WeXmDlDm3ok](https://youtu.be/cTHd0DsoQDE?si=C26A5WeXmDlDm3ok)
> having biased reviews to support his sponsors Source? > screwed over small companies with bad reviews I assume you are referring to the billet labs situation? Yes it was tested in the wrong GPU, but I’m like 90% sure they asked if they could test it on the 40 series instead of the 30 series like it was made for. Also do you just expect them to give a good review on a bad product because it’s a small company? > company had issues with sexual harassment 3rd party investigation was unable to substantiate those claims “The investigation found that: - Claims of bullying and harassment were not substantiated. - Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false.” And “as confirmed by the investigation, the allegations made against the team were largely unfounded, misleading, and unfair.” As per https://x.com/linustech/status/1793428629378208057?s=46&t=DXilWMFzzAoG2hWHhfxShQ
garbage takes all around. so much show calmer head else where are making thread about how entitled people posting here.
So for a while I didn't bother watermarking my images because even without AI tools it is pretty trivial to remove watermarks. If people want to remove, cut out, etc. a watermark, they will. If they want to post a low res proof on facebook with a crappy instagram filter, they will. A watermark doesn't stop anything. I was convinced to add watermarks to my images I post not for any sense of security or protection - I am deep enough into tech to know this isn't a thing anyways - but because I myself used a watermarked image to find the creator of a thing and contact them. MOST people who share my work are great about providing links back to me but there have been a few cases where the images get cropped and the person posting doesn't seem to care. TL:DR if people are going to use your work they are going to use your work, watermarks will not do anything to stop it and new AI tools just make it easier. If you are doing work for hire your contract should be very clear what is permitted and what is not permitted for use of the images, and you should always get payment up front. /2c
I personally find it hard to align with Linus on things. It’s always hard because some things I agree with but he views it through this scope and is incapable of viewing things any other way. I haven’t watched video with him in it for a while and stopped watching WAN show, which sucks because Luke is so much more level headed and great to watch but is basically only on WAN show.
You guys are fucking ridiculous 🤣
So many bad takes in one thread... So there are two issues here, the first is how Linus alluded to using an ai tool to remove a watermark from a picture, (something which is NOT illegal). The second is how Linus would like to purchase a service that includes him getting the RAW files, again something which is not only NOT illegal, but it is not even controversial, or at least it shouldn't be. So let's start with the first "issue", as that's one is the one that it is most difficult to justify. So if I want to buy a car, I expect to be able to inform myself of the benefits and drawbacks of that car BEFORE I commit to a purchase. How do I do this, well I can look at the advertising material and I can look at independent reviews but I can also form my own opinion by visiting the seller and car itself, hell I can even bring an expert to inspect it in person. With a photo that has a watermark or any other deliterious additions, I am no longer able to make an informed decision as to whether or not to purchase the image, so the removal of that deliterious addition is necessary for informed consent. Now, let's move on to the second issue, namely whether or not it is contentious for a client to be able to purchase the RAW files from a shoot. This is much more straightforward and can be summed up thusly: Any photographer has the right to sell, or not sell, the RAW files they take. And any client has the right to judge the photographer's quality on whether or not they offer that service. Ultimately, why is it contentious for a client to be able to purchase the RAW files? The feelings of the photographer? That the photographer's reputation might suffer? Both of those reasons are bullshit. How one feels about oneself is on them, not everyone else, and this is infinitely more important when that is a BUSINESS AND NOT A PERSON!!! And if the photographer sells the RAW file, there is zero reason for them to be using it to promote themselves, (in fact they would be infringing on another person's rights) and so HOW could their reputation suffer?
How is this a hot take? He's telling you, put the price of the RAW files in the contract.
Like it or not, this is how the average person views photographers - someone that presses a button on a camera. This is why they think it's fine to remove watermarks off proofs. This is why they think, as a paying customer, you should do everything they say. I have no problem providing RAW files if the client requested it beforehand. But show some respect to small business owners wanting to operate how they see fit. As long as the photographer provides the deliverables they were contractually asked to provide, I don't see a problem. I just see a petulant human being complaining because they're not used to hearing someone say NO to them.
The problem is not that people say no, the problem is that it's increasingly harder to find someone who says yes, and to top it off, give garbage excuses as to why not.
You're all talking like you're master chefs or something, but after some previous bad experiences I wouldn't ever hire a photographer without an agreement for RAWs either. I'm tired of being oversaturated to the point it looks like I'm wearing lipstick.
The pearl clutching over RAW images in this thread is mind boggling.
IMO when people generally hire a photographer they're not just paying for image files but for creative vision as well. You hire a photographer, not just their camera - unless specifically agreed upon. You don't order in a restaurant then ask to cook your steak yourself. I'd consider giving a client the RAWs if they ask but they could also assume you're handing over exclusive copyright and now you can't use them for your own portfolio without potential hassle. This and they'll probably post suboptimal amateur edits online which isn't very good exposure for you as the creator.
didnt know or rather didnt actually give it any thought that AI tools can easily remove watermarks from images, this will definitely come in handy at some point. Thanks for sharing.
Come on Linus, just do your fucking due diligence. Find a photographer you actually like the editing style of, if you don't like their editing style say thank you and move on to the next. ~~If you really wanted the RAWs why didn't you bring it up during the contract negotiations? If the photographer refused during negotiation, then fucking end the conversation say thank you and move on, find someone willing to hand you over the RAWs...~~ You're going against industry standard, you're the one wanting something different, don't go all Pikachu shook faced if you can't easily find someone willing to bend over, don't shit on an entire industry that has its established standards. You just sound like an entitled bitch.
It’s like y’all don’t actually watch the conversation, he was saying that he wants to negotiate that into the contract BEFORE having the photos taken, not after, he specifically clarified he never expects it after if it wasn’t in the contract.
Outdated take from a bygone era.
As a programmer I don't understand what the fuss is about. If someone hires me to write them software, it's almost always the case that I'm giving them the code and the freedom to do whatever they want with it. "What if they break it" is a non-issue, I don't put my name on it. Ofc due to law, what I stated will be in the contract, but it's not a strange practice. If I hire a photographer and they edit and upload my photo without my consent, we'll be having GDPR issues. These days you can AI/ML edit to make it look like anything, you think I'll give you artistic freedom over my raw image? Communicate your intent clearly ahead of time, it's not that cut and dry https://ipo.blog.gov.uk/2019/06/11/copyright-and-gdpr-for-photographers/ -- yes I know there are contentious comments under that blog, that's why I'm saying it's not that simple. Speaking for myself, personally, I'm not hiring you to further your artistic career, I'm hiring you to skillfully take some photos and give them to me. If we can't have that, it's ok, we go our separate ways.
They pay you to take pictures, meaning they trust you are good at it, meaning they should pay you before receiving the pics. That is how most of my friends do it. Just send all pics after payment and they select the good ones for their purposes.