Copyright question
Discussion
I do stills photography for an international manufacturing company. Until now I've treated them as any other client, ie I keep copyright but allow them to use the images as they wish (eg brochures and websites).
They are now insisting on taking copyright and say that's how they work with their other photographers. I can't dispute that but they are an honest bunch. If I insist on keeping copyright I may lose the work - it's not a gamble I wish to take.
Client said: 'I just need to be reassured that these are our photos so I ask you on this occasion to resend the invoice with confirmation of copyright transference added instead of the previous text. This is the text that (we) ask all photographers to put on invoices, and then as usual credit them when using their work.
The ownership of the work is transferred to (us) after full payment of the services. By this provision (we) owns all of the economic rights associated with the work and notably the right of public disclosure and reproduction, the right of translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, as well as the right of placing on the market for free or at cost. These rights are assigned for the entire world and for the duration of their legal
protection.'
I asked for clarification of these points and they replied:
1. 'as well as the right of placing on the market for free or at cost.' - this means that (we) is able to use the pictures or work provided by the supplier in order to either sell it in the market place either as it is or integrated with other matters or provide it for free to a third party such as placing it in our broachers or in any other free marketing way. The idea is that the supplier of the work can not prevent (us) from any kind of distribution in the market place - (we) is free to use it as it wishes to.
2. 'These rights are assigned for the entire world and for the duration of their legal protection.' The duration of this right is as long as the copy rights are protected by law - for copy rights it lasts for a set period, most often the life of the author plus 70 years from the end of the calendar year of his death, for designs - they normally should be registered and it is for the duration of the registration. The idea is that after the length of the legal protection is expired the right is falling into the public domain and thus can be freely used by any one.'
The only point I have an issue with is them 'selling' the images for money. It seems unlikely but they are a manufacturing company not a photo library...
I have a draft reply ready in which I agree to the terms but raise my daily rate from £350 to £500. This is because they are now asking for more than was originally agreed, and because I cannot sell the images elsewhere if I wish to (unlikely but it's a big principle)
What are your views, chaps?
Many thanks in adavnce
They are now insisting on taking copyright and say that's how they work with their other photographers. I can't dispute that but they are an honest bunch. If I insist on keeping copyright I may lose the work - it's not a gamble I wish to take.
Client said: 'I just need to be reassured that these are our photos so I ask you on this occasion to resend the invoice with confirmation of copyright transference added instead of the previous text. This is the text that (we) ask all photographers to put on invoices, and then as usual credit them when using their work.
text said:
The ownership of the work is transferred to (us) after full payment of the services. By this provision (we) owns all of the economic rights associated with the work and notably the right of public disclosure and reproduction, the right of translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, as well as the right of placing on the market for free or at cost. These rights are assigned for the entire world and for the duration of their legal
protection.'
I asked for clarification of these points and they replied:
clarification said:
1. 'as well as the right of placing on the market for free or at cost.' - this means that (we) is able to use the pictures or work provided by the supplier in order to either sell it in the market place either as it is or integrated with other matters or provide it for free to a third party such as placing it in our broachers or in any other free marketing way. The idea is that the supplier of the work can not prevent (us) from any kind of distribution in the market place - (we) is free to use it as it wishes to.
2. 'These rights are assigned for the entire world and for the duration of their legal protection.' The duration of this right is as long as the copy rights are protected by law - for copy rights it lasts for a set period, most often the life of the author plus 70 years from the end of the calendar year of his death, for designs - they normally should be registered and it is for the duration of the registration. The idea is that after the length of the legal protection is expired the right is falling into the public domain and thus can be freely used by any one.'
The only point I have an issue with is them 'selling' the images for money. It seems unlikely but they are a manufacturing company not a photo library...
I have a draft reply ready in which I agree to the terms but raise my daily rate from £350 to £500. This is because they are now asking for more than was originally agreed, and because I cannot sell the images elsewhere if I wish to (unlikely but it's a big principle)
What are your views, chaps?
Many thanks in adavnce
Edited by simpo two on Wednesday 20th September 12:28
Simpo,
I am just thinking aloud here, but is it not possible for you to draft a contract/license stating what they can and cannot do. if you write in this there terms of the contract of appointment (from invoice) but you retain copyright wouldnt this work?
think it may be time to speak to them personally and possibly a solicitor..
Steve
I am just thinking aloud here, but is it not possible for you to draft a contract/license stating what they can and cannot do. if you write in this there terms of the contract of appointment (from invoice) but you retain copyright wouldnt this work?
think it may be time to speak to them personally and possibly a solicitor..
Steve
I've only skimmed the wording that they are suggesting but can re-read it if you've got issues with the wording.
It seems to me that you're on the right lines. If you are retaining the copyright you would sell the image to them for less money than if you are giving them the copyright. So your suggestion of charging them more seems entirely logical and correct.
Whether the you contract will withstand the rate hike is of course a different question but presumably you know the market in which you are operating?
It seems to me that you're on the right lines. If you are retaining the copyright you would sell the image to them for less money than if you are giving them the copyright. So your suggestion of charging them more seems entirely logical and correct.
Whether the you contract will withstand the rate hike is of course a different question but presumably you know the market in which you are operating?
Piglet said:
Whether the you contract will withstand the rate hike is of course a different question but presumably you know the market in which you are operating?
They've hinted that this would be a good opportunity to raise my rates; this issue is a good angle on which to do so. I'm unlikely to want to sell the images anywhere else - they're mostly product shots or company-specific things, but pro photographers in general take a very dim view of losing copyright on principle. You have to ask permission to use your own photos!
One reason why I only charge £350pd is that I'm fairly new to it (2 years) and want to build my portfolio/reputation. However I think £500 is now justifiable, certainly if I'm to agree to their wishes.
StevieB, it would be interesting to draft some wording which gave them the usage they want, but retains copyright
However it's not worth going to law on IMO. I think I would certainly counter with a request that I am allowed to use selected images for my own promotion, (subject to the products being confidential/not launched/subject to NDA).
simpo two said:
Piglet said:
Whether the you contract will withstand the rate hike is of course a different question but presumably you know the market in which you are operating?
They've hinted that this would be a good opportunity to raise my rates; this issue is a good angle on which to do so. I'm unlikely to want to sell the images anywhere else - they're mostly product shots or company-specific things, but pro photographers in general take a very dim view of losing copyright on principle. You have to ask permission to use your own photos!
One reason why I only charge £350pd is that I'm fairly new to it (2 years) and want to build my portfolio/reputation. However I think £500 is now justifiable, certainly if I'm to agree to their wishes.
StevieB, it would be interesting to draft some wording which gave them the usage they want, but retains copyright
However it's not worth going to law on IMO. I think I would certainly counter with a request that I am allowed to use selected images for my own promotion, (subject to the products being confidential/not launched/subject to NDA).
Could one of your conditions prevent re-sale of the photographs?
Can you not give them a time limited/industry linited (exclusive) right to use the images they bought. I would price according to how they want to use the images. Less for internal communication, more for an above the advertising campaign. Also make sure they "credit" you. You should try to retain the IP and give rights to use. IMHO.
Windsorphil said:
Can you not give them a time limited/industry linited (exclusive) right to use the images they bought. I would price according to how they want to use the images. Less for internal communication, more for an above the advertising campaign. Also make sure they "credit" you. You should try to retain the IP and give rights to use. IMHO.
Yep, that's the normal way, called licencing. Actually as I understand it it's not an IP thing but a 'Work of Art' thing, as photographs are now classed as such.
I think this company has been caught out before by (wittingly or unwittingly) using copyright material, and is just trying to make things watertight.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff