tobey bilek Posted February 5, 2015 Share #21 Posted February 5, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) When I was doing it professionally my largest client very deftly explained it to me. We hired you to provide photographs. We own the photographs in their entirety. This is not an art gallery. You are not selling these photos to the general public. You will provide the raw files when shooting is complete. We don't care if you keep a copy of the raw files. If we catch you showing those files to anyone without our permission we will secure and apartment and meals for you in the Leavanworth Federal Penetentiary. Have a nice day. They paid well so I followed their instructions. I believe this is legally termed "work for hire". & the client owns the output in full because you are his employee. This is why a contract is necessary to provide for fees, payment schedules, term of work. Feel free to work for hire if you want , but charge for potential loss of future revenue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Hi tobey bilek, Take a look here "Can I have the RAW files?". I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jdlaing Posted February 5, 2015 Share #22 Posted February 5, 2015 I believe this is legally termed "work for hire". & the client owns the output in full because you are his employee. This is why a contract is necessary to provide for fees, payment schedules, term of work. Feel free to work for hire if you want , but charge for potential loss of future revenue. My situation was on the odd side. The client was my employer's client and not directly mine. They asked my employer to let me do the photography and paid extra over and above the contract. They paid me by the hour (extra) plus all expenses. My employer got helped. I got helped, handsomely, and everybody was happy. It worked out that I was asked to do more outside all the contracts and everybody benefitted. It turned into almost a mini business all by itself until I put a stop to the extra part as it became too much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted February 5, 2015 Share #23 Posted February 5, 2015 My contracts always state... There are millions in the biz who have no idea what this means. Too bad for them. s-a Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_d Posted February 6, 2015 Share #24 Posted February 6, 2015 But wouldn't owning copyright be a technical issue, without waivers and releases the photographer couldn't independently sell or distribute work done for a client without their permission, could he? Steve Ownership of copyright is not a technical issue, in the US it is a legal issue. The only way to transfer copyright is to do a work for hire agreement or a copyright transfer. Yes you can sell and distribute work done for a client once your initial rights agreement has expired as long as you have model and property releases signed. At one time, part of a commercial photographers retirement was based on stock images from assignments. These days that is hard to do. Once you do a copyright transfer you lose the right to use the image you created in your own portfolio. You also lose the right to collect money on future licensing of that image. Once transferred your client can then turn around and license that image to whoever they want and earn money from it. How would anyone feel about this happening to them? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted February 6, 2015 Author Share #25 Posted February 6, 2015 ...Once you do a copyright transfer you lose the right to use the image you created in your own portfolio. You also lose the right to collect money on future licensing of that image. Once transferred your client can then turn around and license that image to whoever they want and earn money from it. How would anyone feel about this happening to them? That's why a copyright transfer should be priced at $500,000 USD per image, perhaps higher. That way, you will either cause the copyright demander/client to lose interest in purchasing the copyright transfer, or you will have made it worth the pain of lost future income from those images. If the client agrees to the price of $500K per image, proceed carefully. At that point, you should be asking yourself what they know that you don't regarding the value of your images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_d Posted February 7, 2015 Share #26 Posted February 7, 2015 It is sad that in the US very few photographers register the copyright for the work they create. Registering your copyright is the only way to secure the rights to your work and is simple and inexpensive to do. For those seeking to learn more information on business practices and copyright, ASMP has some great tutorials and resources as well as the US Copyright Office . Tutorials & Forms | American Society of Media Photographers U.S. Copyright Office Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted February 8, 2015 Share #27 Posted February 8, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) When I was doing it professionally my largest client very deftly explained it to me. We hired you to provide photographs. We own the photographs in their entirety. This is not an art gallery. You are not selling these photos to the general public. You will provide the raw files when shooting is complete. We don't care if you keep a copy of the raw files. If we catch you showing those files to anyone without our permission we will secure and apartment and meals for you in the Leavanworth Federal Penetentiary. Have a nice day. They paid well so I followed their instructions. Everything in a contract is negotiable and ultimately the photographer can choose what pricing tradeoff is appropriate for his/her work. However, breaching such a contract would most certainly be a civil case with monetary damages or injunctive relief. A trip to Leavenworth is highly unlikely... unless your client is the CIA or NSA and the content a threat to national security. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted February 9, 2015 Share #28 Posted February 9, 2015 Everything in a contract is negotiable and ultimately the photographer can choose what pricing tradeoff is appropriate for his/her work. However, breaching such a contract would most certainly be a civil case with monetary damages or injunctive relief. A trip to Leavenworth is highly unlikely... unless your client is the CIA or NSA and the content a threat to national security. Exactly. Some of my shots will never be seen publicly. That's why I'm not worried. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Bedford Posted February 10, 2015 Share #29 Posted February 10, 2015 The wedding photographer i hired to shoot my daughters wedding, refused point blank to part with his RAW files and instead gave me hi res jpegs. His logic was that if i amended his raw files, it would no longer be his work. Which, kinda misses the point that i could just as easily alter the jpegs. I was not too fussed as it was unlikely that i would do anything other than either view his files digitally or just print further copies from his files. Which makes sense. As a fellow photographer, and one who takes pride in the post processing of my raw files into JPEGs (or whatever output format), I wouldn't even think of asking for raw files from a wedding photographer I hired. If I wanted his/her raw files, then it's obvious I wouldn't have trusted their skill in producing images I liked, in which case I wouldnt have chosen them at all. Being asked for raw files should be few and far between. Anyone who knows what a raw file is should also understand why a photographer shoots raw, and it's (most of the time) not related to handing them over. That's my take on it anyway. I shoot raw to process the way I prefer, not the way the camera does. Nothing to do with the people getting said photos. That being said, I choose not to be a professional besides the photography I do at my day job, which essentially has work for hire style ownership, since I'd never use them myself anyway! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 10, 2015 Share #30 Posted February 10, 2015 Something quite different - in wildlife photography competitions a participant will be required to submit the raw file to ensure that no undue Photoshopping has taken place. One of the reasons I never participate in photo contests.( Not the rule against manipulation, I kinda agree, but the parting with the raw file.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Bedford Posted February 13, 2015 Share #31 Posted February 13, 2015 Something quite different - in wildlife photography competitions a participant will be required to submit the raw file to ensure that no undue Photoshopping has taken place.One of the reasons I never participate in photo contests.( Not the rule against manipulation, I kinda agree, but the parting with the raw file.) On that note, am I the only one who gets an icky feeling with almost all competitions? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 13, 2015 Share #32 Posted February 13, 2015 It makes at least two of us... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted February 13, 2015 Share #33 Posted February 13, 2015 I've read a few similar threads on other forums recently, with similar responses about loss of future earnings etc. Now, if a company asked me to take a photo of their sales team, for example, standing outside their offices, to use in a corporate brochure, am I really worried about that photo becoming a £1M best selling poster that will be recognised everywhere like the tennis player hitching her skirt up? Steve, Barry and Sarah from Acme Widgets Ltd will be on every teenagers wall along with their 1 Direction poster. I think not! Or will it just be used in a brochure that will be forgotten about after a few months? Ultimately, what the client gets or doesn't get is up to you the photographer. You make a contract with the client and you agree to what you are happy with. But if they want RAW files for some reason and you refuse then you may not get the job of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted February 13, 2015 Author Share #34 Posted February 13, 2015 I'm still poking at this issue in my mind. When a client says they want the RAW files, do they mean the raw files for just the images you present to them? Or do they want all the RAW files from the entire shoot? Not every image from a given shoot will be viable; some will need to be disposed of. Every photographer makes images that are the photographic equivalent of dirty laundry. Somebody blinked; somebody twitched; somebody is bored and their eyes are half closed, making them look like they are stoned; somebody is rooting for a booger. In my opinion, no client should see those images. The guy/gal who is two knuckles deep in his/her left nostril doesn't want that image projected at the company Christmas banquet year in review presentation. If it is, the photographer will possibly be hearing from someone's attorney (defamation, humiliation, mental anguish and suffering, bla, bla, bla). In the end, this "I want the RAW files/you can't have them" tug-o-war seems to boil down to a control issue. Some clients think that when they write a check, they should have control of everything. It is their right to think that - but it doesn't mean that it has any foundation based on practicality, efficiency, professionalism, reasonableness or reality. JMHO/YMMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted February 15, 2015 Share #35 Posted February 15, 2015 Something quite different - in wildlife photography competitions a participant will be required to submit the raw file to ensure that no undue Photoshopping has taken place.One of the reasons I never participate in photo contests.( Not the rule against manipulation, I kinda agree, but the parting with the raw file.) ....... and in a recent newspaper (Guardian) photo competition I noticed in the terms that the VERY ACT OF ENTERING surrendered usage of the photo in any form they pleased in perpetuity ...... "you grant GNM a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual licence (with a right to sub-license) to use, republish, edit and/or modify your Competition entry in any/all media (including in electronic format, hard copy and in GNM publications) for purposes connected with the Competition and as described in these Terms and Conditions ..... You also hereby waive all your moral rights in your entry. Notwithstanding the afore-going waiver, in order to use entries as intended and advised in these Terms and Conditions, (i) GNM may need to modify entries, including but not limited to resizing, cropping or colour adjustment as necessary, provided that GNM shall endeavour in undertaking such modifications to maintain the integrity of your entry as originally created; and (ii) GNM shall provide a picture credit for all entries." as I have not ...... and probably (after reading this) never will enter photographic competitions I was a bit surprised ..... I could understand this applying to the winning entries .... but not everything that is submitted ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
honcho Posted February 15, 2015 Share #36 Posted February 15, 2015 ..... I could understand this applying to the winning entries .... but not everything that is submitted ...... You're missing the point of the 'competition'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted February 15, 2015 Share #37 Posted February 15, 2015 You're missing the point of the 'competition'. Ah yes, competitions. That once august institution, the Ordnance Survey, is running a "competition" that is a pretty shabby charade to obtain 600 new photos for their map covers at virtually no cost to them. Rather than pay money to license images from photographic libraries as they have always done in the past, the OS instead are offering: "a ‘money can’t buy opportunity’ and a chance for your photo to feature on the shelves of high street retailers, local book shops, tourist information centres, in homes and, most importantly, in the pockets and rucksacks of budding explorers.” Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted February 15, 2015 Share #38 Posted February 15, 2015 People are gullible. The moment someone actually realizes they've spent maybe $10k on a camera and some insane Tele they start thinking how they might recoup some of their 'error'. They never read the contest stipulations, anymore than they would read the EULA on a new computer. Cheap credit makes it all too easy to jump into the deep end of the pool, which makes sense because that is what it is supposed to do. s-a Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted February 15, 2015 Share #39 Posted February 15, 2015 Ah yes, competitions. That once august institution, the Ordnance Survey, is running a "competition" that is a pretty shabby charade to obtain 600 new photos for their map covers at virtually no cost to them. Rather than pay money to license images from photographic libraries as they have always done in the past, the OS instead are offering: "a ‘money can’t buy opportunity’ and a chance for your photo to feature on the shelves of high street retailers, local book shops, tourist information centres, in homes and, most importantly, in the pockets and rucksacks of budding explorers.” Oh be fair, you do stand the chance of winning…..a map!! People will enter this though, simply being published is prize enough for many amateurs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted February 15, 2015 Share #40 Posted February 15, 2015 People will enter this though, simply being published is prize enough for many amateurs. Absolutely. I have no doubt that OS will get their 600 new covers and the quality of the photographs will be perfectly decent. It's a changed landscape (excuse the pun) now for most working photographers and stock shooters have probably had to adapt or change how they earn their living the most. I'm don't how sustainable this new model of offering exposure instead of money is going to be but it's not a game I'll play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.