How to handle copyright?

[Michael Fontana]

In times, when a CD or DVD is copied within a few minutes, it's hard to enforce a straight and clear acceptance of the ©-rules.

Here, every bid or offer contains a well-defined ©-rules, but then, this is no warranty that it is respected.

Some editor houses/exhibition curator ask sometimes for free ©; some of them even include - in the addenda - it to be forever and without limitations. (!!!)
Basically, with that request, they might get some nice stock for free, and I disagree.

On the other side, if photos are made for publications, the photographer doesn't wants to limit the client's possibility to much....

I have some rules, like charging double-©-fee, when someone abuses it.

So, how do you handle all these questions?

 

[Klaus Esser]

Hello Michael!

With photography for a client i give all copyrights away - because of the fee and because the photography always is tailored to the client.
Very unlikely anybody else could use it.

And i´m free of taking care to the material . . ;-)

best, Klaus

 

[Tim Armes]

With photography for a client i give all copyrights away - because of the fee and because the photography always is tailored to the client.
Very unlikely anybody else could use it.

Wow, you actually give away copyright? I can perhaps understand giving all-use rights, but copyright? That means that you can't even use the photos for your own portfolio.

I'm having the opposite problem with local clients, or more accurately, with the local photographers. The norm here seems to be that when work is done for a client the rights are always given away in the daily fee.

As a result clients simply aren't well informed about rights and so forth, and the easiest route for photographers to take, especially when the photos are taken especially for a client, is just to give away all the rights. If you try to play the rights game then the client isn't interested - it's too complicated for them to deal with and there are plenty of other photographers who include all use rights in their fee. So basically one has to go with the flow.

Clearly this isn't the case when selling stock.

Tim

 

[Tim Armes]

In times, when a CD or DVD is copied within a few minutes, it's hard to enforce a straight and clear acceptance of the ©-rules.

Do you include a PDF with right usage on the DVD?

Some editor houses/exhibition curator ask sometimes for free ©; some of them even include - in the addenda - it to be forever and without limitations. (!!!)

These sorts of institutions should know better. I certainly wouldn't give away my copyright to an editing house.

On the other side, if photos are made for publications, the photographer doesn't wants to limit the client's possibility to much....

I'm not sure what you mean. Surely you want to limit their rights to their usage (e.g. 15000 copies worldwide), otherwise you don't get paid for the second run of books and they end up making money off your photo instead of you.

Tim

 

[Michael Fontana]

Good morning, folks

On the CD/DVD is added a pdf, by default talking about a non-exclusive license, and non transferable to a third party. I had, very rarely, clients too, who wanted - and paid - for unlimited usage. My attitude towards this depends much on the photos, too:

Generally, if I' m getting in the situation to shoot unique photos, I rather tend to keep as much as possible. A example for this are fancy/important buildings, beeing the only person to have shot' em without furniture , etc.... or shooting from special camera positions, where usually one is not allowed. etc....

Some clients even do not want to see the images on the web (my site); a example is architecture competitions.

So the usage of © varies; and between Klaus and Tim's attitude, there's the difference of a photographer shooting tailored for a client and a stockphotographer.

Tim's problem with the local photographers is known here, too; young, business starting photographers often give anything away, for getting the assignement.

These sorts of institutions should know better. I certainly wouldn't give away my copyright to an editing house.

I don't do that either; they just try it!
Some newspapers try the same; instead of the credits, the add " credits provided"!!- just two bring it with "source: newspaper archive" a week later.

As I haven't time to check regularly newspapers and magazines, I "fine" them, when I catch' em....

I'm not sure what you mean.

Applying the © is not only a legal, but a balancing operation; if photos are produced from start with the idea of beeing published, aka, documentation, a photographer might calculate the © into his fee. So there's a intend to be published, but still the question, where you draw the line:

sometimes, for peanuts, I found it better to keep half an eye closed, than arging with the client. And sometimes, I felt the strict need to make the client clearly aware of the © beeing included in the bid/offer. I had been losing a client for 1 1/2 years for the 2nd case, but he went back....

 

[Klaus Esser]

Wow, you actually give away copyright? I can perhaps understand giving all-use rights, but copyright? That means that you can't even use the photos for your own portfolio.

I'm having the opposite problem with local clients, or more accurately, with the local photographers. The norm here seems to be that when work is done for a client the rights are always given away in the daily fee.

As a result clients simply aren't well informed about rights and so forth, and the easiest route for photographers to take, especially when the photos are taken especially for a client, is just to give away all the rights. If you try to play the rights game then the client isn't interested - it's too complicated for them to deal with and there are plenty of other photographers who include all use rights in their fee. So basically one has to go with the flow.

Clearly this isn't the case when selling stock.

Tim

Hi Tim!

Of course i can use them for my own portfolio. I meant the rights to use them - all rights to use them as they want. We have the term "Urheberrecht", which means the author´s rights on his work. These for ever stay with the author - but he couldn´t sell the pictures again.

"The norm here seems to be that when work is done for a client the rights are always given away in the daily fee."

Yes - that´s what i do also. The rights to use the pictures exclusively. Of course in the end it´s a question of the fee . . . ;-)

It´s fixed new in every contract i make before every shooting. As i said: in 90% of all assignments the pictures are very tailored to the client. That includes the model-, styling-. location- and some other fees.
You wouldn´t have one client pay all that and later sell the pictures again to sombody else . . . ;-)

best, Klaus

 

[Tim Armes]

Of course i can use them for my own portfolio. I meant the rights to use them - all rights to use them as they want. We have the term "Urheberrecht", which means the author´s rights on his work. These for ever stay with the author - but he couldn´t sell the pictures again.

OK, it's just a question of terminology.

Unless someone can contradict me (I'm not a lawyer) I believe that the copyright holder is essentially the owner of the photos, and can therefore do anything he likes with them, including licensing them.

Generally, we sell a licence* to use the photos, and the licence can be more or less restrictive. However it's unlikely that that use could resell or relicense the images without owning the copyright.

Essentially we're both doing the same thing.

You wouldn´t have one client pay all that and later sell the pictures again to sombody else . .

I agree, however my issue around here is that everyone includes unlimited rights usage, which substantially reduces the complexity for the client. However, it can also reduce the photographer's income since the fees that are being charged are not at all representative of a worldwide, unlimited use licence.

Tim

* This may interest some of you. In English the noun is written "licence" and the verb "to license" (with a 's'). We also see this in other cases (e.g. I advise you to give advice). In American both forms of licens/ce are written with an 's'.

So, if you thought I was spelling it incorrectly, now you know better

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

.... So, if you thought I was spelling it incorrectly, now you know better

LOL, how would anyone dare? And if somebody did, he/she should write to you about it in perfect English. Now that'll teach them ;-).

Cheers,

 

[Dierk Haasis]

1. Anybody involving oneself with copyright first needs to distinguish between the right of authorship, which cannot be transferred*, and usage rights, which are usually the discussed rights to be sold etc.

2. Interesting reading on copyright - history, current state and social context - is provided by the books and articles of Lawrence Lessig.

3. A very powerful way to handle copyright is provided by Creative Commons.





*There is a bit of ambiguity in that part of former US copyright [otherwise it has become closer to international copyright as defined by the Berne Convention] which was retained. It is possible for corporations and foundations to own right of authorship. Many creators in the past used that to secure rights for their spouses or children in case of creator's death.

 

[Nikolai Sklobovsky]

FWIW, here's my 0.0002 of the f/stop..

1) copyright stays with me

2) I sell prints, web-res copies for unrestricted personal usage and usage rights for commerial customers.

3) on occasion I give web-res copies free or as an exchange for TF* work (fairly typical situation with models)

4) for the high paid jobs I may provide hi-res images as a part of a deal.

That's about it.

HTH

 

[Klaus Esser]

OK, it's just a question of terminology.

Unless someone can contradict me (I'm not a lawyer) I believe that the copyright holder is essentially the owner of the photos, and can therefore do anything he likes with them, including licensing them.

Generally, we sell a licence* to use the photos, and the licence can be more or less restrictive. However it's unlikely that that use could resell or relicense the images without owning the copyright.

Essentially we're both doing the same thing.



I agree, however my issue around here is that everyone includes unlimited rights usage, which substantially reduces the complexity for the client. However, it can also reduce the photographer's income since the fees that are being charged are not at all representative of a worldwide, unlimited use licence.

Tim

* This may interest some of you. In English the noun is written "licence" and the verb "to license" (with a 's'). We also see this in other cases (e.g. I advise you to give advice). In American both forms of licens/ce are written with an 's'.

So, if you thought I was spelling it incorrectly, now you know better

Hi Tim!

Sorry for me being a little out of praxis with my english - i lived in London and New York for about one and a half year, but that´s some decades ago . . . ;-)

There´s an obvious difference between our kind of working as photographers. When i do an advertising job - which is people (testimonials and so on) also as it is product-photography and so to speak art-influenced commercial photography - ALL parameters of this jobs are exclusively tailored to the client.
That alone makes it clear that there can´t ever be a usage in another way or other sujets.

The contract which i make for every job - every single one - fixes that all rights of usage goes to the vlient. Unlimited in time and place and mass.
Of course the fee reflects that . . ;-)

Compare it to fashion photography (which i did for about 15 Years): you can´t sell photographs you did for Kenzo a time later to Gucci . . . - also you can´t sell some photographs you made for BMW some months later to Cadillac.
The same it is, when i do an advertising job for an agency or another client: it always is exclusively.

As an example: over some years i shot fruit-stillifes for a big milkdrinks- and yoghurt-producer here in Germany. They used the same pictures over and over again on their packages for nearly a decade in changing combinations. They paid such a high fee that i don´t care if they use them for some hundred oncoming years . .

So there never rises the question of copyright at all - it´s theirs. My "author´s right" of showing it on my hp or in my book or in some printwork i do just for me isn´t touched by all that.

"However, it can also reduce the photographer's income since the fees that are being charged are not at all representative of a worldwide, unlimited use licence.

No - for the reasons i mentioned before. It always depends on the kind of work and the fee.

Another thing is a kind of photography which is in a more comon and therefore universal usable way - not that specified to one client.
Here i would take care of a flexible rights agreements - which over a longer period of course can earn you much more money than giving rights away for a lower fee.

best, Klaus

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Another thing is a kind of photography which is in a more comon and therefore universal usable way - not that specified to one client.
Here i would take care of a flexible rights agreements - which over a longer period of course can earn you much more money than giving rights away for a lower fee.

Hi Klaus,

Thanks for clarifying that, you had me worried a bit.

I think it's important to underline the differences between 'rights free' and 'rights managed' types of photography, but never lose sight of the potential of managing one's rights before giving them up. Intellectual property, or authorship, can be (usually is, unless one operates as a 'hired help' on the payroll of someone else) something else (although it's part of the 'Copyright').

Bart

 

[Michael Fontana]

To summarise (or better summarize??)

this tread shows - with a few posts, already - very well all different uses of the © by the author's:

de jure it's written in stone, but de facto, everbody handles it a bit differently.

 

[nicolas claris]

We're battling with this for many years now, our "old" clients have been carefully educated, but some US, and all other countries are more difficult: I pay for your photos, then they are mine!"
- Simply no.
We do explain the whys, we have a commercial forsight (as per Klaus) but it's a never ending problem.
I have thousands (yes thousands) of stolen pictures all over the web on COMMERCIAL sites… it is very difficult to fight this and lawyers are too expensive…

Anyway, below reflects our general policy and, in average, what we do write on our assignemen contracts and then on our invoices:

Travel day fees are 50% of a shooting day fee.
Weather day fees are 50% of a shooting day fee.

These fees do include the usage rights granted worldwide for a period of 3 years for:
Advertisement - Brochures - Website - Publication in the press

Day fee starts and stops when one pass immigration in/out
Day travel is for more than 6 hours travelling

For one day shooting, the client gets:
- A slideshow of a large selection of low resolution photos, on the Internet for the client to select and download (800x600 pixels)
- 10 high resolution files (300 dpi - A3), downloadable from our FTP server (selected by the client from the slideshow)

 

[Michael Fontana]

Nicolas

°These fees do include the usage rights granted worldwide for a period of 3 years for:°

that is a good idea; I have sort of, with some clients, too.

It's advantage: the photographer hasn't to play police, the first three years....

 

[Michael Fontana]

Nicolas

°These fees do include the usage rights granted worldwide for a period of 3 years for:°

that is a good idea; I have sort of, with some clients, too.

It's advantage: the photographer hasn't to play police, the first three years....

What you wrote - apart from the contract, the same, here, too. Not shure though about the 1'000, never really controlled....

 

[nicolas claris]

What you wrote - apart from the contract, the same, here, too. Not shure though about the 1'000, never really controlled....

It is not that hard to get scuh "results"… Most of my clients do build and sell boats.
Usualy the rights for use are granted for the client and its commercial network.
Then most of the end users, in order to get money back from their investment, do charter their boat…
They have not the right to use my pics but just drag them from our client's website, they don't need high resolution! And if they do need (for advertising) they scan the brochures!

 

[nicolas claris]

It's advantage: the photographer hasn't to play police, the first three years....

Another one is for the client that tries to get cheaper price, I never discount my rates, but propose to do less for less… or I propose one or 2 more years of uses if I really want the job…