Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: please help with copyright issue in negotiation

Expand Messages
  • 360 Lists
    I mostly agree with Jurgen, if you can t negotiate the right agreement then it s better not to do the work. Photographic creations are copyright the creator by
    Message 1 of 13 , Jul 29, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I mostly agree with Jurgen, if you can't negotiate the right agreement then it's better not to do the work. Photographic creations are copyright the creator by default, this is a basic human right as outlined by most international governments. Some government organisations insist that copyright is reassigned which contravenes their own legislation. The Olympics committee does this which makes me wonder why anyone would do the work for peanuts when they can't even talk about the images or use them in their own portfolio. V sad.

      Lawyers..... From my experience regular lawyers do not understand image licensing or copyright, copyright law is a specialist area which your client will not have in-house. All usage can be handled by licensing, their is never a situation where you need to reassign copyright.

      Unfortunately most panoramic photographers I meet do not understand this subject to the detriment of the industry.





      On 29 Jul 2011, at 10:17, jrgen_schrader wrote:

      > I don't understand what the problem is nor do I understand why I should go to another place to answer your question.
      >
      > You either sell licenses or customer wants to keep it all. If you don't get a reasonable price, tough shit. It's really simple.
      >
      > If the customer has lawyers, they definitely will know what it's all about.
      >
      > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Martin <panoramas@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > I'm probably not the only one with this problem
      > >
      > > http://www.quora.com/As-a-photographer-how-can-I-keep-the-copyright-on-my-images-when-doing-an-assigment
      > >
      > > I don't want to hand the copyright over to the client.
      > >
      > > The client has a team of lawyers who don't know anything about photography.
      > > All they know is that Getty has photographer-slaves, and gives them
      > > copyright of images. So why shouldn't I do the same?
      > >
      > > BTW the answer "charge 5x more if they want the copyright" just doesn't
      > > work. they won't pay that.
      > >
      > > on this note, does anyone know a good copyright lawyer who could help with
      > > such contracts? I don't have thousands of dollars to spend on that,
      > > however....
      > >
      > > please answer on Quora, not here. Thanks in advance :-)
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • 360 Lists
      I mostly agree with Jurgen, if you can t negotiate the right agreement then it s better not to do the work. Photographic creations are copyright the creator by
      Message 2 of 13 , Jul 29, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        I mostly agree with Jurgen, if you can't negotiate the right agreement then it's better not to do the work. Photographic creations are copyright the creator by default, this is a basic human right as outlined by most international governments. Some government organisations insist that copyright is reassigned which contravenes their own legislation. The Olympics committee does this which makes me wonder why anyone would do the work for peanuts when they can't even talk about the images or use them in their own portfolio. V sad.

        Lawyers..... From my experience regular lawyers do not understand image licensing or copyright, copyright law is a specialist area which your client will not have in-house. All usage can be handled by licensing, their is never a situation where you need to reassign copyright.

        Unfortunately most panoramic photographers I meet do not understand this subject to the detriment of the industry.

        Will Pearson




        On 29 Jul 2011, at 10:17, jrgen_schrader wrote:

        > I don't understand what the problem is nor do I understand why I should go to another place to answer your question.
        >
        > You either sell licenses or customer wants to keep it all. If you don't get a reasonable price, tough shit. It's really simple.
        >
        > If the customer has lawyers, they definitely will know what it's all about.
        >
        > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Martin <panoramas@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > I'm probably not the only one with this problem
        > >
        > > http://www.quora.com/As-a-photographer-how-can-I-keep-the-copyright-on-my-images-when-doing-an-assigment
        > >
        > > I don't want to hand the copyright over to the client.
        > >
        > > The client has a team of lawyers who don't know anything about photography.
        > > All they know is that Getty has photographer-slaves, and gives them
        > > copyright of images. So why shouldn't I do the same?
        > >
        > > BTW the answer "charge 5x more if they want the copyright" just doesn't
        > > work. they won't pay that.
        > >
        > > on this note, does anyone know a good copyright lawyer who could help with
        > > such contracts? I don't have thousands of dollars to spend on that,
        > > however....
        > >
        > > please answer on Quora, not here. Thanks in advance :-)
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • prague
        As Will points out, yes the company has lawyers and no they have no clue about copyright issues WRT photography. You act as if clicking on a link is a 12 mile
        Message 3 of 13 , Jul 29, 2011
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          As Will points out, yes the company has lawyers and no they have no clue about copyright issues WRT photography.

          You act as if clicking on a link is a 12 mile walk through a swamp. Quora is accessible to others who might have a similar problem. Unlike the black hole that is yahoo lists. I like my questions, and the people who help me answer them, to be available and accessible to others in the future.

          You say it's simple - It's not really simple Jurgen. It could be simple if I could propose a clause in the agreement that makes their uninformed lawyers happy, but I don't have the capacity for that, hence this question.

          --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "jrgen_schrader" <panorama@...> wrote:
          >
          > I don't understand what the problem is nor do I understand why I should go to another place to answer your question.
          >
          > You either sell licenses or customer wants to keep it all. If you don't get a reasonable price, tough shit. It's really simple.
          >
          > If the customer has lawyers, they definitely will know what it's all about.
          >
          >
          > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Martin <panoramas@> wrote:
          > >
          > > I'm probably not the only one with this problem
          > >
          > > http://www.quora.com/As-a-photographer-how-can-I-keep-the-copyright-on-my-images-when-doing-an-assigment
          > >
          > > I don't want to hand the copyright over to the client.
          > >
          > > The client has a team of lawyers who don't know anything about photography.
          > > All they know is that Getty has photographer-slaves, and gives them
          > > copyright of images. So why shouldn't I do the same?
          > >
          > > BTW the answer "charge 5x more if they want the copyright" just doesn't
          > > work. they won't pay that.
          > >
          > > on this note, does anyone know a good copyright lawyer who could help with
          > > such contracts? I don't have thousands of dollars to spend on that,
          > > however....
          > >
          > > please answer on Quora, not here. Thanks in advance :-)
          > >
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          >
        • jrgen_schrader
          I thought YOU wanted to be happy not their lawyers? Look at it that way: What do YOU want to do with the images or what do THEY not want you to do with the
          Message 4 of 13 , Jul 29, 2011
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            I thought YOU wanted to be happy not their lawyers?

            Look at it that way: What do YOU want to do with the images or what do THEY not want you to do with the images?

            Talk about it, find an agreement, write it into the contract. If you both can't agree then a clause won't help anyway. Also a clause won't help if you both don't exactly know what you want. Then rely on standard terms.

            >It could be simple if I could propose a clause in the agreement that >makes their uninformed lawyers happy, but I don't have the capacity >for that, hence this question.





            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "prague" <panoramas@...> wrote:
            >
            > As Will points out, yes the company has lawyers and no they have no clue about copyright issues WRT photography.
            >
            > You act as if clicking on a link is a 12 mile walk through a swamp. Quora is accessible to others who might have a similar problem. Unlike the black hole that is yahoo lists. I like my questions, and the people who help me answer them, to be available and accessible to others in the future.
            >
            > You say it's simple - It's not really simple Jurgen. It could be simple if I could propose a clause in the agreement that makes their uninformed lawyers happy, but I don't have the capacity for that, hence this question.
            >
            > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "jrgen_schrader" <panorama@> wrote:
            > >
            > > I don't understand what the problem is nor do I understand why I should go to another place to answer your question.
            > >
            > > You either sell licenses or customer wants to keep it all. If you don't get a reasonable price, tough shit. It's really simple.
            > >
            > > If the customer has lawyers, they definitely will know what it's all about.
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Martin <panoramas@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > I'm probably not the only one with this problem
            > > >
            > > > http://www.quora.com/As-a-photographer-how-can-I-keep-the-copyright-on-my-images-when-doing-an-assigment
            > > >
            > > > I don't want to hand the copyright over to the client.
            > > >
            > > > The client has a team of lawyers who don't know anything about photography.
            > > > All they know is that Getty has photographer-slaves, and gives them
            > > > copyright of images. So why shouldn't I do the same?
            > > >
            > > > BTW the answer "charge 5x more if they want the copyright" just doesn't
            > > > work. they won't pay that.
            > > >
            > > > on this note, does anyone know a good copyright lawyer who could help with
            > > > such contracts? I don't have thousands of dollars to spend on that,
            > > > however....
            > > >
            > > > please answer on Quora, not here. Thanks in advance :-)
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • Will Pearson
            Hey Jeffrey, all you need to do is write it into the license, all their concerns or requirements can be handled in the license. If they understand the basics
            Message 5 of 13 , Jul 29, 2011
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Hey Jeffrey, all you need to do is write it into the license, all their concerns or requirements can be handled in the license. If they understand the basics of image licensing they will understand why they pay accordingly too!

              If they want a period of exclusivity or don't want you to license the image to other companies in their industry simply use the license (this is what a license is for). Their legal people are doing what they think is right for protecting the company but when you explain image licensing to them they should agree it's the correct legal way of working.

              Re-assigning copyright is like saying 'the client' made the image and have the right to do anything they like with the footage... in perpetuity. You don't need a copyright lawyer to negotiate this.

              Let me know how you get on, it's always interesting to know the outcome of these things.

              Will



              On 29 Jul 2011, at 14:09, prague wrote:

              > As Will points out, yes the company has lawyers and no they have no clue about copyright issues WRT photography.
              >
              > You act as if clicking on a link is a 12 mile walk through a swamp. Quora is accessible to others who might have a similar problem. Unlike the black hole that is yahoo lists. I like my questions, and the people who help me answer them, to be available and accessible to others in the future.
              >
              > You say it's simple - It's not really simple Jurgen. It could be simple if I could propose a clause in the agreement that makes their uninformed lawyers happy, but I don't have the capacity for that, hence this question.
              >
              > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "jrgen_schrader" <panorama@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > I don't understand what the problem is nor do I understand why I should go to another place to answer your question.
              > >
              > > You either sell licenses or customer wants to keep it all. If you don't get a reasonable price, tough shit. It's really simple.
              > >
              > > If the customer has lawyers, they definitely will know what it's all about.
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Martin <panoramas@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > I'm probably not the only one with this problem
              > > >
              > > > http://www.quora.com/As-a-photographer-how-can-I-keep-the-copyright-on-my-images-when-doing-an-assigment
              > > >
              > > > I don't want to hand the copyright over to the client.
              > > >
              > > > The client has a team of lawyers who don't know anything about photography.
              > > > All they know is that Getty has photographer-slaves, and gives them
              > > > copyright of images. So why shouldn't I do the same?
              > > >
              > > > BTW the answer "charge 5x more if they want the copyright" just doesn't
              > > > work. they won't pay that.
              > > >
              > > > on this note, does anyone know a good copyright lawyer who could help with
              > > > such contracts? I don't have thousands of dollars to spend on that,
              > > > however....
              > > >
              > > > please answer on Quora, not here. Thanks in advance :-)
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > > >
              > >
              >
              >



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Patrick Cheatham
              ... Agreed! ... Mostly agreed, though I m not sure it needs to be qualified by panoramic . Patrick -- Patrick Cheatham patrick@patrickcheatham.com Portfolio:
              Message 6 of 13 , Jul 29, 2011
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                > All usage can be handled by licensing,
                > their is never a situation where you need to reassign copyright.

                Agreed!

                > Unfortunately most panoramic photographers
                > I meet do not understand this subject to the detriment of the industry.

                Mostly agreed, though I'm not sure it needs to be qualified by "panoramic".

                Patrick

                --
                Patrick Cheatham
                patrick@...


                Portfolio: http://patrickcheatham.com
                Facebook: http://facebook.com/360DegreePhotography
                Twitter: http://twitter.com/patrickcheatham

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • mrjimbo
                Jeffrey, Jeff unless you agree in contract to forfeit your copyright ownership you haven t..You probably already know this. The only real tool you have to
                Message 7 of 13 , Jul 29, 2011
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jeffrey,
                  Jeff unless you agree in contract to forfeit your copyright ownership you haven't..You probably already know this. The only real tool you have to control what a client does with an image is your license agreement.. and these can be quite broad in their content.

                  In all fairness to your client actually both of you.... The world is screwed up a bit today.. to many rules, regulations & lawyers etc..

                  It's difficult for a client to pay a shooter to photograph something and then live with the concept that it's not theirs.. I mean they want it now for ?? but who knows what they would do with it next year.. they just may not know and are nervous about revisiting a license agreement, by the same token even though you shot it for them you don't want to loose possible opportunities down the road which at present you may have no clue what these may be..

                  Their is an option that might better your position from a negotiating standpoint with your client if he / she is stubborn.. I have done this and it worked just fine.. Ask your self why you want to retain the ownership of the copyright an what you think might be what you want to do with the image down the road.. You can sell the copyright to a client but also have them license it creatively back to you for your own use..That option is often over looked. This only works if the concept is appropriate......not a good idea for an image that ends up on a beer label for the next 100 years..

                  What I'm trying to say is you have your position and you just want your butt covered ...Well your client is in the same place sort of.. The trick is to simply solve it such that they don't just go get another shooter.. which just makes them more right about the whole thing. Sometimes however that's the only option.

                  good luck
                  jimbo
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Jeffrey Martin
                  To: panotoolsng
                  Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 2:01 AM
                  Subject: [PanoToolsNG] please help with copyright issue in negotiation



                  I'm probably not the only one with this problem

                  http://www.quora.com/As-a-photographer-how-can-I-keep-the-copyright-on-my-images-when-doing-an-assigment

                  I don't want to hand the copyright over to the client.

                  The client has a team of lawyers who don't know anything about photography.
                  All they know is that Getty has photographer-slaves, and gives them
                  copyright of images. So why shouldn't I do the same?

                  BTW the answer "charge 5x more if they want the copyright" just doesn't
                  work. they won't pay that.

                  on this note, does anyone know a good copyright lawyer who could help with
                  such contracts? I don't have thousands of dollars to spend on that,
                  however....

                  please answer on Quora, not here. Thanks in advance :-)

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Will Pearson
                  I should probably have said interactive 360 photographers. Most commercial stills photographers have an understanding of how licensing works as their
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jul 29, 2011
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I should probably have said interactive 360 photographers. Most commercial stills photographers have an understanding of how licensing works as their livelihood depends on it. The business is learned at college or working as an assistant. 360 photographers tend to have a technology background and often don't have the benefit of formal training or assisting. Many 360 companies here in the UK are working for lower rates then an editorial photographer would charge (which are the lowest in the industry) yet they have to spend many more hours in post. An understanding of how the photographic industry works with regards to licensing and copyright is essential to the reputation of the 360 industry. Maybe this is something the IVRPA would consider taking up? Oops, that was nearly a rant...!

                    Will


                    On 29 Jul 2011, at 16:20, Patrick Cheatham wrote:

                    > > All usage can be handled by licensing,
                    > > their is never a situation where you need to reassign copyright.
                    >
                    > Agreed!
                    >
                    > > Unfortunately most panoramic photographers
                    > > I meet do not understand this subject to the detriment of the industry.
                    >
                    > Mostly agreed, though I'm not sure it needs to be qualified by "panoramic".
                    >
                    > Patrick
                    >
                    > --
                    > Patrick Cheatham
                    > patrick@...
                    >
                    > Portfolio: http://patrickcheatham.com
                    > Facebook: http://facebook.com/360DegreePhotography
                    > Twitter: http://twitter.com/patrickcheatham
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Yazan Sboul
                    ... Not Qualified to comment. Unfortunately most panoramic photographers I meet do not understand this subject to the detriment of the industry. Mostly
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jul 29, 2011
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      >> All usage can be handled by licensing, >> their is never a situation where you need to reassign copyright. >Agreed!
                      Not Qualified to comment.>> Unfortunately most panoramic photographers>> I meet do not understand this subject to the detriment of the industry.>Mostly agreed, though I'm not sure it needs to be qualified by "panoramic".
                      Glad I'm not alone then. I'm sure I'm going to look even more ignorant now, but I think its worth discussing whether most photographers (panoramic, flat, or other) don't understand copy right because its increasing becoming obsolete. Most photographers these days are not particularly skilled in a dark room (I've never even seen one). Its not to the detriment of photography is it? Obviously if you're working for an advertising company and they are going to reproduce your work around the world you need to be paid in proportion to benefits they will be getting out of your work. I'm just not sure copyright is the best model. For what its worth I think most photographers do not understand the subject because it is not relevant to them, and I don't see how that can be detrimental to the industry. On the other hand protectionism and collusion would be detrimental.
                      Y.S



                      To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                      From: patrick@...
                      Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 08:20:16 -0700
                      Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: please help with copyright issue in negotiation




























                      > All usage can be handled by licensing,

                      > their is never a situation where you need to reassign copyright.



                      Agreed!



                      > Unfortunately most panoramic photographers

                      > I meet do not understand this subject to the detriment of the industry.



                      Mostly agreed, though I'm not sure it needs to be qualified by "panoramic".



                      Patrick



                      --

                      Patrick Cheatham

                      patrick@...



                      Portfolio: http://patrickcheatham.com

                      Facebook: http://facebook.com/360DegreePhotography

                      Twitter: http://twitter.com/patrickcheatham



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


















                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Christian Bloch
                      I agree with Juergen. The bigger the client, the better the chances they want it all - including you not showing these images elsewhere or reselling them
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jul 29, 2011
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I agree with Juergen. The bigger the client, the better the chances they want it all - including you not showing these images elsewhere or reselling them yourselves to a third party. Maybe even not talk about the job. It's a very common practice in the VFX business. Sometimes they have their reasons. Sometimes things should not leak before the big release day. Sometimes things are never ever ever to go public (like beauty fixes in movies).

                        That's where you speak up and charge a premium, and everybody is happy.

                        50% of what I do at work are things I can't show myself. That's just the nature of the beast. In that situation I'm not making art, I'm providing a service in delivering a product. Cash in and move on.

                        Blochi


                        > You either sell licenses or customer wants to keep it all. If you don't get a reasonable price, tough shit. It's really simple.



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Isaac Garcia
                        If there is a time-sensitive thingy going on like say a realese date then that´s when an embargo comes into the agreement; not using the images or talking
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jul 30, 2011
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          If there is a time-sensitive thingy going on like say a realese date then
                          that´s when an embargo comes into the agreement; not using the images or
                          talking about the project untill a certain date is reached. Basically an NDA
                          with a date attached to it.

                          Cheers.

                          On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Christian Bloch <Blochi@...> wrote:

                          > I agree with Juergen. The bigger the client, the better the chances they
                          > want it all - including you not showing these images elsewhere or reselling
                          > them yourselves to a third party. Maybe even not talk about the job. It's a
                          > very common practice in the VFX business. Sometimes they have their reasons.
                          > Sometimes things should not leak before the big release day. Sometimes
                          > things are never ever ever to go public (like beauty fixes in movies).
                          >
                          > That's where you speak up and charge a premium, and everybody is happy.
                          >
                          > 50% of what I do at work are things I can't show myself. That's just the
                          > nature of the beast. In that situation I'm not making art, I'm providing a
                          > service in delivering a product. Cash in and move on.
                          >
                          > Blochi
                          >
                          >
                          > > You either sell licenses or customer wants to keep it all. If you don't
                          > get a reasonable price, tough shit. It's really simple.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ------------------------------------
                          >
                          > --
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >


                          --
                          Isaac García

                          http://www.coletassoft.com
                          http://www.flickr.com/photos/coletassoft
                          http://www.facebook.com/coletassoft
                          http://twitter.com/coletassoft
                          http://coletassoft.tumblr.com/
                          http://coletassoft.deviantART.com

                          JFGI | RTFM


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.