| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/01/2006 10:00:17 PM · #1 |
Regardless of if he just takes the $200 and forgets it or if this really isn't a friend but someone he knows and he has the right to go after her for the cost of commercial use...a number of you are missing the point about registering your images.
In the USA, you own the copyright the moment you create the image. To give this up, you have to sign it over in writing to someone else.
Yes, you can still sue someone if your image was not registered when you were infringed on. You have to register it before you can sue though. This proves to the courts that you do own it. In this case, cost of suing comes out of your pocket. Very expensive and in most cases not worth it. I know this the hard way, been infringed upon, couldn't afford to sue.
If your image was registered BEFORE you were infringed upon and within 90 days after it was published, if it was published (this means sold, rented, leased, etc.) then when you sue and win, THEN the person that infringed upoin you gets to pay court fees and lawyer fees for BOTH of you. That means no money out of your pocket and even if you don't get awarded a dime (which could happen), a very big expense to the infringer because the court will get their money. The fact that an infringer will know they will have to pay all costs if they lose, most of the time they will not fight it and will pay what ever you deam is fair. I was happy to find this is true the second time I was infringed upon. I was PAID by the infringer when she found out the image she stole was registered.
The CD of images you send in are all covered under the registration number you receive from the Copyright Office. You can have as many images on the CD as you can fit. You want them to be big enough so that they can be easily recognized and compared to the image used. I make mine about 800 x 900 or so and 35K in size. The most I had on one CD was a little over 10,000 and I still had room. All of the mages on a CD have to be the same as far as being published or not published.
I register everything, including snapshots, test shots, or any shot I don't delete. Both times I was infringed on, one image was a lighting test shot and the other was an early film snap shot and the image was poorly scanned and put on my web site. Some people will take anything and if they are good at editing software can turn it into some pretty good stuff. If my first image hadn't been stolen, I would have been pretty impressed that one of my images could look so good under the right hands. The graphic guy did a great job.
It only takes 15 minutes to fill out the form and costs $30 per form.
Everyone in the USA should register any image they take if it ever sees the light of day outside of their own computer. If you catch someone it might not buy you a new house, but it could buy you a new Canon "L" lens or new camera body or pay rent for a couple of months. And you get the satisfaction of knowing you took care of someone that was going to use your image to make a profit.
Mike
|
|
|
|
05/01/2006 06:51:21 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by weisz:
I was hired by a friend to take photos of her dog. She paid me 200 bucks and then told me she was going to make a calendar out of my shots. Should I speak to her about getting a percentage of the profits or any additional fees since she intends to sell my work? Or is the session fee considered a buy out? And, since she is a friend, I feel wierd about bringing it up at all. Any advice? |
Are you a professional? Than you should have had a sign contract if you were receiving money.
Are you an amateur? In this case, was there a verbal contract? Although not as binding you'll find that a court may look at the situation as a verbal contract. Was the calendar mentioned beforehand? What proof is there that it wasn't? If you wind up before a jury, you'll look like crap.
Amateur photographer agrees to take pictures of friend's dog. Friend pays photographer $200. When friend expresses she wants to make a calendar, photographer balks and sues her. What do you have to gain....??? a few dollars???
And that if the jury doesn't decide that the photography was in deed a work for hire based on an amateur receiving $200 and a verbal contract.
What do you have to lose? lots...in legal fees, assuredly a friendship, and perhaps a lot more in reputation as an individual.
My advice, accept the $200...take the photos. However, just express that if she publishes any of the photos for publication (calendar, etc.) that she has to include a printed attribution to the photographer (namely you). And perhaps a credit with your website included. That's your standard free license agreement.
Now what do you have to gain? $200 plus if she does print calendars. What are they for? a few friends as gifts? hey...no big loss. Is she a breeder and are these going to go to other breeders...then hey, if the photos are good all those other breeders will see your name and website. Could be a lot more $200 in your future.
That, to me, is the best way to play it. |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 05:52:50 PM · #3 |
Here is my thoughts...
First, $200 for a dog picture is great. Probably more than she would make from the calendar anyway. If it was me, I wouldn't say anything because even if she is selling the calendar, have you seen how many dog calendars are on the market? Its crazy. She probably won't make much from this project.
When you see her driving her new BMW to the new lakefront cottage all from calendar money, than you may want to get involved. Until then, let it go. Go find another person willing to pay $200 for a shoot. |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 05:18:55 PM · #4 |
Don't sue--they only ones who win will be the lawyers. Especially if this is a small run of a calender done locally.
On the other hand, if its a big publisher, the publisher may want a written license to use the photos.
This is a good reason to put a license in every CD you give out. No one has commented on this when I do it, if they did I'd just say that the DMCA requires it. :-)
By including a license on the CD, you are (or should be) clearly stating who owns the copyright, and what use the person can make of the images. You can CYA to your hearts content.
Another, less necessary thing is to fill in the owner's name in the EXIF data (if your camera allows it.) I use "(c)" followed by my name and phone number. I don't think you have to add the copyright notice for the copyright to be valid, but it doesn't hurt.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2006 05:09:29 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by _eug:
Originally posted by lfordhere:
Actually, this is true, but it can be destructive as well; a different potential client calls the current client to see how much you charged, current client says credit only, and you are stuck with shooting for credit only. |
I disagree. A new client may try to ask for it, but no one is obligated (by contract or otherwise) to agree to do work for credit only. This first time, it's a cost of business. Lesson learned. Anytime in the future, it's negotiable.
"I'm sorry that was a one-time arrangement. My fee is X and Y and I require a credit on the works as well." They'll either agree to it or they won't, but the photographer is under no obligation to continue to shoot for credit only simply based on past works. |
I'd have to agree with _eug on this. It's not uncommon to do "free" work to help build a customer base.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2006 05:08:32 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by prentice:
Originally posted by prentice:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than going for money. I'd politely ask to be credited on the photos. That has the potential to generate more work/profit than the calender itself.
lfordhere
Actually, this is true, but it can be destructive as well; a different potential client calls the current client to see how much you charged, current client says credit only, and you are stuck with shooting for credit only. What I am saying here is that yes, it is good to do some credit only work, but don't get carried away with it; it is not really good for you, or the industry. If you place no value on your work, then this devalues photography as a whole.
Good catch! Since you've already been paid the $200 dollars, rather than going for $$ on the calender's profit, I'd just ask for the credit. That way you have put a value on your work ($200) and you still get the exposure from the calender. |
Oops, I missed the $200. Sorry. |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 05:04:05 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by prentice:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than going for money. I'd politely ask to be credited on the photos. That has the potential to generate more work/profit than the calender itself.
lfordhere
Actually, this is true, but it can be destructive as well; a different potential client calls the current client to see how much you charged, current client says credit only, and you are stuck with shooting for credit only. What I am saying here is that yes, it is good to do some credit only work, but don't get carried away with it; it is not really good for you, or the industry. If you place no value on your work, then this devalues photography as a whole.
Good catch! Since you've already been paid the $200 dollars, rather than going for $$ on the calender's profit, I'd just ask for the credit. That way you have put a value on your work ($200) and you still get the exposure from the calender. |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 04:59:55 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by lfordhere:
Actually, this is true, but it can be destructive as well; a different potential client calls the current client to see how much you charged, current client says credit only, and you are stuck with shooting for credit only. |
I disagree. A new client may try to ask for it, but no one is obligated (by contract or otherwise) to agree to do work for credit only. This first time, it's a cost of business. Lesson learned. Anytime in the future, it's negotiable.
"I'm sorry that was a one-time arrangement. My fee is X and Y and I require a credit on the works as well." They'll either agree to it or they won't, but the photographer is under no obligation to continue to shoot for credit only simply based on past works.
Message edited by author 2006-05-01 17:00:54. |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 04:45:28 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The (US) law requires registration with the Copyright Office (not the Patent Office -- that's a different department altogether) in order to collect anything beyond actual damages -- which are notoriously hard to prove. With registration, you can also collect attorney and court costs and maybe additional damages as well, and basically have incontrovertible evidence of ownership.
The Copyright Office is a part of the Library of Congress, and part of the motivation behind getting people to register is to make the LOC collections as complete as possible, since registration requires submitting one or two copies of the work being registered. Fortunately, they now accept photography on digital media. |
So is the registration price per picture, per dvd full of pictures protecting each picture individually or good for a group of dvd's sent in at the same time protecting thousands of different pics? |
You can register an entire DVD of images as a collection. I doubt that you need to submit the full resolution image on the DVD, so, that's a LOT of images.
From the Copyrighht Office website;
REGISTRATION FOR TWO OR MORE WORKS WITH ONE APPLICATION AND FEE
Two or more individual works may be registered with one application and fee as follows:
Unpublished Works
A group of unpublished works may be registered as a collection if all the following conditions are met.
* The elements of the collection are assembled in an orderly form.
* The combined elements bear a single title identifying the collection as a whole.
* The copyright claimant or claimants for each element in the collection are the same.
* All the elements are by the same author, or if they are by different authors, at least one author has contributed copyrightable authorship to each element.
NOTE: Works registered as an unpublished collection will be listed in the records of the Copyright Office only under the collection title.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2006 04:45:02 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by prentice:
Rather than going for money. I'd politely ask to be credited on the photos. That has the potential to generate more work/profit than the calender itself. |
Actually, this is true, but it can be destructive as well; a different potential client calls the current client to see how much you charged, current client says credit only, and you are stuck with shooting for credit only. What I am saying here is that yes, it is good to do some credit only work, but don't get carried away with it; it is not really good for you, or the industry. If you place no value on your work, then this devalues photography as a whole. |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 04:43:37 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
So is the registration price per picture, per dvd full of pictures protecting each picture individually or good for a group of dvd's sent in at the same time protecting thousands of different pics? |
Those are all possibilities, depending on how you do it. And there are advantages and disadvantages to each, so you have to make a decision about which method best suits your own, individual circumstances.
I suggest downloading the main instruction booklets (they are in PDF format) and the forms (likewise) and look them over.
Another great resource for legal information, including copyrights, is Nolo Press |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 04:42:08 PM · #12 |
| Rather than going for money. I'd politely ask to be credited on the photos. That has the potential to generate more work/profit than the calender itself. |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 04:38:45 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The (US) law requires registration with the Copyright Office (not the Patent Office -- that's a different department altogether) in order to collect anything beyond actual damages -- which are notoriously hard to prove. With registration, you can also collect attorney and court costs and maybe additional damages as well, and basically have incontrovertible evidence of ownership.
The Copyright Office is a part of the Library of Congress, and part of the motivation behind getting people to register is to make the LOC collections as complete as possible, since registration requires submitting one or two copies of the work being registered. Fortunately, they now accept photography on digital media. |
So is the registration price per picture, per dvd full of pictures protecting each picture individually or good for a group of dvd's sent in at the same time protecting thousands of different pics?
|
|
|
|
05/01/2006 03:23:28 PM · #14 |
The (US) law requires registration with the Copyright Office (not the Patent Office -- that's a different department altogether) in order to collect anything beyond actual damages -- which are notoriously hard to prove. With registration, you can also collect attorney and court costs and maybe additional damages as well, and basically have incontrovertible evidence of ownership.
The Copyright Office is a part of the Library of Congress, and part of the motivation behind getting people to register is to make the LOC collections as complete as possible, since registration requires submitting one or two copies of the work being registered. Fortunately, they now accept photography on digital media. |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 03:15:32 PM · #15 |
Why would I have to pay the patent office a fee to 'register' my photos? Don't I own the copyright on any photo that I personally create, unless I specifically sell those rights to someone else?
|
|
|
|
05/01/2006 03:11:34 PM · #16 |
Unless you can prove she intentionally misled you about the purpose of the photoshoot, and in the absence of a written contract, you are somewhat likely to lose anyway, as she has a good case to claim that this was a work-for-hire.
I go along with other people in suggesting a negotiated settlement, along the lines of "I didn't realize you were going to show those to other people -- I usually get at least a photo credit when that happens ..." and get the best deal you can -- to me, that would be getting her to acknowledge your copyright, even if you get no payment -- you can give her a royalty-free license to clarify the matter.
A photo credit, the $200 you already got, and the education you're getting now are probably worth more than anything you'd net in commissions or your friendship (if that's what it is). |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 03:10:45 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
if you're not doing this professionally, then take your $200 and give your friend best wishes. |
I echo this advice particularly if you all did not work something out prior to taking the shots (which I assume you have already taken & handed over).
You could offer her DPCprints as a service for cut of the profits.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2006 03:03:41 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by lepidus:
Maybe I'm weird, but if you two are friends, why are you charging her money? And why is she trying to profit off of your work?
Why don't you both collaborate on the calendar? That way you both make money and you get your name out there. |
LOL I charge FAMILY for portrait work (not immediate but extended family) ... It is what I do.
If I ran a gas station do you think that it would be free gas to all my family and friends?
|
|
|
|
05/01/2006 02:57:47 PM · #19 |
The reality on something like this ... you don't have any rights unless you can get a judge to agree. If you go the way of a lawyer and court, plan on several thousand dollars of which you may or may not get any of it paid even if you win. Alternative is small claims court, there for less than a hundred bucks you can challenge her on the grounds that they are worth a couple thousand dollars and maybe win. But you will need to show you acted in good faith first. The important part, is you will no longer be called friend and the word will spread like wildfire that you cheated her. Sometimes a few pictures of dogs, weddings, etc etc are just not worth it. Many of us think our photos are valuable .... well maybe one in a million have any value over a few portrait sales. The lucky photos, the one of a kind photos are the ones to fight over. I suggest as others, do a handshake deal, hope for the best in her calendar idea and maybe pocket a few more bucks but save your reputation. It doesn't mater who is right or wrong, as we see her at dpc the other person is the evil one, she will do the same to you. It's not worth it. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2006 02:01:27 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
As everyone else has said, you do have rights but do you want to sour a friendship by enforcing them?
Ask yourself this question ... if she is a 'friend', why didn't she tell you about the calendar before the shoot and the payment of $200?
The answer I believe does throw an entirely different light on the transaction. It appears from here that she conned you into taking the pics for $200 by hiding their intended purpose. It sounds as if she believed that because she paid you the $200, she owns all the rights to the work.
Only you can assess the degree of malice of forethought in the matter. If it was deliberate, register your work and play hard-ball - she's no friend. If it's just a misunderstanding, blame the law, say it's not something you can change - and come to a friendly deal about sharing the profits in proporton to the cost you have each met.
Brett |
I agree with Brett. I think you need to determin how much your friendship is worth. At the very least, I would mention to her that you hold the © to the images and in the future you would charge usagege rights if she intended to use the images for more than personal use. (save the friendship and educate her on your rights). If you feel she was intending to take advantage of you from the start, then I would push it harder. More money or shared profits. Let her know you own the © and that she is in violation of them if she prints the calander.
My thought is keep the friend and both learn from this. You learn all jobs need to have paperwork to protect you and she learns the legality of copyrights and usage. I would dought she is going to make a windfall from this calander if it is her first time (but I could be wrong). |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 05:12:52 AM · #21 |
As everyone else has said, you do have rights but do you want to sour a friendship by enforcing them?
Ask yourself this question ... if she is a 'friend', why didn't she tell you about the calendar before the shoot and the payment of $200?
The answer I believe does throw an entirely different light on the transaction. It appears from here that she conned you into taking the pics for $200 by hiding their intended purpose. It sounds as if she believed that because she paid you the $200, she owns all the rights to the work.
Only you can assess the degree of malice of forethought in the matter. If it was deliberate, register your work and play hard-ball - she's no friend. If it's just a misunderstanding, blame the law, say it's not something you can change - and come to a friendly deal about sharing the profits in proporton to the cost you have each met.
Brett
|
|
|
|
05/01/2006 04:22:24 AM · #22 |
From what you've written about this, there is no contract outlining the transaction that took place. You apparently think the images are yours and that she should have pay to use them -- she apparently views it as a work for hire and that she owns the images. Without a written contract it falls to the verbal one -- yes a verbal contract is binding ... but proving it will be very expensive. It will likely cost you more than the what you have made on it -- in all likelihood, it will cost you a friend.
Keep the $200 and the friend and be happy. If you can't do that, at least talk to this friend about how you feel instead of a bunch of strangers on the internet.
David
|
|
|
|
05/01/2006 04:16:33 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by weisz:
thanks for the advice, y'all. I think I will ask her for a percentage. I believe she does intend to sell the thing. I will do it by email to make it less awkward... or maybe that will be more awkward! Live and learn. |
You might want to reconsider doing this by mail. The personal way is much better. This is a difficult matter to discuss and all kinds of misunderstanding can arise, better make it eye to eye.
If she is selling the calendar, that means she wants to make money out of it. You might be a amateur at photography, I guess she is an amateur in calender-publishing. If she is earning money, using your pictures, you are entitled to a share.
Yes, and it is a help for your portfolio, much in the same way you are helping her publishing adventure.
Approach her in a positive way and keep it on positive notes at all times. Be prepared, know how much you think you should get.
Good luck.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2006 04:07:06 AM · #24 |
Federal Court Filing Fees
On April 9 the filing fee for federal courts was increased from $250 to $350 for a civil case. I would guess the lawyers would have a range of $100 - $250 per hour which would multiply quickly into thousands.
I would be interested in hearing from a hobbyist/semi-pro who has actually participated in filing a complaint in federal court. What was the initial cost, the cause of action, and the remedy?
I may be looking at this with the wrong color of glasses but to me copyright protection works well if you're a business and have corporate lawyers at your disposal... or if you petitioning for something that has substantial material value.
Anyone have a good link to statistics on how many private people file copyright infrigment complaints, along with the cost and remedy? |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 03:52:00 AM · #25 |
There is not much question that you have rights. But having rights and asserting them are two different things. I get the impression from your post (and perhaps my impression is not accurate) that you are not a professional photographer by trade and she is a friend (how close is not specified, but close enough for you to be asked to photograph her dog).
If my impressions are accurate then I tend to agree with Lepidus and skiprow. Have her publish the calendar with credit to you, get a few copies to pass around, and consider it inexpensive publicity. ...And next time have the rights expressed up front in the manner that others have mentioned. Friends are hard to come buy...especially those willing to pay for sitting fees, photos, etc. If you weren't sure of your rights it is probably a safe bet that she wasn't either. I wouldn't threaten a friendship under the circumstances.
|
|
