DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> What are my rights? Help!!!
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 35 of 35, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/01/2006 04:45:02 PM · #26
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 04:45:28 PM · #27
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Unpublished Works

A group of unpublished works may be registered as a collection if all the following conditions are met.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 04:59:55 PM · #28
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 05:04:05 PM · #29
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 05:08:32 PM · #30
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 05:09:29 PM · #31
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 05:18:55 PM · #32
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 05:52:50 PM · #33
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 06:51:21 PM · #34
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 10:00:17 PM · #35
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

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 04:35:57 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 04:35:57 PM EDT.