Work for Hire agreement for magazine

<p>Hello!<br>

<br />So, I have been offered an assignment shooting an author of a cookbook for a nutrition magazine. I am pretty new to this, so I am trying to figure out how to navigate this situation. Basically this man that I'd be photographing is being featured in the magazine, and the magazine wants me to shoot some portraits of him to use in the spread.<br>

<br />However, they just sent the contract and it is a dreaded work for hire one - they are asking me to sign over copyright to the images. I probably wouldn't care as much if the person I was shooting was just a random shmo, but as he has multiple cookbooks being published, I am thinking that then I am possibly losing money that I could have by selling the photos for use in his books etc. On the other hand, the photos aren't worth very much to me outside of that. It's not like I can really reuse them in any other way.<br>

Just for detail, they are offering me $800 for the shoot. It seems reasonable if the photo were just to be in their printed and online magazine, but for all rights to the photo I'm not sure. I have a feeling I will lose the gig if I ask for higher pay or stricter terms, but I also don't want to be a pushover. Are all magazine just work for hire now? It seems like they are trying to get the best of both worlds here, as I'm a contractor and don't work for them full time as a salaried employee (obviously).<br>

Any advice would be great!</p>

<p>Will the contract allow you to use the photos to promote your own photography, even though they will own the copyright? That would make a difference to me. If the person is famous I would want to be able to use the photos on my own web site. If the person is an unknown, it wouldn't matter so much.<br /><br />The bottom line: Is $800 worth it to you for your time and effort? Do you want the $800 in your pocket or some other photographer's pocket? (I am assuming your instincts are right and if you try to change the deal they will just find someone else.) </p>

Try returning the contract with the WFH clause deleted.

<p>I know my response is not going to be very popular here but this is my reasoning:</p>

<ul>

<li>You didn't create these pictures on you own time and than tried to sell them.</li>

<li>You didn't sell you services and expertise to the author, the magazine did.</li>

<li>The author probably doesn't even know you and doesn't care weather it will be you or another photographer who is going to take his pictures for a particular magazine for a particular reason.</li>

</ul>

<p>So, tell me, why should it be anything else but work for hire.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yana +1<br /><br />This isn't a shoot that you dreamed up, for which you marketed. The magazine wants the images, and they're willing to pay someone to produce them. Why would they want to pay you to produce images that you can then sell to someone else? </p>

<p>I understand what you are all saying, but the contract is with the magazine, not the author. So, according to the contract now, the magazine could sell these portraits back to the author for use in the author's books, promotional materials etc. This is what seems kind of wrong to me.</p>

<p>A contract is an agreement between two parties. If you don't agree, you don't have to sign. If you don't agree, you can also propose changes to the contract that would allow you to sign it. The other party can agree with your proposals or find someone who will agree to the contract as written. Just be aware that there are consequences to the actions that we all take. For many years I was involved with awarding contracts ...very few times were exceptions to our contract accepted or appreciated.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>according to the contract now, the magazine could sell these portraits back to the author for use in the author's books, promotional materials etc. This is what seems kind of wrong to me</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the magazine had a staff photographer, and she went and did the shoot as part of her regular paycheck-earning job with the magazine, would you consider it unfair for the magazine to make the most use possible of the work they paid for?<br /><br />They're asking you to be that person, temporarily. To be part of their staff for a few hours. It sounds like your only realistic issue would be what that block of time is really worth (to you, and to them). They want to pay to have some photographs made, so that they can use them as they see fit. You want them to pay you to make photographs that will be used as YOU see fit. Given that there are probably a lot of photographers that would be perfectly happy to take that $800, shoot, and move on to the next gig, you have to decide what your priorities are. <br /><br />By the way: if you DID talk them into omitting the WFH clause, and you got the gig ... suppose that you decided you'd get better results if you hired an assistant for a couple of hours. Would you be OK with that person getting in some photos during the session, and then making arrangements to sell them outside of your boundaries? If not, why not?</p>

"If the magazine had a staff photographer, and she went and did the shoot as part of her regular paycheck-earning job

with the magazine, would you consider it unfair for the magazine to Make the most possible use of the work they paid

for?"

 

No but the magazine, let's say it's called "v.f." Isnt paying for just that photo session. They are also paying for the

equipment, the insurance, maintenance and replacement of the equipment; at least part, if not all of the photographer's health and disability insurance; probably paying something into a retirement investment fund; social security taxes; income taxes; office expenses including rent; business related utilities; job related training and education; etc., as well as for keeping the photographer available for the

shoot and any others they have, and for as long as it takes. And the staff photographer also doesn't have marketing and advertising expenses to worry about. (This is why staff photography jobs are so coveted by photographers, and because of the hidden (to the photographer) expenses of having someone on staff, so comparatively rare.)

 

"...They are asking you to be part of their staff for a few hours."

 

Not true in any way shape, or form. Ask an employment lawyer or your company's H.R. staff.

 

 

 

"They want to pay to have some photographs made."

 

Again that isn't true. They are paying for the use of your creative work, for your ideas, and for your people skills.

 

Let's follow the money: the celebrity chef has a book to promote so both she or he and their publisher make a better profit on their investment. The profile is part of promoting the product (Chef A.) and they have agreed to be profiled. This works hand in hand with the magazine publisher's need for editorial content that is attractive to

readers so they can maintain or increase the value of the real content of their publication, the space sold to

advertisers that wraps around the editorial content. The publishers (rightfully so) want to keep costs down so they either have a very small photography staff or none at all (and some outsource their design as well) and use freelance photographers and writers.

 

Freelance photographers who work at low rates for publishers in return hope that the "exposure" will lead to other things - which it might (that's the risk they take) if they are smart enough to figure out how to capitalize on it.

 

One way of capitalizing on editorial work is passive , if the publication is respected by other art directors and photo

editors, those unknown others will see that a person they trust or admire trusted you.

 

Another, more pro-active method is for the photographer to use the work in their portfolio, press releases, direct mail,

social media, eye. - to let the world know that Ms./Mr. X at "v.f." magazine trusted you and you produced these graet

photo of Chef A. For them.

 

- but you can't use the photos for that pro-active step if you have signed a straight up WFH contract because you don't

own the rights to them!

 

Now we have to look at it from the publisher's side to see why the WFH clause is there to begin with what they don't want

to do is two things: Primarily see the work they initially commissioned Ina direct competitor and secondarily, have to pay

you again down the road to use the photos Ina different context. There are better ways to phrase the conditions they

need but they easiest and laziest method is insert a simple WFH clause in the contract. While it is possible they might someday license that work to other entities, in the vast majority of times, that rarely happens.

 

It's your work: you get to decide whether WFH agreement is a good thing, because sometimes it is, and sometimes it is

not.

 

(There may be typos or grammatical mistakes in the above. Do they bug you? They'll bug me too when I catch them, so my apologies, but I don't want to draft this thing again.)

Unless you're Richard Avedon and the celebrity chef is Emerill, this train has already left the station. Generally, book

publishers have a standard contract and rate. They aren't interested in negotiating. If you're not willing to sign on the

dotted line, they will go to the next name on their list.

<p>It would be nice to be able to have a tear sheet out of the shoot for your portfolio. </p>

<p>As a freelancer, a Work for Hire contract is unacceptable unless the fee is 3-5X the normal fee. I have had a number of times when a magazine has come back to me wanting to reuse an image for additional uses. They could potentially license your images back to the subject, his Publisher, a Sponsor for use in Advertising or any number of other applications. On the other hand, the images may only be used once but you never know at least you will profit if they are licensed. I would tell the magazine that WFH is the tipping point and see if they will edit it out, if not wish them luck and part ways because $800 is not that much money.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not true in any way shape, or form. Ask an employment lawyer or your company's H.R. staff.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK, I should have been more specific. They are seeking, by way of asking the photographer to agree to a work for hire contract, to have services that reduce all of the IP complexity down to the same level they'd have if they used an employee to do the same work. The OP doesn't have to like their priorities, or agree to the contract as written.</p>