Magazine contract -are these rights typical or unreasonable

[kimberly]

I do freelance work for several magazines, most of the interactions with editors have been verbal or a

very short contract, basically granting one time NA publishing and internet rights. I was floored when

an editor sent me this contract after the fact. The piece has been published and I am not worried about

getting paid, but I would like to do more work for them in the future, and this contract is granting way

to much.

 

The contract is for this work and ANY future work I do for them for 2 years. I would like input as to

whether this is standard, and suggestions how to proceed. Quite frankly I don't care what they do

about the text, but the photos are my concern. Any input is greatly appreciated. The contract is 5

pages long but this is the granting of rights that I think is over the top.

 

 

"Rights in the Works. Contributor grants to Magazine the following rights in

each Article:

 

(a) the exclusive right to publish the Article and related

photography in any issue of Magazine and on Magazineﾒs Web sites

and/or in e-magazine format, before it is published in any other form by

any other party. For one year after publication in Magazine or on

Magazineﾒs Web site, Magazine has the exclusive right to publish or

reprint the Article and related photography in any other media, including,

but not limited to print, electronic, optical, and wireless and the non-

exclusive right to do so thereafter;

 

(b) the right to authorize republication of the Article and related

photography in all media throughout the world directly or through a

syndication company;

 

© the right to authorize publication of the Article and related

photography in any foreign edition of Magazine, whether electronic,

online, or in print, and the right to authorize translation of the Article to the

appropriate languages for foreign editions of Magazine;

(d) the right to reprint and photocopy the Article and related

photography, and the right to authorize third parties to reprint and

photocopy the Article and related photography;

 

(e) the right to republish, transmit and/or reproduce the Article

and related photography, in whole or in part, one or more times on or by

means of any electronic, computer-based, digital, optical, wireless or

online media, methods or means now known or hereafter invented,

including the Internet, World Wide Web, and any method of electronic

storage and retrieval;

 

(f) the right to publish and use the Article and related photography

in any publication or book of Magazine, or in any other magazine or other

publication published or distributed, in print, online, by the Publisher. "

[trw]

I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds to me like they get first use of the image and retain the right to re-publish it with the article it was shot for.

 

You might want to verify with YOUR lawyer that it is "ANY future work I do for them for 2 years" and not 'ANY future work I do', though, just to be sure.

[jeffcallen]

Well, there's an interesting clue here.. they've already published the photo. Therefore, you may have far more rights than the'd like to admit.. you may want to talk to an attorney if you feel manipulated by them pulling a "bye the way, here's the contract, just sign here!"

<BR><BR>

Their contract above seems worded to make sure they only pay you once, no matter how they may re-use or possibly even re-sell the image. They will probably just say this is standard contract, take it or leave it, but I'd negotiate.

<BR><BR>

My prime beef with this contract is to make totally sure that they can't resell the photos and thus compete with you for ancillary sales. I'm not a lawyer, but the wording may indicate "Article AND related photography" sold as a package ... if they're together, that's not a huge issue, if the "and" above is vague, it's concievable they could include your photos in a deal with a third party that may result in your photos being sold for stock without you profiting. At the very least, every time they syndicate the article and photo, they may reduce the possiblilty of you reselling the image to annother publication, but that depends on the nature of the images.

<BR><BR> I'm not a lawyer, I have a few contracts I use for situations like this that are somewhat different than what I see above.

<BR><BR>

You may want to show them usage fees according to Seth Resnick

<A target="_new" href="http://www.sethresnick.com/price/price.html">http://www.sethresnick.com/price/price.html</A>

[randy_santos]

I didn't actually read the whole thing but I have been sent similar contracts in the past. Often these are boilerplate contracts sent down by their legal dept to cover all bases ect, the editor may have never really read it.

 

Remember- just because someone sends you something doesn't mean you have to sign it, or sign it as is. In business all contracts are negotiable. Call your contact to discuss the content of the agreement and discuss your concerns. You may not sign it at all or cross out the language you object to, sign and return. Don't sign something you are not comfortable with just to "get more work". You'll basically be screwing yourself (and other photographers too!) Stand by what you think is right and you'll feel better about your work. If signing such an agreement (all rights for everyone, forever) is what they require in order to work with them they then are probably not such a great client to have.

 

It's your business, not theirs. I always wondered why photographers are the only business where so many let their clients dictate the terms of their business. Do what is right for you but don't be bullied into something you will be unhappy with.

[bill_proud]

Kim,

 

They don't want to pay you for re-prints, or for foreign publications of the same article.

 

A re-print example is when a third party wants x number prints of the article for distribution as a classroom aid or marketing/public relations or some other use. This usage right is worth about $750.00 for a 1/4 page on 1,000 reprints.

 

E usage is also negotiable. Editorial rates run about $300.00 for 2 years and commercial rates are $600.00 for the same period.

 

On the downside is that everyone is being squeezed these days and there is great competition to be published, at whatever rates they will throw at you.

 

good luck,

[kimberly]

Thanks everyone for your input. You basically agreed with what my gut instinct was. I did

telephone the editor who called the contract 'heavy handed" and confirmed that it was sent to

them from the legal department on high. He said strike everything I am not comfortable with

and as long as I grant Exclusive First NA rights to publish and include in their e-zine (which

doesn't yet exist) then that would be fine. All that and no change to the price they had

already offered which is above average for the industry. So a happy ending in the end!

Thanks again all.

[randy_santos]

That's great! Be sure to share your experience with other photographers so they may also understand that they are in control of the terms of their agreements. To many do not understand this and sign whatever just to get or keep work. It hurts everyone when photographers blindly agree to sign their rights away. Good Luck!

[john_jovic]

Kimberly

 

Thanks for posting how things panned out. I have had similar experiences where rather stern agreements have been thrust under my nose. The last one took about a month to renegotiate but everyone was happy in the end.

 

As others have already stated, and you have shown, don't just agree to this kind of stuff just to get the job, negotiate.

 

JJ