Copyright transfer, and "I want all the pics".

[mvw photo]

Just shot for a client. I selected 150 pictures out of 400, being models for a pitch to Howard Stern.

 

I gave him the job plus a model for $612. Including location hire, set-up, and post work on 25-50 images. Took

half a day to do setup and shoot and another half day to do post, and I paid the model $200.

 

Here's the issue. He wants copyright and he wants all images.

 

So I gave him copyright for this first shoot ONLY, as a special exception. What do you think, am I being

unreasonable? He says he wants copyright if he pays, period. I am not sure I should do this: I normally keep the

copyright and give the client unlimited useage rights.

 

Also - he wants "all the pictures I shot" (400+). I quoted him 25-50 pics but do not mind giving him 150. But all

400, including outtakes? No way, surely!

 

Opinions?

 

Michael

www.mvwphoto.com

[architecture]

So you only got paid $400 to do this shoot, and you're giving the client 150+ photos? I'm not very good at math, but that amounts to a little over $2.50 per photo, not including your creative fee. Basically, you got hosed. Best thing to do is to use this as a learning experience and move on. Next time you'll want to get an agreement up front. If a client wants more photos out of a shoot, put them up on your website and let them choose how much according to the original estimate you gave and state that more photos will cost (x) amount of dollars.

 

Regards,

Dave

www.dmassphoto.com

[architecture]

And if he wants the copyright, that means he's probably wanting to sell the images. Never give away the copyright, or quote him the value of the image x10.

 

David

[mvw photo]

You are right, Dave. I do have an agreement, a signed quote, and that says 25-50 pics and two hours, and $2,400 but special one-time first shoot discount making it just $600.

 

Of course it took longer and he wants more pics. The reason I am even debating what to do is that there are more shoots from him. For those, I want to get the conditions right. I can say "no", and then no more business.

 

With that in mind:

 

Next time, do I still give him copyright? This time, do I give him 400 pics, or 150, or 50?

 

Advice welcome as always.

[mike dixon]

I have a very strong suspicion that, if you insist on receiving full payment of $2,400 in the future, there won't be any more shoots, no matter what you give him now. The only way you're going to get future work is to let him continue ripping you off in a grand manner (which is what he's doing now).

[mvw photo]

And he wants to copyright to prevent me or the models from publishing these separately, he tells me.

[mvw photo]

Mike, you may be right. That is a real risk, so then your advice is: this time, give him 50 shots as per the quote, and next time, charge $2,400 and keep copyright as well?

 

If that is your advice, I am tempted to follow it. Even though I must eat, and my market is seeing signs of people slowing down their spending noticeably, it is no reason to be taken for a ride - right?

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

In PS you can re-number all the files you give to your client.

[mvw photo]

I meant to add, "...take it or leave it, and he will probably leave it - so be it".

[mvw photo]

Agreed, Bill.

 

Oh, you can help me out: give me some links that show client that photographers usually keep copyright. I know it and you do, but he does not, and HE genuinely thinks he is being taken for a ride if he pays but I keep copyright. I need to educate...

[DEGREEFOTO]

Hi Michael,

 

I would agree with David's comments. You have already, from what I can see given the client a really huge discount

on the first shoot and even though you mention that there may be more shoots in the pipeline, there is no guarantee

of this. From what I can see, I feel you have already set the precedent with the client by giving in to their demands

and the discount which you have agreed to. If the discount was a special one time shoot, then that has already been

catered for and they are already not excerising the terms of your agreement, which although I do not know, I hope

does mention the issue of copy right.

 

Stand you ground on further shoots and stipulate the fee and terms.If the client is not happy, let them walk away. It

is not in your interest in the long term to get screwed by what appears to be some one that is not sticking to the

terms of any agreement that you and them may have initially agreed to. I have similar situation happen to me and

have learnt in the end that I may be silly, but not stupid and have walked away from such clients, only to have them

contact me some time later even up to 2 years later to agree to accept my terms. They have had their fingers caught

by using someone they thought thay could control. I am a professional in every sense and for that reason, although

we may negotiate my fee, the terms of my contract are always agreed upon before I proceed. You have something

that the client wants and I feel they should pay for and adhere to the terms of the contract.

 

All the best

 

Artur

[mvw photo]

Artur, thanks for that advice. I shall stick by the contract terms for next shoots, and also, for this one, I will not give in totally (like no way he gets all the images I shot).

 

I do like quoting actual price including detailed breakdown and THEN discounting on the quote - that way the value is clearly established, even if the price is not. That makes the next negotiation easier.

 

I did good work and went above and beyond. Amazing how people try to screw you.

 

One thing that would help, as said: pointing me to some web sources so he can see other contracts and he can get educated on the issue of copyright - I think he genuinely believes he should get copyright if he pays for the shoot, "of course".

[btmuir]

"I'll have a bunch of work for you soon"

 

Oldest BS line in the book.

 

Not gonna happen.

 

I'm unclear on what the usage agreement he purchased for these.

 

What exactly is "being models for a pitch to Howard Stern"

 

Care to elaborate?

[tony_clark]

It is important to understand the value the client puts on the images. You basically charged him for a model test

and edited an insane number of images on top of that. If he can get such a large shoot for $412 why would he pay

$2400? Of course he dangled the "more work" carrot because he wants this project done cheap, fast and no strings

attached. Odds are he will lose your number and move on to the next photographer in line and then use Stern's

name to get it for free. I would certainly hold my ground and if he disappears, that was the plan from the

beginning. I'd stick to the original agreement and tell him that you can be a little flexible the next time.

[mvw photo]

Guys - agreed. I am putting my foot down... he just asked me for another free shoot, 5-10 pics only, in return for me being able to use some of the shots for my portfolio use...

 

I am under NDA re the shoot details, so I am afraid I cannot eleborate.. as soon as I can, I will.

 

M

[btmuir]

Well if you are entering NDA's into the equation... all the more reason to get your money.

 

The shots are worthless to you.

[darylann]

"...he just asked me for another free shoot, 5-10 pics only, in return for me being able to use some of the shots for

my portfolio use... "

 

Is this guy for real? He's a professional scheister, if nothing else! How nice of him to allow you to use your own

images for your own portfolio! Geez!

 

Stick to your guns, don't give away anything else, take pride in being a professional, and if he never calls you again,

say good riddance to him! He's only bullying you into giving him all he can get without paying for it, plain and simple!

[mvw photo]

I agree with all that... thanks for the support, that is appreciated.

 

Now, one thing that would help is if I can point him to some places on the web where he can see that others too keep their copyright.

 

Of course you understand how it goes nowadays: everyone has a brother-in-law or nephew with a Digital Rebel and kit lens who "can take photos" and will charge $50 for a day's work, and be thrilled to take that. I call that "the nephew problem".

 

No, they won't do good work, but that does not matter to the buyer, who often cannot even recognise good work. I see some models, for instrance, present themselves with the most awful, awful photography, and yet they think it's great. Does it get them the business, though? No.

 

Michael

[alan_myers]

Michael,

 

So, let me get this straight... You "put your foot down" and accepted a freebie from the same client in exchange

for the right to use YOUR photos in YOUR portfolio? And signed a NDA, to boot.

 

Give me your camera equipment and car right now. I'll lend them back to you occasionally, okay?

 

What? Is that somehow unreasonable of me to ask that?

 

There is NEVER a need to give away your copyright or even unlimited usage of your images.

 

The only reasons a photographer might do either are...

 

1. Inexperience (they don't know the potential value of what they are giving away),

 

2. Laziness (not willing to put in the time to learn about licensing and make the effort writing up a specific

licensing agreement) or...

 

3. Fear of negotiation/confrontation (unwilling to work through the disagreements and hammer out a win/win

situation, caving in to the client's highly unreasonable initial requests for fear of losing the job).

 

When someone asks me to reassign my copyright, I'll always say, "Sure." Then I quote them $120,000 per image. Or,

if they want unlimited rights, I'll quote $100,000 per image.

 

Are these unreasonable prices? Not really. A good stock image has the potential to earn six figures over it's

lifespan. It's hard to predict if a particular image will be that successful or not, so all that can be done in

an extreme situation like this is assume that's what can be earned.

 

And, if your images are good and either given them the copyright or unlimited usage, please don't be surprised

when you see them showing up elsewhere, offered as stock or on a DVD full of royalty free images and so on.

Handing over your copyright or giving unlimited usage rights means the client now can resell them in any way they

wish to anyone they choose... And make all the money you would have made off them... instead of you.

 

Hmmm.. Funny thing.... There aren't any takers of the $120K or $100K per image offer!

 

But, I really didn't expect any.

 

This really just signals the start of negotiations. From this point we'll start looking at what's reasonable for

both sides....

 

Reasonable and limited exclusivity to protect their usage to a certain manner of usage, for a particular period

of time, withing a set geographic area, etc. Sure, but it will add a bit to the cost.

 

They want the right of renewal at the end of the agreed licensing period? Sure, no problem. We'll hammer

something out for a bit of added cost now.

 

All images? Sure, but even though there will be a multiple image discount it will still all add up to be pretty

pricey. So wouldn't it be better to just select the ones you'll actually use and license only those?

 

Set a day rate as suggested above, and stick with it. Half days are okay, but might be the minimum you'll agree

to. Any travel days might be charged half rate. Post- and pre-production time you put in might be charged half

rate. Any expenses from the job you incur should be passed along to the client... Most would mark them up or

just come up with a fair, lump sum (should include modeling fees, assistant costs, equip. rentals, location fees,

meals/transport costs when traveling, etc.).

 

Day rates are for the shoot only... Does not include any image licensing. That comes later, after they have

reviewed the proofs from the shoot and chosen some images they want to use... Let the negotiations begin.

 

Clients who don't agree to reasonable rates and fees, and proper licensing, aren't really clients at all. They

are rip off artists. Some "clients" are simply not worth having... They cost you more than you make from the

job, which - in business - is known as a "net loss" or something to be avoided.

[geoffs1]

Just for completeness, I'll play the "Devil's Advocate" here and say this sounds like a simple case where the client thought it was a "work for hire" contract. I'll ignore whether that expectation was reasonable or not, and the client's general demeanor, as those seem to be well-hashed topics in this thread.

 

It seems that there are two issues the would concern the photographer here: 1) Loss of revenue from subsequent use/sale of the photos by the photographer (for portfolio and/or commercial use), and 2) Harm to the photographer's reputation from poorly presented (ex. processed) photos.

 

In a "work for hire" situation, 1) is handled by the fee (and possibly a limited license granted to the photographer), and 2) is handled by contracting that the photographer's name will not be used in conjunction with the photos (a common practice in commercial photography anyway - how many ads do you see with photo credit?).

 

As an aside, I find it a bit curious that photographers are so hung up on retaining copyright. Granted, most of my experience is in full-time employment situations, but I can't remember a position when my employment contract didn't stipulate that all patents and copyrights for work performed as part of my job were automatically assigned to my employer.

 

On a practical note, the "subsequent use" value of many contract photographs is often very low because of the inherent nature of the photos is valuable only in the context of the initial use.

[btmuir]

to the OP

 

Listen to the advice Alan Myers is giving here.

 

He is sharing a wealth of experience that can take years to acquire.

[mvw photo]

Good input, guys. And yes, I am definitely listening.

 

The customer knew he was buying 25-50 images, since that is what the contract he signed clearly said.

 

As for copyright - if he paid me $10,000 for a day, he could have it for future shoots too. And for more money,

he can have all images. But $400, for 400 images? A dollar an image (Canadian)?

 

I also shoot for newspapers. Even there, I keep the copyright.

 

I want that not to rip off anyone, but to control the use, and to be able to show my own work when appropriate

(e.g. on my own web site). I would not have any problems with any stipulations that, for instance, forbid me to

sell to a competitor, that sort of thing. As said above, you can buy the copyright, but then just pay me a good

rate for the day...

 

I supplied four hours work plus several hours the evening before, plus equipment (cameras, backdrops, umbrellas,

lights), plus the venue itself, plus post work. $200 for the model and $400 for me - and then he wants all 400

images plus copyright. I don't think I am being unreasonable when I deserve more...?

[park_street]

I would suggest that you try a back end discount instead of front end. For example if I want to give a discount for five days

of work, I will tell them the first four days are at my standard rate but the fifth is free. That way I can separate out the ones

that simply want the first shoot cheap and then go find another photographer to do another first shoot cheap.

 

Here is a link to the ASMP Assignment Photography info for buyers. I hope that may help next time.

 

http://asmp.org/commerce/assignment.php

[geoffs1]

"The customer knew he was buying 25-50 images, since that is what the contract he signed clearly said."

 

What did the contract say about usage rights?

 

"I supplied four hours work plus several hours the evening before, plus ..., plus ... plus post work. ... I don't think I am being unreasonable when I deserve more...?"

 

I think we all agreed that you hosed yourself on price. A 75% discount (off a $2400 base price) is pretty steep; it would be reasonable for the client to assume you were deriving some intrinsic value from the shoot (exposure, publicity, etc.). Maybe that's a hook to use in starting the negotiations (as well as set the tone for future work). Give him a 75% discount on a much higher fee for the additional photos and restrictions on your use.

[john_macpherson]

Prepare a contract for him to sign detailing the NEXT shoot that he has 'promised' you, including the cost ($2400+) and get him to sign it in return for whatever he wants at present from this first shoot. Having dangled the carrot of more work in front of you he should be more than happy to sign it - if he's not, simply tell him you keep your word and have 'produced the goods' *(and then some!) and if he can't do the same then you dont want his business and will not be handing over any work.