Employer used photos I took for them for Ad Campaign and lied to what they were to be used for

[w_hagan]

<p>Frank, <br>

But what if your company called you in as a systems programmer to work extra hours but to shoot photo's for them and not to program. Does your work as a artist, photographer become part of the expectation of job duties. Is creative art just a "business" and means to an end and that is why some go into it. Art has always been subjective, thoughts like that just further diminish that value of art and an artist. #1 - That is the question. #2- The question of fair market value, which is just lost in the all of this.<br>

Gripping, really? I never gripped about one single thing or made compliant in the years I was there and worked my fingers to the bone and going far above and beyond ,Please do not pre-judge my character. </p>

[akajohndoe]

Uncommunicated expectations lead to resentments.

[chris_whitcomb1]

<p>I don't know what kind of small photography business your running but regardless if you ever get anything from your previous employer, you shot a major ad campaign and your have the original images. Heck, that just might be worth more than you think and could possibly land you more commercial work by you including it in your portfolio. Turn this into a positive by looking forward instead of staying negative by looking back....however, learn the contract lesson!</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p><em>But what if your company called you in as a systems programmer to work extra hours but to shoot photo's for them and not to program. Does your work as a artist, photographer become part of the expectation of job duties.<br /></em><br />Only if, as you're having the conversation and explicitly laying out the rules of the engagement, that's what you both agree on. Many people would say that even if your job is as an accountant with the company, that it's your well-roundedness as a person that makes you more valuable as an employee than just your understanding of double-entry bookkeeping. I've had job positions that were strictly technical, but which had me crossing paths with the marketing people selling what I was behind the scenes doing. I frequently provided them with better language for their materials than they could write by themselves. But I didn't quibble over whether or not "copy writer" was part of my job description, or whether I had rights to the material that was produced. It was part of the job, and helping out made me a more valuable employee in broader terms.<br /><br />Unless you have the vertebrae to say - when asked to bring your creative skills to bear for your employer - that, "I run a business on the side, and only do that sort of thing under contract for those specific services," and are willing and able to produce a formal quote and contract for them to review... then you have to operate instead under whatever framework your customer/employer understands is in place. Because unless you have their signature on something that runs counter to "and other duties as required," then you're simply performing other duties, as required. <br /><br />Whether or not you can make the case that your skills in this area are such that you should be getting a bigger paycheck, and whether or not you're savvy enough to get an amendment to your employment contract <em>in advance</em> because you're now bringing something extra to the table as an employee - that's a separate issue. </p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>do like a p threaten to sue the company that is displaying the images, I suggest that you go speak to attorney that handles copyright lawsuits, if he/she thinks it is a good lawsuit they may file suit without any costs to you, they will get a percentage of what may be recovered. this is the wrong place to come for advice.</p>

[chris_keyworth]

<p >It’s disappointing that so many replies ignored your question and attempted to give you legal advice, the respondent often saying they are not lawyers but... The caustic comments are inappropriate all they do is to reveal the baggage their authors carry, yet they feel they can judge you!</p>

<p >Take no notice of the negative comments, you feel you were used and the issue is important to you, you asked for help and little was forthcoming which is a shame, but if you read the threads that feature in these forums sadly not unexpected. I would suggest you do not attempt to justify your actions any further it’s not necessary when people are not attempting to answer your questions. </p>

<p >I suspect you have formulated some strategy to deal with your situation and I hope you achieve a solution that is acceptable to you.</p>

 

[mt4x4]

<blockquote>

<p>do like a p threaten to sue the company that is displaying the images</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sure his employer would love that.</p>

[aidjoy]

<p>Does anyone in the know feel like answering the only question that this guy posed? What's the going rate for two days worth of commercial photography for a large corporate ad campaign?</p>

<p>C.M. Bergen</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I imagine, Mike, that there <em>is no</em> going rate that can be defined given only what we have to go on in this thread so far. The surrounding employment-related issues keep getting addressed, I suppose, because the OP brought them up again - and he seems interested in establishing his case on that front, even if doing so here is just sort of a rehearsal for having a go at the employer again.<br /><br />The "going rate" is going to depend on licensing for the works, whether equipment rental was involved, whether the photographer needs assistants (and of what caliber), whether a special insurance rider was needed for shooting on a particular location, what sort of timeliness was required/promised in the delivery of the goods, what sort of post-production work was called for, what assurances of garment color accuracy were called for, whether and how the photographer retains portfolio license for the images, and a thousand other things. Every one of those factors (to say nothinig of the photographer's experience and the quality of his finished product and his ability to repeat those performances on demand, every time) dictate the rate. Not to mention the locale of the market, the nature of the available competition, how short-notice the project was, and on and on. There is no simple formula that pulls all of that together into an easy number.<br /><br />Since W.H. says he's been running a photography business for years, I imagine that he himself is the best judge of what his time is worth. If instead we're talking about what the market will bear, that comes down to the client. And in this case, we'll never know because his employer clearly wasn't feeling the need to shop around, or express notions of a budget, which would have shaped such negotiations. Giving W.H. a number would mean playing 20-questions for a lot longer, and would still require pure speculation... because this arrangement happened outside of the normal marketplace. Way outside. <br /><br />When in doubt W? Go for $100/hour. Include all of the time you spent planning the shoot and all of the post production time. Ask yourself if you were performing all of those tasks with the same speed and efficiency as full-time pro fashion crew would have, and you'll know if you're in the neighbrohood. And don't forget that the outside pro would have been factoring in all sorts of overhead expenses (for the marketing expenses that would have landed them the job, for example) that you didn't bear.</p>

[mrraz]

<p>The going rate is whatever the market will bear. I know photographers that get $1000.00 a day plus expenses. I also know a couple that are making $2500.00 a day plus expenses. They are well established where they work, so they have reputations for reliable work. What part of the country also has a great deal to do with pricing.</p>

<p>When I do shoot for money, it all depends on what and for whom I am shooting. I may charge by the shot or by the hour. By the shot my rate is usually $15.00, many very similar setups where only the product has to be changed. This can work out to $90.00/hour. I sign over all rights to what I shoot because it's just not important to me to track copy write issues.</p>

<p>Based on the level of experience mentioned, I'd say he could probably ask for $50.00/hour plus expense for the first 6 hours. Over that a day rate of $400.00 would go into effect no matter how long the shoot. This would cover his rate for preshoot planning, actual shooting time and post production. Issues regarding copy write would have to be handled in the contract. Say you did work for a major retailer, the retailer will require the work to be their sole property. Work that into the cost, but don't expect to get large dollars for it. Many ad campaigns mean nothing more then a weekend sales flyer going nationwide.</p>

<p>Since what W did falls into the commercial photography category, customers are somewhat more restrictive in what they're willing to pay. They aren't interested in art. They are only interested in what sells their product. Argue too much about copy writes, and the job may go bye bye.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<blockquote>

<p><em>What would other professional photographers like you out there charge for this type of shoot(s) two days, that was being used for ad campaign?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /> </em><br>

<em>P</em> rofessional commercial photogrpahers would have gotten their paperwork in order first to avoid exactly this situation. prices will range all over the place depending on who was doing the shooting, the usage specified, etc.</p>

<p>My fees would not be in the same league as Bruce Weber, Albert Watson or Annie Leibovitz, but would likely be higher than some kid just out of photo school, a catalog house, or the inhouse studio at your local newspaper.</p>

<p>At this point you will have to prove that you made the photos and answer why you never discussed or put in writing what the compensation or bonus (was the bonus for the photos or overall job performance?) would be. Especially since you say you have been a professional photographer.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I don't think you have any "rights" other than to call your boss a cheapskate.</p>

<p>What if your boss had asked you to develop a spreadsheet or a Powerpoint presentation for a sales pitch? Even if you "came in early and worked late," that's still part of your job. I don't see that taking pictures for your boss on company time is any different than working on any other project. You don't own they photos as they would be considered a "work for hire." Bosses expect us to do "whatever it takes," and like it or not, if you don't step up they'll be happy to ship you out. You stepped up, and you kept your job. Be happy. Lots of other folks have lost theirs.</p>

<p>Taking freelance pix for your boss is like doing a favor for a family member. Don't expect to be compensated monetarily in these circumstances.</p>

 

[newbie1]

<p>1) do you have or did you copyright the photos as individual photos or as an albumn? If you have a copyright on them there may be some copyright violations here. If you did not there may still be some recovery. You should research this aspect anyway.</p>

<p>2) In California, USA, state labor laws are very rigid and spelled out. You might wish to check on these laws in your area. I also recenetly remember on TV there was a segment on a gentleman who had a product taken by him employer. He sued and after going to the top, many years later, had prevailed. And, Damn if I can come up with his name.</p>

<p>3) But, I think your best bet is to pursue the copyright laws and violations. If you photo is not copyrighted by you you can't sue for punitive damages, if it is not you are limited on what you my get.</p>

<p>Just a thought.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>sue like a p was stated in sarcasm, this is the wrong place for legal advice. What some one charges depends on what state, location, experience, etc. If one is trying to determine worth, then one has to look at the local market, experience, again, if you want to proceed, go talk to an attorney in your area who specializes in copyright, quite often attorney will grant an initial consulatation for free. If the case has merit and money, money being very important, they may take it on a contingency. If nothing else you now can claim that your images are used in advertising, that has to have some worth.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>My gut feeling is that you are going to get nothing out of this unless you want to spend large on lawyers. (I recommend the firm of<a href="http://www.dewey-cheatham-howe.com/"> 'Dewey, Cheathem and Howe LLP'</a> .) Still no guarantee, obviously.<br>

I got ripped off like this earlier in my career. Yes, I was P.O.'ed in the extreme, but I took the fact that my photos were good enough for an international campaign and looked at it as a lesson. You obviously know how to take decent photos. Go look for some clients.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>If the images or whatever are legally now your old employers they are not your images or whatever to claim,</p>

<p>Thus if an ex employee wants to send a bill to his former employer over lines of code written; spreadsheets made; images shot; the idea where to replace the toilet paper roll dispensor; text for Ebay adverts; repair manuals written on can do so.<br>

Maybe you think the ebay images are worth 500 bucks; the banners are worth 2 grand; the lines of code worth 20 grand; the new fax form 200 bucks; the toilet roll idea 50 bucks.<br>

The ex employer can just ignore the oddball bill and press on with watching the ball.<br>

Thus if you feel strongly just fork out cash to see if an attorney wants to fool with suing your ex employer over all the stuff you say you still own.</p>

<p>If folks think a boss is a cheapskete by saving money maybe the boss could have hired an outsider for more cash and just cutted ones salary to help pay the added expense.</p>

<p>The cheapskateness is what helps pay for folks insurance costs and other horrid employee expenses.</p>

<p>Maybe folks on this thread with no business sense would feel better if their bosses cut their wages in half; and the boss was less of a cheapskate; flushing cash down the WC?</p>

<p> </p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>XYZ company sells a new hybrid of apples, the want the employee to do a song about how great the apples are. The employee says he does not want to do a song about apples, they tell him he has to do a song about apples. They want to sell the apples to the largest restaurant chain in the country. The deal is made and now the restaurant chain is selling the apples. Also the restaurant are using his song to play in all their restaurants to draw attention to customers about the new apples and to sell more apples. </em></p>

<p>I suspect employers try to get their photographer employees to provide content more than they do with musician employees, but its the same principle in any event. The problem with being an employee is that there are bosses that can make you do things in order to stay an employee. </p>

 

[BruceSturm]

<p>cut your losses and learn from the huge mistake of not getting a contract in advance or respectfully decline the offer to photograph in a commercial setting. surely you realized the implications of your work? I agree with Matt above - ouch.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>I wonder if is the same story as last fall's about manager of the pet shop who shot some photos for his employer; and mentioned it wasnt in his job description; then the other thread that followed with the same theme? :) Its like its the same story with a different setting; same claims; it repeats every few months.<br>

One can just refuse to do anything ones employer wants and later one will have alot of free time to ponder things !:)</p>

 

[claytontullos]

<p>1st year law student here.</p>

<p>What you have here is a classic "illusory promise" and not enforceable.</p>

<p>Next time agree on compensation, not on an imaginary future bonus of unknown value.</p>

<p>Apparently you were on the clock while you were doing this shoot? If so you have no case at all. If not you might be able to get back two days worth of salary. But honestly its probably not even worth the court costs let alone the attorney fee's.</p>

<p>The information provided herein shall not be construed as legal advice.</p>

[rick_rothwell]

<p>OK, the OP offered more information than might have been necessary for some, but unless you have "A.D.D." try to keep up. He said he was no longer working there, so everyone that says he's lucky to still have his job gets an "F" right away. RIF - Reading Is Fundamental</p>

<p>If I hired you as an accountant would you willing clean the toilets with a tooth brush? Or shine my shoes? Or fix a breaker panel? Doubtful. The "and other duties" clause can be extensive but is not unlimited.</p>

<p>Yes, it sounds like the photos may be his employers work product (but that's what courts are for), just like the gas company employee (Lester LaRue) that took the Oklahoma City bombing photo of the firefighter & dead child:<br>

<a href="http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/index.php?title=Oklahoma_City_Bombing">www.famouspictures.org/mag/index.php?title=Oklahoma_City_Bombing</a> </p>

<p>Compensation for commercial fashion shoots just came up in a lecture with a top photographer. The photo usage and type of marketing campaign (media buy), plus several other factors go into what's appropriate. It's fairly complex and not a familiar formula for those outside of the business.</p>

<p>For example, a simple catalog shoot for a small/local commercial fashion house or store, add $1,000 a day on top of expenses. For larger campaigns under $1 million you get 3% of the ad budget (media buy), 2 1/2% for a media buy of $1 million+, and 2% of a $10 million+ media buy. The shoot may only be a day or two at most. The fees are not stated in flat dollars for psychological and business reasons. But everything is defined up front in a written contract. Without that, anything is something.</p>

 

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Many times a small bill or lawsuit over a false firing or petty claim of ownership will be paid by former employer in the USA; just to move on and avoid negative publicity.<br>

<br /> <br /> If its in a tight industry folks might remember how you were paid off and thus avoid hiring you a decade later or even two .<br>

<br /> <br /> I have see this happen in the disc drive industry; many resumes are compared and some are abit more scary to hire; since there is this turd in a punchbowl remembering of a lawsuit from 10 years ago; ie one gets branded as a troublemaker; a gold digger; a non team player.</p>

<p>Thus weigh the benefits of gaining a few grand if you win a lawsuit versus being earmarked; typically these are settled out of court; its mostly bluffing.<br>

<br /> <br /> When comparing several folks for a position in a tight knit industry; head hunters and other old friends dig up all this old bagage. Legally the possible employer might just know you are over say 18 or under 65; a headhunter might let in you are 45; with 5 kids; 4 are fat and sick; and you sued your last 4 employers over patents; copyrights; images; and were paid off several times.<br>

<br /> <br /> To make payroll I have seen Accountants connecting a spare printer; load up printer drivers; load paper; replace inkjet cartridges; bypass a dead UPS unit; even had write checks when the power was out. Folks do what they have to to get the job done if its a non union place; or non government place.<br>

<br /> <br /> In every one of these threads employees or former employees want the security of being an employee; plus they want ownership of their employers work created on the employers watch.<br>

<br /> <br /> No employer is going to want to re-hire folks who come back and blackmail them for reports, articles, manuals, images; fax forms; spreadsheets; logos, etc.<br>

<br /> <br /> ****A pro doesnt get into this pickle; its all above board; no assuming; little or no sueing.<br /> Maybe if one asked for 3 percent of ad revenue or 2 grand they would have balked.<br>

<br /> <br /> Lets say you are in a tight knit industry; you bluff and get 5 grand from you former employer as hush money; to end the standoff. Is the 5 grand worth being labeled forever as a troublemaker; one who blackmails? If its a small amount to you; whatever the number; weigh one reputation versus cash gained. Some folks have great memories; if your resume is equal to anothers an old troubling issue can make another a safer choice; less risky.</p>

<p>If you are not in a tight knit industry then being a thorn has less risk of being blackballed down the road.<br /> What if the tables were such that the images were in a failed advertising event; a total flop; massive blunder? What if the images were shown in advertising magazines as the worst advert of the year; with ones name associated as the shooter? Then on would have maybe a lessor claim; or even a negative effect on ones photo business; ie being tied to the flop of the year.</p>

<p>Many of us have worked for employers when ones "stuff" one created or did helped the employer; thats what employees are for;<br>

<br /> whether making fries; making a spreadsheet; writing a newspaper article; shooting images; cleaning a toilet; loading up printer drivers; writing lines of code or making a logo. Maybe one shoots the image of the groundbreaking of the new warehouse for the company newspaper.</p>

<p>If it bothers folks here to do "stuff" for ones employer; just cut the funiculus umbilicalis and quit; there is tons of money with being self employed; plus one gets to pay ones own insurance and taxes.</p>

<p>If one wants a commision off that spreadsheet; fax form; image; lines of code; dll written; bring it up while employed.</p>

<p> </p>

[vic_glass]

<p>There's been 46 responses, I was hesitant about adding another, but I have a different perspective. Let's call it psycho-social. So, what is this all about?<br>

Yes, W Hagen was witless, arrogant, and ignorant. And we responded in kind. But I empathize completely with W Hagan, and his is a very human situation. W Hagen (I'll refer to W Hagen as "he" from here on in) likes, perhaps loves photography. He works for a company, and employees of companies are infantilized by their employers and environment. He takes advantage to use his photographic skills and does so. Along the way feels taken advantage of (which is the goal of employers, to take advantage of their employees; the employer is seldom your firend, he will get rid of you when you are no longer of use). And so it goes. By the way, this is why I stopped working as an employee in 1985, and I have never looked back. He states that his boss ordered him (read daddy made me do it) to take the photographs. Well, of course he had a choice.<br>

As responders to this thread have said over he should see this as an opportunity and not as liability. Better to put it on his resume than expend huge amounts of resources (and I don't necessarily mean money here) on fighting with daddy. Daddy always wins.</p>

[brookref]

<p>W - considering the spread of rates, I think you need to get a response to your question about what photographers would charge from commercial photographers in your city/metro area.</p>

<p>Since no one seems to be willing to offer you at least a range, I'd suggest checking with the local pro photographers' association to get an idea of what your work was worth. Of course there are a range of variables but at least you'll get a legitimate range for what you could charge.</p>

<p>I presume that will give you an idea how to price your work next time....</p>

<p>(WHOOPS - I see someone just did try to help you with what you had actually asked!)</p>

<p>(BTW - it has been consistently decided by courts in all jurisdictions that the employer owns the rights to all work done for the company on their premises and/or for their behalf, unless there is a contract that says otherwise. Even if you come up with original ideas, you can't take them with you without permission. Just an FYI.)</p>

[josephbraun]

<p>If there is no contract and/or copyright on the image(s), it will be very hard to have any recourse here.</p>