Copyright grabs to reduce liability

[photomark]

<p>Okay John, since you insist, let's take a look at your argument:</p><p>I've told you that for what they are able to pay I'm unwilling to sign over the copyright (something to which I attach value) as a condition of this job. You have

argued that this is silly because if I don't get the job, I lose not only the fee I may have collected, but I also don't have the opportunity to shoot the images and

therefore still don't own the copyright for the simple reason that the photos don't exist. </p><p>Is that about right?</p><p><b>If so, how is it different than this situation:</b><br />

You are in a service business and somebody asks for an hour of your time. You tell them you're happy to help them, your rate is $200/hr. They say, I'm sorry I

will only pay you $100 - take it or leave it.</p><p><b>What do you do?</b></p><p>Using the logic you advocate in this thread, your thought process might go like this: Accept the job and make $100 or turn it down and make $0. Since $100 is

greater than $0 you should take the job. </p><p>It sounds so simple and reasonable, but there are a few reasons why nobody actually runs a business this way:

<ul>

<li>It assumes there is no opportunity cost in taking the job. If

you take the job for $100, you might miss the opportunity to charge $200 for that hour. If you're busy the odds of this happening are quite high, if you're not busy, you might be overvaluing your service. </li>

<li>Information travels and and it will be difficult to control the knowledge that you will work for $100 making it more difficult to charge $200 in future. This puts

downward pressure on both your own prices and your market in general.</li>

<li> It also reduces to absurdity: the same argument can be applied whether the potential

client offers you $100/hr or $1/hr. $1 is still better than $0 dollars, right?</li>

<ul>

[john_h.1]

None of that is analogous nor demonstrates why the same goals cannot be acheived without a transfer. The $200 rate is,

itself, a goal while copyright is merely incidental and also inconsequential in this instance.

 

One exception could be the 'news travels fast' phenomenon but it doesn't seem credible that the one job will have any

real effect. Indeed, it is unlikely you believe it will since you have already explained that the job is a loss financially. If you

were truly worried about word getting around, the job would be rejected for pricing alone.

 

There is nothing indicated that shows the copyright issue as anything other than emotional. The self respect explanation

makes it quite clear. Thats fine for you but other readers should recognize the position for what it really is.