joeb

<p>Are they using the photo or the pen and ink version? Have you licensed for derivitive work or just use of the photo? Your license should be lower for reproductions of the pen and ink and could be 0. The license to the artist might be:</p>

<p>For $100 I license you to make a pen and ink drawing of my photo. Any reproductions are subjuct to a royalty of 20% of the sales price when sold with a minimum of $10/print or $50/media license(tee shirts/brouchures/notecards/web/publicity/etc.)</p>

<p>Joe</p>

<p><strong><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/maintain/prfaq.jsp">http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/maintain/prfaq.jsp</a></strong><br>

<strong>DOES MY CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION EVER EXPIRE?</strong><br>

<strong>Yes.</strong> Subject to the filing of §8 Declarations, federal trademark registrations issued on or after November 16, 1989, remain in force for 10 years, and may be renewed for 10-year periods. Trademark registrations issued or renewed prior to November 16, 1989 remain in force for 20 years, and may be renewed for 10-year periods.</p>

<p>You can search for active trademarks online at the patent and trademark site. The sign could have been copyrighted. I would guess even if it was under copyright at some point it would be in the public domain now. Even though the company is out of business the trademarks could be sold to someone else. At least trademarks are searchable unlike copyrights.</p>

<p>Joe</p>

 

<p>In the US so long as the photographer described the photo's release status and provided a copy of the release to the magazine you should not be party to any judgement. The more wrong info or advise you give the more likely you could be party to the settlement.<br>

You don't know how the publisher/user of your image will use it. If you tell them the use is ok and they rely on your advise you are in some dudo. When you get questions, here is the photo, here is the release. If you go farther watch out.</p>

<p>"Did you just hand the person a release you didn't really need and stir all this up?"</p>

<p>+1</p>

<p>I wouldn't sign the release either. My Wedding release has:<br>

"on BeecherPhoto.com and to promote his wedding business."</p>

<p>If I'm doing a TFCD I'll get a general release.</p>

<p>Joe</p>

<p>It's normal for a designer to produce a design before printing. That they mailed the piece using your image would not be an issue for me. Give them a price without any penalties.</p>

<p>Joe</p>

<p>There are 2 versions of the FD to EOS adapter. One version has glass in it to focus at infinity. Very few were made by Canon and sold to pros with large glass collections. Very rare and expensive. <br>

<a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html</a><br>

"The Canon part number is C54-2131 and the cost 10 years ago was around $240. It was available only through Canon Professional Services. I don't think it's still available new, but it does show up occasionally on auction and used gear sites, though prices can be as high as $1000 or more!"<br>

The other adapters just does the mechanical connection with no optical adjustments. Much more common and less expensive. Because the FD flange must be closer to the focal plane than the EOS flange you can not focus at infinity or close to infinity.</p>

<p>google PHP photo cart. You will see a few. I've looked at some but not bought and installed any. One I looked at had a crop feature that streched the image. If you uploaded a 4x6 vertical image and selected an 8x10 the width would strech to fill the width rather than cutting off the top/bottom. Not a feature to me.</p>

<p>I would rather have the cart take the order and "Not all images work well with every print size. Any crops that are questionable will be discussed with you prior to production." I want to load low res images, have them displayed with watermarks, take orders, and I do the print order/shipment in a manual process.</p>

<p>I did have an OSCommerce site linked from my site for some of my landscape photos. My event galleries are just plain web galleries with no cart links.</p>

<p><b>Signature URL removed. Not allowed per photo.net Terms of Use.</b></p>

<p>The medical supply co I worked for had employment contracts for salespeople. They were paid a comission and a seperate fee for the no compete clause. They were marketing to doctors. I know of one case where a sales woman whose primary market was hospitals was released from the contract. I know of others where the contract limited those salespeople from calling on thier old accounts.</p>

<p>The key was the exchange you were paid a seperate fee for the no compete. You could refuse the no compete. It was limited to your customers for a fixed period of time. You could go to a <strong>competitor</strong> and work. You just could not call on your old customers for a year. </p>

<p>My understanding was many no compete contracts are thrown out because the no compete is a condition of employment, there is no additional consideration, or it's too broad. If you are considering a no compete you need to get a lawyer involved. The info above was what one company in the northeast did 10-20 years ago. Each state has different laws. <br>

You would normally have a company trade secret policy. The policy would state that customer lists, price lists, supplier lists, ... are company property and trade secrets of the company. Employees use this information to do thier jobs. On leaving employment any copies of these trade secrets shall be returned to the company. Use of these trade secrets after leaving employment will considered theft.</p>

<p>I would not write 0. If the model recieved cd and license or prints, write that. I have read that contracts with $1 or no consideration have been thrown out. A contract to be valid must have a meaningful exchange. </p>

<p>I (Model) for the valuable consideration of a CD and Copyright License. (release) Any photographs taken on 99/99/9999. For the use by (Photographer) and ...</p>

<p>Joe</p>

<p>Good reason not to post un-watermarked images to facebook or any other social media site. Almost all these sites strip off your copyright metadata. If someone crops out your watermark, in the US they are in violation of the DMCA by removing your copyright information.<br>

Joe</p>

<p>Studio lights set up left/right. put one of the lights to trigger off a cable or radio trigger only. Set the other to trigger off the flash or cable/radio. Your photos come out good with flash from both lights. Thiers come out blown on one side with shaddows on the other.(flash synced light behind johnny so his face is in shaddow if possible). </p>

<p><a href="http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm">http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm</a><br />If the mural was in copyright a photo would be a derivative work. By placing it on public display, I would consider it published. Only unpublished works are covered by copyright before 1923. The Cornell page is where I go when I have a question on public domain status.</p>

<p>Joe</p>

<p>When was the mural installed? When was the capitol built? Most likely the copyright lapsed or was never registered. It's only recently that copyright vested with the creator with out registration.</p>

<p>Works for the Federal government depending on how it was purchased/produced is public domain. Your state may have similar laws.</p>

<p>Joe</p>

<p>"If you don’t think you can afford to do anything they would consider worthwhile for that price, politely refuse (and ideally refer them to somebody who you think might be suitable)."<br>

Wrong move. </p>

<p>If you should send them to a photographer laking the skills or willing to do no/little PP at a much lower price. Tell them you get what you pay for. If you need to meet the budget # with the terms and conditions you are looking for you need to go to a plop and pop house. You'll get the images but need to reshoot many. Why do auto garrages buy quality tools? They can't afford to have junk. Can they?</p>

<p>Joe</p>

<p>the photo</p>

<p>I sold a photo of a family towing a raft and had some of these issues. It was sold to a local chamber's area guide as a panarama above a section on local activities. Very much an editorial use. No one was recognizable. They thought they could recognize the boat and wanted a fee for the use.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.clearbags.com/">http://www.clearbags.com/</a><br>

Has bags, mats, backing. You want 11x14 mats for a 8x10 photo. If you buy 100 they have good prices. I did 100 of each and got a delivered total of 139.37. AdoramaPix just sent an email promo (good through 11/2?/2009) 8x10 for .99 or 1.19 in Metalic. You would just need to buy some good tape.</p>

<p>Just though you might like a couple of other options.</p>

<p>Joe</p>

<p>Museum work is tricky. You need to understand thier expectations. All museums that are not tourist traps are non-profits. The expectation I have run into is close to work for hire. They don't want you selling images of thier collection. You need to communicate and understand the limitations they want on the images. Price accordinally.</p>

<p>I did photos in an exibition catalog for the Rufus Porter Museum. (Artist/Inventor/Founder of Scientific American) I didn't charge enough. Make sure you charge for your post time. Their expectations were much higher than I budgeted for. I should have charged an hourly rate instead of rolling into a flat quote. Live and learn.</p>

<p>Joe</p>

<p><a href="http://www.graphtecamerica.com/ce5000-40.html">http://www.graphtecamerica.com/ce5000-40.html</a><br>

Is a cutter that will cut cusom shapes designed in Illustrator. There are larger more expensive versions that include a printer from Graph Tec and others. Just thought you might be interested in short run custom shapes.<br>

The Craft ROBO Pro's Auto Registration Mark Detection commands <a href="http://www.graphtecamerica.com/glossary.html" target="_blank">contour cuts</a> (die cuts) directly from Adobe Illustrator® with the included *Cutting Master 2 plug-in.<br /><br />*<a href="http://www.graphtecamerica.com/glossary.html" target="_blank">Cutting Master 2</a> is GRAPHTEC'S software plug-in that allows you to design and cut directly from CorelDraw® or Adobe Illustrator®.</p>

<p>Joe</p>

<p>If they remove your watermark, that is a violation of the Digital <strong>Millennium Copyright Act</strong> (DMCA)</p>

<p>

<p align="left">(i) to remove or alter any electronic rights</p>

<p align="left">management information without authority;</p>

<p align="left">(ii) to distribute, import for distribution, broadcast</p>

<p align="left">or communicate to the public, without authority,</p>

<p align="left">works or copies of works knowing that electronic rights</p>

<p align="left">management information has been removed or altered<br>

without authority.</p>

<p>Good Luck,</p>

<p>Joe</p>

</p>

<p>It looks like the symphony paid you to shoot for thier use. The license covers this use in overall spirit. The issue I would have is research time. If you are going to provide images to thier publicity venues you should be paid a research fee. $50/first $10/each additional per request. The symphony would normally provide the images directly.</p>

<p>The no third party clause could apply to you only IE they have exclusive use of the images. Is this thier contract? You need to rewrite thier contract into a contract you can live with. Use Plus is a good place to start.</p>

<p> <a href="http://www.useplus.com/home.asp">http://www.useplus.com/home.asp</a> </p>

<p>You need to understand the client's needs.</p>

<p>Joe</p>

<p>The IRS may have something to to say. With board members you can have a financial relationship with the non-profit. Board Members should not vote on thier comensation and the fees/benefits must be within the norm of what you could collect else where.<br>

There are some other non-profits like AidJoy. The ProPublica that did the NY Times Magazine piece <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/magazine/30doctors.html?_r=1&ref=magazine">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/magazine/30doctors.html?_r=1&ref=magazine</a> has a relationship with Sheri Fink (an M.D., is a staff reporter at ProPublica, the independent nonprofit investigative organization. She is the author of “War Hospital: A True Story of Surgery and Survival” and is a senior fellow at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative.) How is that relationship structured? If you were to do a book of the images you have done for AidJoy, that could fit with the vission and mission.</p>

<p>I found it on the Canon site:<br>

400D raw buffer approx 10<br>

450D raw buffer approx 6<br>

500D raw buffer approx 9<br>

so we are back where the 400D was in buffer size.</p>

<p>Anyone see the raw buffer size? I saw the JPG was up to 174 @ 3.4/sec. The 450D was a decrease in raw buffer from the 400D. </p>

Part of DCMA is certification that the copyright to the image in question is yours. Only the copyright owner has the right to make derivative works except for fair use.

 

One of the fair use exceptions is parody. If the charity image was used to comment on the charities lack of charity it could be fair use. i.e.: charity image starving African child, parody image starving African child with man in suit counting $100 bills caption while children starved, the fat cats at xyz charity only spent $100,000 of $5,000,000 donated in 2007 on feeding those children.

 

Be careful using DMCA.