danmarchant

<blockquote> <p><em>Matt, I'm not understanding the logic. If one embeds the profile and it's not actually needed by the computer's CMS, then no-harm/no-foul. If it is needed, it's there. The converse is the worse situation.</em></p> </blockquote> <p><em><br /></em>It's not about the profile it is about the colours. An aRGB file isn't just an sRGB file with a profile attached. The colours are different, so if an aRGB file is read as sRGB by software that doesn't understand the profile, the colours are displayed incorrectly. </p>

<p>I don't know of any online samples so can't help but do have a thought for you. If you find an online form do you know enough about IP law to know if it is valid/binding in your country/state or if there are any issues it should be addressing but isn't?</p>

<p>I think the norm is to charge an hourly/day rate for the shoot, plus expenses, plus usage fee dependent on how/where the image will be used.</p>

<p>First question... does your Guardian magazine contract contain any exclusivity period or grant them copyright? In other words have you checked that you are free to license the image to this person?<br> As for calculating prices you would need to provide info on how many copies/where it will be published. A good way to get a rough idea is to visit a selection of Stock Image sites. They all have online rate calculators so you can pretend you are buying an image for the same usage and they will give you a quote.</p>

<p>You didn't say where you are. Laws vary from country to country so you need to provide that information if you want accurate answers. However your use of the term "Work for Hire" makes me think you may be in the US. It s also unclear from your post if the offered website work was to act as payment/part payment or was separate from the actual photography.<br /> <br />1. In the US, the photographer would own the copyright on the images by default unless they were an employee or had signed a work for hire agreement (and the work produced meet the criteria for work-for-hire - simply signing such an agreement, where the work doesn't meet the criteria won't make it work-for-hire). <br /> 2. Based on your description this individual is a student doing this project as a freelance individual and no contract of any sort was signed. That means this isn't work-for-hire and you don't own the copyright.<br /> 3. You are right that they should honour your verbal agreement, but as mentioned above it will be hard to prove what that was. Was the agreement for a flat fee for the work or was it an hourly rate? If an hourly rate how do you prove that they wasted time? Did you offer to pay cash first and then change the offer to website work or was that work always part of the deal?<br /> 4.</p> <blockquote> <p><em>So if they turned around and sold the images of my property would this be copyright infringement? Or at the very least would they require some sort of release from me.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>No and no. <br /> You didn't tell us what the equipment is. If it is specialist equipment that you purchased then you don't even have any copyright ownership. If it is equipment you designed/invented/built you would have rights but simply photographing the items would not infringe those rights. Neither would selling copies of those images. Using the image to recreate the equipment however would be an infringement.<br /> <br /> Conclusion<br /> What you have is a contractual dispute with a supplier. The supplier believes they have performed beyond the original agreement and you believe they have not. They have photographs for which they have not been paid, you have money but no photographs. Unfortunately you didn't detail the terms in a written agreement so ultimately it is your word against theirs.<br /> It would seem that the best solution would be to negotiate an acceptable compromise that results in an exchange of these items. You can try explaining to the student why you don't believe they are owed any more (the extra time was as a result of the time they spent on personal matters, not as a result of them doing extra work). Unfortunately if they don't accept your view then you either....<br /> a) agree to pay more (maybe not as much as they initially ask for)<br /> b) go to court (which will just be your word against theirs)<br /> c) go off and find someone else to take the photos and use a written contract.<br /> One final issue remains. That of the photographer selling the images. Is this a realistic option? Is there likely to be a market for these images? If not then you are likely the only way they are going to get paid for their work which is at least a plus in your favour.</p>

<p>What is the point of having a 35% advance payment clause, if you then go ahead and invest your time/money before the advance is paid? While not a pro photographer I have seen the same situation in my day job (software development). Unlike the posters above I would never have done any work prior to payment of the advance. An evasive clients is at best horribly disorganised and at worst planning to not go ahead. In either case you should never be the one who has spent money/time because you end up where you are now, trying to chase payment. Once they have paid you the advance they have skin in the game. They have a reason to move forward and if they don't you aren't the one who is hurt financially.</p> <p>Given your current situation your best course of action is not to keep hassling the unresponsive/disorganised primaries. Instead you should be calling their accounts department and asking to speak to "account receivable". Tell them you have an overdue invoice, that you spoke to Mr X on [date] and he said payment would be made by [date] and ask what the status is. They will almost certainly say that they don't have a copy of the invoice or that they have no record of the project etc etc. You can immediately email/fax them the copies of the invoice/contract that you have sitting next to you ready. </p> <p>Once you have payment of the 35% (and they don't have any images in anything approaching a usable form) you are in a much better position to push the project forward. Even after payment I wouldn't do any more work until they have given a clear indication that they intend to proceed (such as actually supplying the required letter of introduction).</p>

<p>Two issues here...<br> 1. Lack of a detailed brief. Without that you have the potential to waste time taking images that turn out to be wholly unsuitable for their actual needs. As Matt says you need to ensure you are paid for your time and costs, and that if they place an upper limit on the time that you stop shooting and pack your bags when that time is reached (regardless of if you have all the images they want). One potential issue I can see immediately is their desire to have "street shots" to use in their corporate promotions. Unless they are talking about carefully staged street <em>style</em> shots there may be legal issues. Street shots generally contain members of the public and the company will need to get signed releases from those people before they can use any of the shots in their marketing.<br> 2. Usage rights. "....to mainly use for social media and websites." To me this phrase reads as "....to mainly use for social media and websites, plus whatever we decide to use them for later". With commercial/promotional photos, the more people that will see it, the more it is worth. <br> You need to make sure that your contract has a usage cost for social media and a set of defined websites and also a separate clause stating that additional usage beyond that is subject to negotiation. You don't want to get paid for social/websites and then find your images appearing in magazines and on billboards.</p>

<blockquote> <p><em>The image is copyrighted when you took it.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>But in the US, registering your copyright provides for very significant additional protections that are not available with unregistered images.<em><br /></em></p>

<blockquote> <p><em>"...best and less expensive...."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>I'm afraid these two are often mutually exclusive. Cheaper options may offer less features, or less redundancy. <em><br /></em><br> You also need to decide if you are looking for a backup service or a sync service - they are very different. For example I use Crashplan to backup my files to a local drive and to the cloud. This produces a compressed/encrypted archive for use in recovery if my drive fails. That is very different from something like Dropbox which is designed to sync files between multiple machines. </p>

<p>Fees are generally based on...<br> 1. Day rate - your standard charge for working a day.<br> 2. Project specific costs (travel, accommodation, equipment hire, hire of assistants/models)<br> 3. Usage rights - will the image be used in an advert in the local paper or will it be in a nationwide ad campaign. The more eyes see it the more it costs. <br> I would suggest you go to Getty and get a quote for a similar image for the same usage. That will give you a rough idea.</p>

<p>Agree with the above.... You can stick a watermark/overlay on the bottom of the image or a caption to say what the settings were. I want to hear about how and why you took it, as well as what you decided not to include.</p>

<p>That is the quickest and easiest thing to do in this sort of situation.</p>

<blockquote> <p><em>I may see them post to their Facebook, use as profile photos, everyone compliments and likes them, all is good, right? Nope. A year later, I get a call and suddenly out of no where they hate their photos or the photos of their kids and/or suddenly I ruined everything in their entire life. What is this about?</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Sounds like people who have heard that if you make a fuss you can get a refund (and keep the images). The fact that they did not complain on receipt of the images (or within a reasonable time after receipt) and used them on Facebook etc would (if a serious dispute developed and ended up in court) be taken as proof that the images were of an acceptable standard. Ignore them.</p>

<blockquote> <p><em>The (human) photographer set up the shot and presumably has the original RAW files. If he asserts his ownership of copyright, only the monkey can challenge that if he believes he is the true copyright owner - and I don't think that would happen!</em><br /><br /><em>Wikipedia cannot do it on the monkey's behalf.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Seems a lot of people have been mislead by the media's usual sloppy headline writing. The press all played this out as "Wikipedia say Monkey owns copyright - not the photographer" but that isn't the case.<br /><br />Wikipedia's position is that neither the photographer or the monkey own the copyright. The tog does not own the copyright as the monkey took the image but the monkey can not own the copyright as it is not human. As a result they believe no one owns the copyright and thus the image is public domain. </p>

<p>Your price sound a little low to me but not wildly so. As for worrying about charging them too much, don't. If they don't spend the money buying your art it will just be spent on the next (in a long line) of consultants who get called in to review the workings of the NHS and recommend undoing all the changes that were recommended by the previous set of highly (over) paid consultants.</p>

<p>Was I drunk yesterday? That is the exact opposite of what I remember typing. Should have read...<br> He was clearly in the wrong and is a d head.</p>

<p>Watermarking the image would be a bad idea. Never watermark an image that is for the client and has been paid for (isn't a proof). It makes the image look bad and there is no point because they already know who you are.</p>

<p>You was clearly in the wrong and is a d head.</p>

<p>From a legal standpoint what the client did was copyright infringement. You could take action against here. The client almost certainly doesn't know and even if they do, they probably don't care. Taking legal action against them for printing "their" images will just turn a happy person (I won't use the word client) into one who doesn't like you <em>and says so</em>.</p> <p>From a business standpoint you almost certainly didn't lose anything because she was never going to buy anything in the first place. Offering stuff for free attracts people who want stuff for free. The chance that they will turn into customers is very low indeed. Discounts and freebies should only be used to incentivize existing customers who have already spent money with you.</p> <p>The best you can do now is get some benefit from the images by using them in your portfolio to properly promote your business.</p>

<p>There are probably several views of this. Here are just two...<br> 1. He charges money to create a video and knows he will need a cover image. He should spend the time to take an image, or negotiate in advance with you to use one of your images (either for pay or not). It seems quite unprofessional of him to just hope the photographer gives you an image.<br> 2. You have been paid for the images by the B&G and it seems a little churlish to worry about them using some on the DVD cover - it isn't like it is going to be a million copy selling blockbuster movie.</p> <p>I would certainly draw up a small contract stating the terms on which he can use the image. IE, the cover of the DVD and the image may not be used anywhere else for promotional purposes or sold.</p>

<p>As was mentioned earlier there was a movie camera present at the flag raising when Jim took his iconic photo. A chap by the name of Greg Williams realised that the movie footage almost certainly included a frame taken at the same moment as the iconic photo. He checked and, sure enough, it did. It was taken from a position a few feet to the right of Jim Rosenthal and when combined with the iconic shot it creates a 3D view of that moment in time - http://williamsprojects.wordpress.com/tag/bill-genaust/</p>

<p>I'm afraid I agree with Michael. I don't see that you have any reason for any sort of complaint. You didn't ask in advance if they wanted your photo on their page and didn't get an agreement from them that they would allow a link back to your page. If all you wanted was to have your picture on their page for the enjoyment of their viewers then mission accomplished. If however you were seeking to benefit from their popularity and gain exposure for your page by having a link from a well established page you should have agreed that with them first.<br> When you license a photo to a company or a magazine it is up to you to negotiate the terms on which it can be used <em>in advance</em> - and to provide them with a license agreement. If you just send a photo to a magazine with a note saying "here is a photo for publication in your magazine" you can't then complain if they don't provide a credit or pay you any money. That is exactly what you did here. </p>

<p>Pigma Micron pens - http://www.sakuraofamerica.com/Pen-Archival</p>

<p>Great topic and lots of great shots.<br> re the Steinmtz image</p> <blockquote> <p><em>(what is that crack? If it's a door, it seems to be nailed shut).</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Julie, it's the bottom of a door, with a draft excluder nailed on. We have one on the bottom of our store room door.<em><br /></em><br> <br />Here is my contribution...<br /><br /><img src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-u2rK0RJUyME/U38PAjYjOnI/AAAAAAAAGxk/CLyxnvebhRE/s800/DM852-2014-01-05-5891.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p><em>That's not really relevant when the stock agency requires them.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>It is when referring to a comment about courts recognising a requirement for property releases. Stock isn't the only way to sell images. Lots of large companies use a purchase order system and won't pay an invoice unless you quote the PO number. You are forced to request and quote the PO if you want to do business with the company. That doesn't mean courts are going to decide that PO are a legal requirement. It is simply a business process a company has chosen to adopt.<em><br /></em></p>