Fair and reasonable value, do you practice it?

[Tom J]

Hey thanks for the reply,
As for usage, I pretty much practice non-exclusive and sometimes “one-time” use for a client based on their budget. As I mentioned above to Birdman, I am still an old school believer of e-6. I’m not going to live by it forever, but I do love the latitude and control.

As I mentioned earlier, I think my feeling for “fair and reasonable value” in a “loss, theft or damage” provision in my contract can stay but perhaps just reword it in a sense that most clients can feel comfortable with. Basically telling them that if I lease an original to them for specific time period, that the original is agreed to be of such, such value. So when it comes time to using it, the client will think twice about how to handle the original. Hopefully protecting it.

Anyhow, just curious I looked at your photos online. Have you ever been to Kenilworth or Warrick Castle “across the pond”? I myself have some pretty cool shots from there from when I visited a couple of years ago.

Thanks for the help folks,

Tom

[Birdman]

FRANK OTTO “Frankly, unless you are self published, everything we do is a work for hire”

Frank, I have to disagree with your statement.

First and foremost, unless a “work for hire” agreement is signed by the photog, the Copyright Act of 1976 and as amended AUTOMATICALLY assures the photographer that the image is legally his/hers and any usage thereafter must be granted by the copyright holder. There are, of course, additional issues regarding registering a copyright for the purposes of seeking punitive damages, but the bottom line is the image belongs to whomever created it.

Maybe your statement was a philosophical one as opposed to the legal stuff. If so, I still disagree with you, but if that’s your business plan and manner of operating, to each their own.

Further reference may be found at this link:
https://asmp.org/commerce/assignment.php

The bottom line is creatives of all genre are under fire from those that would use their services. Last year, Congress passed and the President signed a bill that limited the payment of “overtime” to many different catagories of employees. Although “freelance” photogs obviously could not be included (unless work for hire was the manner of employment)many in the creative sector were…for instance, I have a close friend who has worked on many tv commercials for one of the major auto makers. In order to get a commercial ready for the Superbowl, he worked for 36 hours with an occasional 1 or 2 hour meltdown. He put in over 80 hours in a 5 day “work week”. Guess who DIDN’T get paid overtime. He has no equity in the company, he is not “management”, and he did not share in the massive profit that was realized from the “rush fees” charged to the auto maker.

If it seems like I just digressed from the “topic”, I don’t think I did. “Work for hire” is a truly bad thing for any creative. Next time someone tells you they want to own the images you create, inquire if you will be covered by their work comp and liability policies, their auto liability insurance, their E&O insurance, and if their health plan includes dental and vision. Might give them an insight to what it REALLY costs to produce the images they need for their ad campaign.

Sorry about the soapbox…

Regards – David Bird

[Tom J]

Hello David,

That pretty much sums it up what I was referring to a couple of days ago with Seth:

[Tom J] “Plus “work-for-hire” is generally harmful as we all know it in the “design” world. Or at least it is in my mind. Work for hire contracts are ugly, ambiguous and more often than not against the designer and with the client. Allowing one to get as much out of a project as possible without paying going rates for it.”

In a round about way, my topic of discussion here kind of somehow brought up the work for hire topic. While talking about it, I couldn’t help but think about a recent case concerning Ebay and a prominent fashion / model Photog, when his photos were being reused and sold without his consent. He brought a lawsuit against Ebay and the users responsible for allowing this to continue even though he explicitly described the situation to Ebay and asked for them to put a stop to it. After many months, he finally sued them, and I believe won.

Not much of a point really sorry, except for that it was his photos under copyright, because he shot them for a client and they remained his. Because he created them.

Again, thanks for the help folks appreciate your time.
Tom

[Seth Bloombaum]

Regarding work for hire, I think we’re all projecting the common practices of our specialty art or craft in our industry onto others’ specialties and industries. “Work for hire is always bad or even predatory” is meaningless if not offensive when we come to the video and other media specialties supporting corporate communications in the U.S. FYI.

Likewise, many outside of it are unaware of the common industry practices regarding preservation of copyright to pro photographers in publishing, advertising and portraiture.

It took several messages for the issue of “fair and reasonable value” to come out in such a way that I understood what we were talking about. I think the reason is that we’re all like fish swimming in our own sea – we don’t usually see the water we’re swimming in, nor imagine that it’s different anywhere else.

[Tom J]

[Seth Bloombaum] “fish swimming in our own sea – we don’t usually see the water we’re swimming in”

Yeah it’s a little muddy on my end, temp is about 68 degrees and I’m having trouble seeing through all of these overgrown coho tails in front of me trying to beat me up river… :>)

Tom

[Joseppi]

Tom,

>>As for usage, I pretty much practice non-exclusive and sometimes “one-time” use for a client based on their budget. As I mentioned above to Birdman, I am still an old school believer of e-6. >>

Pardon my question, but what’s “e-6”?

>>…Basically telling them that if I lease an original to them for specific time period, that the original is agreed to be of such, such value. So when it comes time to using it, the client will think twice about how to handle the original. Hopefully protecting it.>>

That sound reasonable. Now many commercial (film) labs, have adding scanning to their processing services. This is a nice bridge for the strictly film photogs, that lets them deliver scans on CD to their commercial clients (for layouts) without having to invest in all the computers, scanners, etc. And it keeps the transparencies from getting lost. I liked seeing that option available to the film photogs…

>>Anyhow, just curious I looked at your photos online. Have you ever been to Kenilworth or Warrick Castle “across the pond”? I myself have some pretty cool shots from there from when I visited a couple of years ago.>>

Not those castles in particular, but on a future trip someday I’d like to visit. I did make it to Bath (with the Roman baths), Stone Henge, S. Ireland… There is so much history to cover, just in England alone… the pub down the street could be 800 years old… we’ve lucky in the US to have buildings that didn’t get ripped down in the “pour cememt slab” rebuilding frenzy in the 70s…

Do you have a web site with any of your photography?

Cheers!

[Tom J]

Hey there,
Yeah I guess I was little to quick to use some short-hand there. “e-6” (slide film or the processing thereof)… :>)

Anyhow about CD’s, the labs that I’ve worked with in the past do offer it and I like the service (it cuts my schedule down a bit). The only difficult part from time to time is making sure they don’t color correct during the scan. So depending upon who is doing the work, they may forget that their equipment or software inside lets say Photoshop may have presets on exposure, gamma, etc.

As for a website with my content, I am re-working one slowly but surely. However I will email you a link or at least touch base through your website for the time being. It’s been kinda hectic lately, so I will get to it just as soon as I can.

Thanks,
Tom