[Tom J]

For rfp, rfq’s whatever you wish to call them I myself have a standard form that I use. I created multiple versions for each type of job. Saves a lot of time and headaches later on for me.

I also usually itemize the specific details that the client requested or pointed out and that’s about it. This way there is no confusion between each party. You shouldn’t have to be to critical, but you do want to make sure that you present your bid to your prospect so that they can understand it, and so they can be reassured that you are following along on the same page as they are so to speak.

HTH,
Tom

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Tom J]

[Birdman] “This “work for hire” thing really got hot in the 90’s when National Geographic dropped their typical way of doing business and demanded that their photogs do the work for hire. Geographic lost a lot of very, very good shooters.”

I vaguely recall this situation, A long time ago, I used to be on the bounce as an assistant with some great folks from SI, Upperdeck, and NBA. That’s where I pretty much picked up alot of my know-how, and to this day still live by it. God I wish I were still there. Long story… :>(

[Birdman] “I have a “damage” clause in my contract that stipulates a specific sum if originals are returned damaged. I base the damage fee on the total amount of the job. This is sorta a moot point for me, nowadays since most of my work is delivered in a digital manner.”

That’s sort of what I’ve got going at the moment, and I figured as much. I just can’t figure out the best way to describe my reasoning to a client when the issue is brought up. Not too good with that I guess. :>( Heck, I’m still working e-6, which don’t get me wrong is a good thing, old school believer here. More digital is coming for me but not soon enough.

Thanks for the input appreciate it…
Tom

[Tom J]

Hey guys,
First let me mention, I can take the critisism, analysis, beating whatever you want to call it. It doesn’t bother me. :>) I’m just as confused as you are to be honest. Recently and god bless him, I was doing exactly that, working with someone who was handling contracts, sales, etc. for me when the need should arise. It was the best thing that I ever done. Unfortunately though, he has passed away.

So that left me in a bind more or less, because a few contract terms for whatever reason has always plagued me. Its pretty sad I know, but that’s the way it is.

Forget about design I know what the client is due and who owns what when payment is made, I am refering to Photography.

The clients that I have been working for most of the time are assignment based yes and for a said fee they retain ownership. But when it comes to photography the fine line shifts a little, because often photos can be used elsewhere. Stock, magazines, promo items, trade show collateral, etc. Depending upon the subject, I can typically re-sell certain photos.

“If you have retained full rights to the ownership/copyright, etc., then you can set whatever you feel is fair and reasonable”, I know that, thank you, that’s not what I was refering to.

This has nothing to do with type of market, just plain ol’ terms used in a contract. Like I mentioned, Fair and reasonable value. When it is used under a loss, theft or damage provision while leasing original transparencies to a client to use these same photos for a restricted period of time. One would place a value above and beyond the original price for use that replaces the original in the event that the client has lost, or damaged it.

But some clients I have dealt with just simply argue that the “insurance” is unreasonable and unnecessary. I don’t think that it is. That is what I am discussing here, so I apologize if I didn’t define my question enough earlier. :>)

Rights of use provisions with restricting a client from full ownership is in just about every contract or terms and conditions when it comes to photography, whether it be a receipt of product for review, job confirmation, stock arrangement, or lease.

Thanks for beating your eyes back and forth while reading this,
Tom

[Tom J]

Hey there,
First you were the one who mentioned “work for hire”. It’s not all “work for hire”, sometimes projects are exclusive but most of the time, architectural, scenic, sports, engineering, discovery, etc. can be used or sold elsewhere. So my question was asking about “fair and reasonable value when it comes to using photographs, original designs, etc.” in contract or client relationship terms. Nothing to do with work for hire. By omitting any such term as copyright, I would’ve thought that it was understood that I am retaining ownership.

As a fulltime freelancer, I avoid if at all possible any “work for hire” arrangements. Especially with photography. It all depends on the client, the job, and potential future usage. Ie. stock.

[Seth Bloombaum] “Relationships are more cooperative in the creative and work communities”

True and I agree, I enjoy the collaborative support with fellow creatives, its the clients that seek creative support because they require it that I struggle with when they want to turn things around.

Like I said, “work for hire” a whole ‘nother can a worms. “I wasn’t aware that there was an ethical way for the designer to be against the client, or the client against the designer”. I never mentioned ethical. But now that you mentioned it, personally work for hire in of itself is unethical although protected if two parties agree to it. In a freelance situation, work for hire is against the designer or artist simply because it is a tool used explicitly for the purpose of copyright and nothing else. So depending on the agreement of course, it terminates any future use by the artist.

In my experience some clients rather hire me as a “payrolled” contractor. Thus changing any initial agreements or discussions that would allow me certain rates or project income. A work for hire as I have experienced a couple of times allows clients to ask for more. Whether it be concepts, multiple looks, frames, final design, yadah, yadah, yadah, or the amount of time spent on a project for a certain fixed day or weekly rate. Plus, future income potential is thrown out the window if any part of that project is usable elsewhere.

So now that we’ve beaten that dead horse and re-written war-n-peace, forget all that, it has nothing to do with what I was seeking.

“I was mainly leaning towards Photography with this question” Ok we got that duh!.
“with photos during a restricted use project when the client needs originals, transparencies, etc.”
and then,
“What I was curious about was the originals during an agreed restricted use time period, whether it be 3 months or 3 years.”

How do you handle “fair and reasonable value” discussions when it comes to using photographs, original designs, etc.

I hastily forgot earlier before I needed to go somewhere that this work is for general business collateral, ADV., PR or promotional, for my side. The client side is for their use in however they see fit, basically campaigns to promote their business, multiple spreads, quantity runs, etc.

I’m falling asleep here (1am), I apologize if it is not allowed, and don’t mean to offend:
I am going to go have sex with my wife like she’s my girlfriend…

Thank you,
Tom

[Tom J]

Hi,
I was mainly leaning towards Photography with this question. Sometimes in linear land we can get away with owning the rights, not likely though majority of the time. But with photos during a restricted use project when the client needs originals, transparencies, etc. one needs to protect themselves. Future income potential is at stake and especially so if the original is misplaced or lost. Just future use in general really. 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.

Anyhow, that’s a whole ‘nother can a worms. What I was curious about was the originals during an agreed restricted use time period, whether it be 3 months or 3 years. When the value of an original is presented whether to protect from loss or to cover future income, clients generally become surprised or turned off.

So I was wondering how you folks may handle situations like this and if it is ever questioned, how do you describe the need or explain your justification.

Hopefully that’s not too confusing, thanks.
Tom

[Tom J]

I know its late in response, but I second Keith here. If you can afford it or find a good reliable accountant who is kind enough to offer a nice deal overall. Using them for bookkeeping is the way to go.

Tom