Posted by Greg Lessard on December 15, 2010 at 8:10 PM
I am working as a photogaphy tour leader for an organization. As part of the terms of employment, they asked me to sign a clause that stated that the rights to all intellectual material created while working for them would become theirs. I refused to sign it. They have countered with the following clause:
"Greg Lessard will retain all rights to photographs taken by him while working as a part-time employee of the ___________. This includes rights to reproduce and sell images. _______________shall have the right to use the images for publicity and marketing purposes free of charge."
So far, I have already provided them a one time use, for a few photos, free of charge to advertise my events. However, I don't want to just give them the right to use my photos as they see fit. This is a good opportunity for me and I don't want to irritate them, but I am not keen on giving them rights to use my photos. Any thoughts on this would be welcome. If you think that I should not agree to this clause, I would appreciate advice on how to approach them about changing it without losing the opportunity to work for them.
Thank you in advance for your thoughts.
Posted by Alain Briot on December 15, 2010 at 9:00 PM
Greg,
If they use your work to advertise the event you will be leading, then I think it is fair. If they plan to use your images for future events you are not involved in, then I would pass. Just ask them to clarify which events they plan to use your images for. They showed they are willing to negotiate and they came down quite a bit from their initial request, so I think all you need now is a little more clarification and all should be well.
I worked as a contractor for several years and terms like this are common in many industries. The formal term is work made for hire and lawyers like to sneak it into standard contracts to benefit their employers, hoping it doesn't get challenged. I have always been successful in negotiating it out of contracts, so my sense is that most companies expect it to be negotiable.
The new language proposed above seems reasonable to me. As Alain mentioned, you may want to add something like "only in connection with future Greg Lessard offerings" at the end of the last sentence.
Keep in mind I'm not a lawyer, this had just been my own experience.
We've agreed to similar terms with one additional provision: A time limit on their use for publicity and marketing. It's negotiable obviously, but one to two years is within the realm. Any use beyond that should be compensated, but surveillance will be up to you.
The details of these contracts are very fluid from one client to the next, and as you are discovering there's always the fear of pushing too far in what you ask for. For your frame of reference and to demo the potential value of the photos, invest in a copy of fotoQuote and look at license fees. Particularly on large contracts with lots of paid shooting time, you might be tempted to let the license fees slide. In our experience however, license fees can amount to lots more than the shooting fees, especially with international licenses and unrestricted use.
Posted by Greg Lessard on December 16, 2010 at 10:00 PM
Thank you very much for the advice! I truly appreciate it.
Sincerely,
Greg
If you're still checking back Greg, here's something I would propose to them to "sweeten" your position. Offer to work with them to create a shot list of the kinds of things they really want for their promotions. While a photo of a spy hopping humpback whale is pretty spectacular, it's worth even more to them if shot wide and showing clients photographing the whale, too. The "you are there" element is incredibly powerful in photos for travel industry promotions, and your interest and commitment to get them the shots they need would be a powerful motivator.
As you can imagine I've got some dandy bear photos, but the ones showing people and bears sell about 10:1 better for ads. I'm so tuned to this that the narrow field of my 500mm frustrates me to the point that I always set up a little behind my companions and keep my backup body handy with a short zoom on it. Photos of photographers AND bears always get the attention of our prospective clients. Mix in a few shots of people enjoying other features offered by the organization (meals, etc) and they'll quickly see the advantage of having a "staff" photographer and negotiate accordingly.
Posted by Greg Lessard on December 17, 2010 at 10:26 PM
That's a great idea Hank! I have already countered using the suggestions from earlier. I will definitely keep your idea ready, regardless of their response!
Thank you for sharing your expertise!
Sincerely,
Greg
Discussion
6 replies"Greg Lessard will retain all rights to photographs taken by him while working as a part-time employee of the ___________. This includes rights to reproduce and sell images. _______________shall have the right to use the images for publicity and marketing purposes free of charge."
So far, I have already provided them a one time use, for a few photos, free of charge to advertise my events. However, I don't want to just give them the right to use my photos as they see fit. This is a good opportunity for me and I don't want to irritate them, but I am not keen on giving them rights to use my photos. Any thoughts on this would be welcome. If you think that I should not agree to this clause, I would appreciate advice on how to approach them about changing it without losing the opportunity to work for them.
Thank you in advance for your thoughts.
If they use your work to advertise the event you will be leading, then I think it is fair. If they plan to use your images for future events you are not involved in, then I would pass. Just ask them to clarify which events they plan to use your images for. They showed they are willing to negotiate and they came down quite a bit from their initial request, so I think all you need now is a little more clarification and all should be well.
I worked as a contractor for several years and terms like this are common in many industries. The formal term is work made for hire and lawyers like to sneak it into standard contracts to benefit their employers, hoping it doesn't get challenged. I have always been successful in negotiating it out of contracts, so my sense is that most companies expect it to be negotiable.
The new language proposed above seems reasonable to me. As Alain mentioned, you may want to add something like "only in connection with future Greg Lessard offerings" at the end of the last sentence.
Keep in mind I'm not a lawyer, this had just been my own experience.
Guy
The details of these contracts are very fluid from one client to the next, and as you are discovering there's always the fear of pushing too far in what you ask for. For your frame of reference and to demo the potential value of the photos, invest in a copy of fotoQuote and look at license fees. Particularly on large contracts with lots of paid shooting time, you might be tempted to let the license fees slide. In our experience however, license fees can amount to lots more than the shooting fees, especially with international licenses and unrestricted use.
Sincerely,
Greg
As you can imagine I've got some dandy bear photos, but the ones showing people and bears sell about 10:1 better for ads. I'm so tuned to this that the narrow field of my 500mm frustrates me to the point that I always set up a little behind my companions and keep my backup body handy with a short zoom on it. Photos of photographers AND bears always get the attention of our prospective clients. Mix in a few shots of people enjoying other features offered by the organization (meals, etc) and they'll quickly see the advantage of having a "staff" photographer and negotiate accordingly.
Thank you for sharing your expertise!
Sincerely,
Greg