My Dilemma: Was pleasantly surprised when the local Convention & Visitors Bureau asked me to get some fall foliage photos for future publication in travel & advertising guides. I spent...

Victor S Loc: SouthCoast MA

Was pleasantly surprised when the local Convention & Visitors Bureau asked me to get some fall foliage photos for future publication in travel & advertising guides. I spent a weekend going to towns in the county they represented. I took probably 100+ photos and sent some low res samples. He said he would like to purchase all 34 samples in hi-res digital format on 2cd's. We negotiated a good price (over $1500). I was very pleased as you can imagine as this P.T. job has been very costly. Now the issue: he insists I sign over ownership/copyright of these photos. They will no longer be mine and I can't reproduce them. He can do whatever he wants with them.

I gave in to the demands this time as I need the money, but would you ever give up ownership? Did I sell my soul?

RedIris Loc: MN, USA

for those terms you need more money.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

I just hope your "deal" included recognition as the photographer as a credit in each publication, that is usually a standard for selling full rights. Your price was a bit cheap, for pretty much in line with sales to a non-profit, which I am assuming they are. If you don't get photographers credit in each publication then you did sell them WAY too cheap.

Victor S Loc: SouthCoast MA

RedIris wrote:

for those terms you need more money.

Thank you

Victor S Loc: SouthCoast MA

MT Shooter wrote:

I just hope your "deal" included recognition as the photographer as a credit in each publication, that is usually a standard for selling full rights. Your price was a bit cheap, for pretty much in line with sales to a non-profit, which I am assuming they are. If you don't get photographers credit in each publication then you did sell them WAY too cheap.

Thanks MT. I'll be speaking to him on Tuesday. Will insist on credit for all photos.

amehta Loc: Boston

I wouldn't touch that deal with a 10' pole. I don't like that they can do whatever they want, their use should be limited to agreed situations. And I *really* don't like that you can no longer do anything with the pictures. I would go for a deal where you maintain ownership and they are buying certain usage rights.

SpeedyWilson Loc: Upstate South Carolina

Since the photo sites are nearby, next fall go to the same areas and take new pictures. Then you can do whatever you want with them.

You might also try Spring and Summer photos, and maybe sell them to the same customer.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Victor S wrote:

Thanks MT. I'll be speaking to him on Tuesday. Will insist on credit for all photos.

Another thing to keep in mind when shooting for sale is to take multiple shots of the same scene, its free with digital. That way if you sell full rights to a particular image, you still have several to sell to others. The EXIF data will show that they are indeed separate images and you will avoid any issues with selling an "identical" image to a different customer.
This is a trick I have used since way back in my film career when the only thing publications would buy were slides.

Victor S Loc: SouthCoast MA

MT Shooter wrote:

Another thing to keep in mind when shooting for sale is to take multiple shots of the same scene, its free with digital. That way if you sell full rights to a particular image, you still have several to sell to others. The EXIF data will show that they are indeed separate images and you will avoid any issues with selling an "identical" image to a different customer.
This is a trick I have used since way back in my film career when the only thing publications would buy were slides.

MT that sounds simple but does it hold up legally? That sure seems like an easy solution. Thank you.

amehta Loc: Boston

Victor S wrote:

quote=MT Shooter Another thing to keep in mind wh... (show quote)

That is an excellent point, which is part of my problem with the deal they are offering.

The only situation where I can see the company having sole ownership is if the photographer is an employee of the company and all the equipment is owned by the company. It's the basic question of intellectual property.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Victor S wrote:

MT that sounds simple but does it hold up legally? That sure seems like an easy solution. Thank you.

Absolutely, all EXIF data will show that they are indeed separate pictures, you only sell one at a time.

Victor S Loc: SouthCoast MA

MT Shooter wrote:

Absolutely, all EXIF data will show that they are indeed separate pictures, you only sell one at a time.

Thank you MT Shooter. I value your comments & opinions.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

amehta wrote:

That is an excellent point, which is part of my problem with the deal they are offering.

The only situation where I can see the company having sole ownership is if the photographer is an employee of the company and all the equipment is owned by the company. It's the basic question of intellectual property.

That is somewhat standard when the photographer is either an "employee" or a "contract" employee that was "hired to take specific shots"

It should have been stated up front, but you were involved in "work for hire" which in many cases the employers expect that hey are purchasing ALL RIGHTS, etc, the same as if you were an 'employee'. Next time get an understanding up front.

The price you got is fine for LIMITED uses, but giving up everything should be worth at least triple that, especially if they hit you with that requirement AFTER the shoot.

cthahn

Victor S wrote:

Was pleasantly surprised when the local Convention... (show quote)

This should have been discussed before you agreed to the job.

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

$1500 for a weekend's work is not a bad deal. If you think the images can get more on the market or at $10 at a time through a stock agency, don't take the deal. But a bird in the hand... And don't you have some other images left? They want ownership because they don't want to see the same images pop up in local advertising.