GH2 Corporate Project Pricing

dustylense said:
Are you shooting with your camera? Are you DP'ing the camera? You do have rights and I suggest you read up on them....
Click to expand...

In the U.S., Copyright is held by whoever pays for the project, unless otherwise stipulated in writing. If a magazine hires a photographer to do a photoshoot, that magazine owns the Copyright on those photos unless the photographer has an agreement in writing to the contrary. Same with an article (whether published or not).

It's no different for video. That's why I actually do state in my wedding agreements that my company owns the video and audio recordings, so that I can use them as samples without requiring the couple's consent. But what producer is going to hire me if I stipulate that I own the rights to the video I shoot, and that I have to be paid for continued use of those images? None of them.

If you get your clients to pay a licensing fee for work they hired you to create, a work which by default they own the rights to unless they sign them away, then you have successfully taken advantage of their ignorance. I just don't feel right doing that, any more than I feel right basing a price on the resources of the payee.
 
Last edited:
Jim Simon said:
In the U.S., Copyright is held by whoever pays for the project, unless otherwise stipulated in writing. If a magazine hires a photographer to do a photoshoot, that magazine owns the Copyright on those photos unless the photographer has an agreement in writing to the contrary. Same with an article (whether published or not).

It's no different for video. That's why I actually do state in my wedding agreements that my company owns the video and audio recordings, so that I can use them as samples without requiring the couple's consent. But what producer is going to hire me if I stipulate that I own the rights to the video I shoot, and that I have to be paid for continued use of those images? None of them.

If you get your clients to pay a licensing fee for work they hired you to create, a work which by default they own the rights to unless they sign them away, then you have successfully taken advantage of their ignorance. I just don't feel right doing that, any more than I feel right basing a price on the resources of the payee.
Click to expand...
If that were the case, you better burn your portfolio. Have you ever had a photo published in a magazine? What's usually next to it? Credit or a copyright is whats next to it.
20 years I've been selling commercial photography. 20 years with the same copyright lawyer. For stills it is much easier and clearer than for "video" work.

Look at it this way... When you buy a CD of music or an Mp4. Do you have the right to copy it and sell it? You bought the songs.

It gets grey when you use the term "Work for hire". This is were producers come in to play. Mostly for video work. Remember that when you shoot something, clients are paying your for "production" of the content. They are paying for you, your gear, travel, hard drive space, batteries, etc. In the good ol' days, you quoted the production of the job and arranged the license to use the or display the work. I will admit, it's gotten a lot harder (because people are afraid to enforce this or think they will lose the job).

If say an small computer software company hires you to do a corporate job. Are you now "their employee" or are you "contracted work". If they pick up your insurance for the job, pay your payroll taxes, then you are the employee. If they don't, you are the 1099. That means you have to supply your insurance and pay your own payroll taxes. Ever been asked for your insurance to do a job? If you do, that means that company does not want financial liability for you and that you must supply it yourself. So you create the work and have no license fee attached. What happens when you see that work for another company used (IT HAPPENS!!!!). You just lost money.

Look, if you are afraid of licensing your work there are many ways to do it. First is make the license cheap. That way when you see your work used by a different company, you're protected! (IT HAPPENS!!!!). I already said it gives you negotiating power in bidding for a job. Geeeezzzz, the first questions you should ask any potential client is "Where is this work to be used and for how long"? Then, "What's your budget"? This is also where you can establish a "buy out" license. But in doing so, you better get in writing that you would like to keep the photo or the footage for self promotion, as they would then OWN the material and you will NOT have any legal means of displaying in your portfolio. Then, is it a "exclusive license" or a "non-exclusive license"? Do some of you even mention that in your contracts?

I use my license fee's to feed my retirement plans. It's up to you guys to stay protected and protect your WORK. It's up to you guys to maintain a standard that is protected under to LAW....Or just throw money and your rights away....
 
Last edited:
Jim Simon said:
In the U.S., Copyright is held by whoever pays for the project, unless otherwise stipulated in writing. If a magazine hires a photographer to do a photoshoot, that magazine owns the Copyright on those photos unless the photographer has an agreement in writing to the contrary. Same with an article (whether published or not).

It's no different for video. That's why I actually do state in my wedding agreements that my company owns the video and audio recordings, so that I can use them as samples without requiring the couple's consent. But what producer is going to hire me if I stipulate that I own the rights to the video I shoot, and that I have to be paid for continued use of those images? None of them.

If you get your clients to pay a licensing fee for work they hired you to create, a work which by default they own the rights to unless they sign them away, then you have successfully taken advantage of their ignorance. I just don't feel right doing that, any more than I feel right basing a price on the resources of the payee.
Click to expand...
You couldn't be more wrong. My wedding photographer still has all the originals. I had to pay a "Buy out" fee so that I could print my own copies. Man, you're really losing money if you shoot any stills and hand over all the work. Most of a wedding still photographers income comes from selling the prints or albums. Of course you're not going to charge them for posting a wedding video on facebook or something. But if you hand over the files without the extra charge for the material, you're losing a ton of income.

I'm hired by magazines all the time! I and ONLY I own the photographs. That is unless they "buy out" the images. Then one day you will be sitting on a plane and see your image set in some advertisement that you got zero money for. (IT HAPPENS).
 
Jim Simon said:
In the U.S., Copyright is held by whoever pays for the project, unless otherwise stipulated in writing. If a magazine hires a photographer to do a photoshoot, that magazine owns the Copyright on those photos unless the photographer has an agreement in writing to the contrary. Same with an article (whether published or not).

It's no different for video. That's why I actually do state in my wedding agreements that my company owns the video and audio recordings, so that I can use them as samples without requiring the couple's consent. But what producer is going to hire me if I stipulate that I own the rights to the video I shoot, and that I have to be paid for continued use of those images? None of them.

If you get your clients to pay a licensing fee for work they hired you to create, a work which by default they own the rights to unless they sign them away, then you have successfully taken advantage of their ignorance. I just don't feel right doing that, any more than I feel right basing a price on the resources of the payee.
Click to expand...

This is NOT the case! If you are not 'staff' (ie they dont pay benefits for you) you use your own gear
to shoot and you don't specifically sign the rights over to them, (they may try to get you to
sign a 'work for hire' agreement which usually gives them all rights) YOU as the creator, own the
copyright here in the US! I had to take media law in college and this was drilled into us.
Richard Harrington and many others have articles on this if you google 'video work for hire'
Basically if you are not considered a normal employee of that company by the IRS (they
dont offer you benefits, withhold federal taxes, or pay the employer portion of your social
security) and you don't SPECIFICALLY sign away your rights in a 'work to hire' agreement,
you own the copyright! So if they want you to sign a 'work for hire' agreement, charge
them accordingly!!!

My contract usually gives them the right to use the images for the particular project (in house
DVD training or whatever) but NOT for any other projects unless they want to pay a higher fee.
This was because I may give them a little better price on it, but in the future when they want another project done with that footage, they can't just hire someone else and give them my
footage so I get more work as an editor for future projects. I have had one company want all
copyright and exclusive future use, (and asked me to sign the 'work for hire' agreement),
but they were big enough, they paid my big charge for that without blinking an eye. And even then I retained use of that material to promote my services (I always write that in the contract.)
 
Last edited:
From the US Copyright office.

"If a work is made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is the initial owner of the copyright unless both parties involved have signed a written agreement to the contrary."
 
Jim Simon said:
From the US Copyright office.

"If a work is made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is the initial owner of the copyright unless both parties involved have signed a written agreement to the contrary."
Click to expand...

DUDE, YOU ARE WRONG. It's very grey, but if you are an employee, meaning they pay your payroll taxes, SS taxes, insurance, and report a W-9 for you.
So, you do weddings. Do they the wedding party pay for the items above? If so, you are in employee. If not, you OWN the rights to those images, PERIOD. Now if you work for a wedding studio that you do not own, you are an employee and the STUDIO owns the rights.

Now, of course you are not going to charge a wedding client a usage license. Weddings are NOT commercial photography. Like I said, I paid a BUY OUT fee for the original photo files taken at my wedding. Why did my wedding photographer charge me that? Because she lost on sales of print reorders. Although I paid for an album she created, I also bought the RIGHTS through a BUY OUT fee in order to PRINT the images for MYSELF.

YOU are CONTRACTED, not EMPLOYED.
LEARN "The Agency Law":
Agency Law
To help determine who is an employee, the Supreme Court inCommunity for Creative Non-Violence identified factors thatmake up an “employer-employee” relationship as defined byagency law. The factors fall into three broad categories.
  1. 1 Control by the employer over the work. For example, theemployer determines how the work is done, has the workdone at the employer’s location, and provides equipmentor other means to create the work.
  2. 2 Control by employer over the employee. For example, theemployer controls the employee’s schedule in creating thework, has the right to have the employee perform otherassignments, determines the method of payment, or hasthe right to hire the employee’s assistants.
3 Status and conduct of employer. For example, theemployer is in business to produce such works, providesthe employee with benefits, or withholds tax from theemployee’s payment.
These factors are not exhaustive. The Court left unclearwhich of these factors must be present to establish theemployment relationship under the work-for-hire definition.Moreover, it held that supervision or control over creation ofthe work alone is not controlling.
However, all or most of these factors characterize a regular,salaried employment relationship, and it is clear that a workcreated within the scope of such employment is a work madefor hire (unless the parties involved agree otherwise).


Then, read up on "Section 101 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the U.S. Code) " .

You Jim, need to understand the definition of employer. If you wedding party "employs" you, then they have to furnish the tools you use to shoot with, hire your assistants, pay your payroll taxes and report them. If you own your company, the wedding parties that you shoot for "Contract you". It's up to you and the party to sign a "work for hire" agreement. If they ask for it, you tell them to pay the payroll taxes and report it. Tell them to furnish the tools to do the job and hire your assistants. Tell them to contribute to your 401K.

Jim.... Go visit a copyright lawyer that specializes in photography.
 
Here are the definitions of how "Work for hire" falls under:
a a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment
or
b a work specially ordered or commissioned for use
1 as a contribution to a collective work,
2 as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work,
3 as a translation,
4 as a supplementary work,
5 as a compilation,
6 as an instructional text,
7 as a test,
8 as answer material for a test, or
9 as an atlas





All those definitions fall under collaborative works. Like a magazine hires you for an editorial. You photograph supplements the article. The article supplements the magazine. They own the right to that "editorial". They may end up owning the right to the photograph as well, where you can NOT re-sell the image.

Now, a magazine see's a photo that you took. They want to acquire it for an editorial. They call you and you SELL the rights through a licensed work for use depending on your agreed arrangement (circulation, and duration).

Now a magazine "staffs" you. They pay for everything on the assignment plus your pay. They own the rights to all images taken unless otherwise written in agreement. Most of the time, they will make YOU very aware that THEY own the work.
 
Jim Simon said:
From the US Copyright office.

"If a work is made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is the initial owner of the copyright unless both parties involved have signed a written agreement to the contrary."
Click to expand...

Jim, your problem is that you are assuming that everything falls under this 'work for hire' provision. It does not! The only
time something falls under this 'work for hire' provision, is if you are an employee of a company (they pay your benefits, social
security taxes, and several other things the IRS looks at to see if you are really an 'employee'). If that is not the case, the only
way something can be classified as a 'work for hire' is if you agree to it. In other words, what you posted is correct, but the key
phrase is:
'IF a work is made for hire'.
Work for hire is a very specific legal definition and does not just mean that someone hires you to do some work.
 
Last edited:
It's fun to read all these posts in an angry yelling voice when it's all caps...
 
j said:
It's fun to read all these posts in an angry yelling voice when it's all caps...
Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't mean to sound angry, was just trying to make sure the appropriate part was emphasized. If caps is
considered angry shouting, I will edit my post.

Back to the original point.... see this link:

http://asmp.org/tutorials/which-images-can-be-copyrighted.html#.UPoaLc1LXbo

Relevant parts are

Although people use the term work for hire freely, it has a specific legal definition. According to Section 101 of the copyright law (excerpted below), a “work made for hire” is:
  1. A work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or
  2. A work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, IF the parties involved expressly agree in writing (and sign the agreement) that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.

    Circular 9 goes on to explain in further detail:
    If a work is created by an independent contractor (that is, someone who is not an employee under the general common law of agency....{also defined above as you receiving benefits from your employer, they withhold taxes from your salary and provides the equipment for you}), the work is a specially ordered or commissioned work, and part 2 of the statutory definition applies. Such a work can be a work made for hire only if both of the following conditions are met: (1) it comes within one of the ten categories of works listed in part 2 of the definition and (2) there is a written agreement between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire.


    So you see, if you are not an employee, you have to meet two criteria for it to be considered work for hire, and the second
    criteria, is that there is a written agreement between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire!
    I hope that helps clarify things.

    ​
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top