Semi-normal with big companies and usually the pay takes it into account. They can’t be arsed trying to track down the owner of an image if they want to use it in another part of the world and want to reduce risk of you objecting to use somewhere down the line. Easier to just do a buyout. Build it into the fee. Some creative orgs (RSC for example) are getting backlash over it but still common with some corporates.
this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Photography
24 readers
1 users here now
A place to politely discuss the tools, technique and culture of photography.
This is not a good place to simply share cool photos/videos or promote your own work and projects, but rather a place to discuss photography as an art and post things that would be of interest to other photographers.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I usually just shoot events, edit the photos and send them to the organiser. What they do next with them I don't know/mind. But I've never been asked to transfer the ownership of those photos to anyone. I usually work for slightly smaller companies I guess that's why. My best guess what most would do in this situation is just have them pay a licensing fee or something. Was there anything stated in the contract about ownership before you shot those photos? Or is it now, afterwards, they want to own them?
It’s pretty normal and I am fine with it and make sure I am getting a good rate for the jobs, sometimes will bump up the fee for buyout depending on the circumstances. Happy clients become return clients and I am running a business. A lot of people will preach to never give away your copyright, they aren’t wrong, just figure out what hill you want to die on
They're not wrong, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily right either. As a marketing company, we walk a fine line between keeping copyright on digital assets and transferring to the client.
In the simplest form, take a logo. There's no question that when build a client the logo that will be the face of their company, we transfer ownership (copyright) to them. That only makes sense. In my instance, I carry that a bit farther in that when we design other digital elements for our clients, we also transfer ownership. Like brochures, business cards, signage, etc. because it all ties in and they should be able to use it how they see fit forever because they've paid for it.
So now to the photography. I fully understand a photographers right to not relinquish copyright. But I there there is an ethical boundary that needs to always be considered. And that is when a photographer is hired to shoot an event. Or to shoot a new product launch. Basically all "work for hire" scenarios. You're being paid to shoot very specific things. The client needs to know that they can use the outcomes of that event in any way possible, at any time, for any reason. Because it's their product. It's their branding. And no outside party should have a continual interest in that.
Charge appropriately and see if you get hired. But if I'm wearing the hat of the client, I'm going to require ownership of the assets I've hired you to deliver.
I think you need to understand value of imagery in marketing more. Licensing and usage are a big deal all around, it doesn’t matter if it’s imagery, graphics, video, software, etc. It’s all intellectual property, and legally, as creators we own that property. Now for an event, that value is likely lower than a product shot that will be shown on packaging for an item being sold around the world, but perhaps not depending on what business your client is in. If they are selling events or speaking opportunities or anything in that realm and do so on a global scale, then the price of your copyright is high.
I get that you would give the copyright of a logo to the client. I would also be absolutely shocked if you did so for $1,000. Building out marketing assets for businesses comes in all shapes and sizes. Understanding the value of usage and how much $$$ a client is going to make using your property is absolutely necessary for pricing out your work. I’ve passed many many times on working with people who want to own copyright of my imagery but are not willing to pay for it. Work with someone else or do it yourself. And doing so, for me, has returned me the highest profits and best clients I’ve ever had.
Normal in the sense, it’s normal for companies to ask this. But not all of them do.
Unfortunately fairly normal. But if you stick to your guns and grant an exclusive licence, explaining exactly what that means, you might be able to keep things sweet.
I do this for a pretty big band I photograph. Doesn’t really bother me - can still prove I work for them.
I’ve shot hundreds of business events and have never been asked to sign an NDA or relinquish copyright. This isn’t the type of picture I’m ever going to use again or license to anyone other than maybe an editorial publication if they were writing about that event, but I imagine the NDA would stop me from doing that. I wouldn’t have a problem relinquishing copyright for a fee. I’ve done it on other types of projects.
The nda is generally due to sensitive material. No idea how you´ve not run into this yet. I´ve signed nda´s going from shooting in a technically sensitive factory to shooting pictures during a high end leadership meeting. It´s pretty logical they dont want us to spill certain stuff to competitors.
This is fine as long as your pay factors that in the exclusivity, so have that conversation. I wouldn't worry about it unless you really plan on using the photos yourself for whatever reason. Sometimes there's just confidential stuff thats not a super big deal but they'd rather have control over.
I've shot for multinationals and many of them want this kind of contracts because they want to be able to set a final budget for media buys. You can work it into the main fee or add a "relinquish copyright/work for hire/exclusive rights etc. " price line in the contract and invoice
That’s normal, but they should pay for it, don’t give it away for free.
Sure, if you're work for hire.
It's a corporate event. Who cares? I doubt some random dude speaking at a podium or giving out an award for 10 years of service is going in your portfolio.
Or has much of any resale value with tons of actual press there if its a significant event.
I googled this event (annual) and I barely found mentions of it and zero pictures in the whole internet.
So its worthless outside of doing it for whomever is hiring you. Shouldn't be an issue with doing it as work for hire.
Yes, normal with large corporations. They need to control their public image and use of any related images, so they will buy them outright and restrict you from any use of them at all, including using on your own portfolio
If they want unlimited use, I will have to quote an appropriate feee for it. As long as the client pays my fee, I understand the potential usage.
Charge them work + edits + buyouts
I find it normal that they ask for it. It’s fine but they gotta pay for the extended rights. Usually I ask how they are going to use the images and usually they realise they don’t need the copyright but just defined rights of use. Sometimes they purchase extended rights for a small select of photos. But don’t relinquish them for free.
this is all very normal, lot's of companies use a "work for hire" contract which means they own everything you create on the job. usually you would own the photos and then they purchase the rights from you. this is a big source of income for photographers and a rights buyout typically costs a few grand. they may object to this fact but it's because they don't know, not because they're right. now because it's easier for companies to keep track of things and it saves them money, they do this work for hire shit. it's very normal, but you account for the sale of the rights in your rate. for a multinational company a gig like this should be in the $2k to $2500 range.
Depends on which country you're in as different laws apply.
I'm in the UK and *very* infrequently get asked to hand over copyright.
Normally when I explain that the price covers any use at all, (except for resale) they settle for that.
Same in Finland, i charge hourly with a little premium and give rights for really wide use same as you.
Just out of curiosity, could someone explain to me what that means, exactly? What does relinquishing copyright imply? And what are the alternatives?
It means that the business now owns the images and can decide however they're used. Legally, it's basically like the business took the photos themselves.
The alternative is licensing the images, where the photographer retains ownership, but provides an agreement that allows the client to use the images. Licensing agreements can contain a lot of different restrictions, including:
-
Duration - how long the client can continue to use the images
-
Use types - how exactly the client can use the images (for example on a billboard, but not selling merchandise with the image)
-
Markets - where the client can use the images.
Additionally, when the photographer retains copyright, they can typically use the photos however they want, such as on their website.
Personally, one of my largest clients has it in our contract that they get copyright of the images that I shoot for them, but I have a perpetual license to use them for promotion of my business after they've already used the images. For me, that's all that I'd ever want to use those images for, so it was an easy thing to agree to.
Thanks for the comprehensive explanation. Just to be clear, even if you give up the ownership of the photos you took, can you still be considered the creator of those images, or there's no distinction between the two?
Well charge extra for that and call it a day. Do you care more about the copyright or the money?
I think of it this way. If it's headshots that idgaf about and I don't care about not having on my computer and that I'll never touch again, I just sign them away.
I have enough of a portfolio that I don't care about not having these there
Seen this before.
It hikes up the cost of the pictures.
My experience comes from the days of film so it may or not apply. It is normal if you are willing to accept the assignment and there isn't really any reason not to. Back in the day, we had a commercial client that wanted all of the film we generated. The assignments were a fee plus film costs and things like helicopters and we (made sure we) generated a ton. We strip developed it and gave them the rolls - the good the bad the ugly. The bigger the pile of film that happier they were. Of course each assignment was priced accordingly.
Just charge for the fact that you will never ever get to use the work you just created.