Photographer 1, Publisher 0

[debbry531]

Just thought I'd share something I've been dealing with the past few months...

About a year ago, I was contacted by a big publishing house about taking photos of a local golden retriever that was the subject of an upcoming book (Scent of the Missing - it came out this spring). I was thrilled and accepted. The job was much more difficult than I anticipated as they were looking for a "serious, somber" look that would make sense with the title (it's about the relationship between a search-and-rescue dog and her handler). Unfortunately, it was July/August, in Texas, and the dog is a naturally happy dog so it took several tries before I could get a few with her tongue in her mouth and where she was looking directly at me (to be honest, I'm still not thrilled with the result - but they are and that's what matters!).

Anyway, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt decided the book would be the lead book in their spring catalog - and as a result, it was republished in large print, audio and book club formats. HMH passed all of the subsequent publishers on to me to get licenses for the cover images. All signed my agreements and paid the negotiated price.... except one. With the one, I sent a total of seven or eight emails over the course of a few months following up (before, during and after their scheduled print date)... the first four or five were responded to with a "legal is reviewing it" email back. Then I quit receiving responses. The book appeared on their website, but I had no agreement and no compensation. I contacted HMH to make sure it wasn't a situation where the book club was selling HMH-published books (like an Amazon), but they said it wasn't (HMH has been great - they actually paid me a little more than the originally negotiated price). So I did a little research and wrote an official letter, happy for once to be able to sign it with an "Esq." after my name.

I heard back almost instantly - they were happy to go ahead and pay my original quoted price (which was actually quite low - I know better now). I responded that that wasn't going to work for me. After another back and forth, I finally heard back yesterday. They've agreed to pay me seven times my original quoted price (though, to be fair, I didn't realize at the time they were using a second image on the back - my agreement with HMH allowed them to, but I didn't know at the time that they had - so the total is more like four times the adjusted licensing fee). In retrospect, I probably could have gotten more out of them, but live and learn. They're supposed to be sending me an agreement/release next week so it's not completely finalized yet, but we do have a tentative settlement.

Funny thing is that I would have never known they were even publishing the book had they not contacted me originally.

[texkam]

the first four or five were responded to with a "legal is reviewing it" email back. Then I quit receiving responses.

Sounds like they knew what they were doing. Crooks. Good for you.

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by texkam

Sounds like they knew what they were doing. Crooks. Good for you.

Yep. I think some of these companies take a calculated risk, knowing that more often than not they'll get away with it, and the money saved more than makes up for the occasional instance when they cross paths with somebody who actually knows how to enforce their copyrights.

[Shelby Lane]

Debbie, are you a member of PPA? If so, they may be able to help you figure out what your options are and what to do next.

[debbry531]

Shelby - I am, but I think we've settled it to my satisfaction (assuming the agreement/release they send me next week doesn't have any surprises). I did take a look through the copyright materials available through the PPA before I drafted the letter. I'm actually an attorney so I did a little research on my own as well and used some key buzz words and added a couple citations to statutes/case law in my letter. But thanks for the advice!

It certainly did seem like they knew what they were doing and were doing so intentionally ("willfully and knowingly") - the only thing that makes me think that may not be true is the fact that they were actually the ones that contacted me originally about getting licensing rights. If they wanted to just use the images, they could have just gone ahead and done so - and probably gotten away with it as I would have been none the wiser. They claim that they are very embarrassed and assure me this is not the way they normally do business (admitting it's not an excuse, they say they had a lot of employee turnover and my issue just fell through the cracks). I responded that I hoped that was true.

[SCone]

It's always good to drop a few, "... to avoid further litigation..." or "... added expense of further delays..."

Both comments tend to get action, but if needed, some attorney letterhead will always do the job.