Why do Photogs get to charge for usage?

[d2creative]

I was having this discussion with another graphic designer the other day.
Why does photography seem to be the only industry where a customer pays for a service but they don't fully own what they paid for?
Typical case in point... i shoot an interior space for the architect that designed it. The architect pays me for the photos and whatever usage we agreed to. Then, one of the contractors calls me and I get to sell him a couple of the same photos so that he can use them in his sales brochure. Woahhhhh.... that's trippy.

If I was the designer hired to design the brochure, I would get paid for my design, hand off the files and that's that. I could never sell that same brochure design to someone else. My client would killllll me.

My mechanic doesn't charge me per mile for work done to my car.

My yard guy doesn't charge me extra if I invite a bunch of people over to "use" the yard after he's made it all purdy, neat and tidy.

Don't get me wrong, I am more than happy to sell and resell photos. Just wondering how we get away with it. And I understand if you took a personal photo (lets say a beach landscape for argument's sake) and now someone wants to buy it or you decide to sell thru a stock agency. But I'm talking more about commercially commissioned photography. I had a few good points and I was kinda winning the argument, but some points I just couldn't argue.

Got anything good I can use next time it comes up?

[johnastovall]

Intellectual property rights, I write a book. It's published. You buy a copy. You can' t then start printing all the copies you want and selling them. They have bought a right not a chattel.

[ajl3photo]

It's what the music and movie agencies are trying to stop with all the illegal downloading.

[ShaneKislack]

If you buy one print, you pay once. But when you buy usage, you are buying the right to reproduce that image. When you buy an album, it's like buying a print. You can reproduce that music over and over.

I do agree that designers are getting the short end. But hey, maybe they charge more for a creative fee. Whatever your model is, it has to be set up to sustain the business.

This should win your arguments for you.

http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/licensing/index.php

[ggeen]

It depends on how the contracts are written. As a penetration tester, the testing company generally owns the test results of the company being tested. Much in the same way you own the pictorial results of the building you just photographed. Additional copies may be requested from the penetration tester.

-G

[Damon]

Artists also sell prints of their work, which have limited usage rights. If I drew a picture of a gnome riding an elephant made of cheese, I can print and sell as many as I want.

In the case of your brochure, that's a commissioned work. You're technically working FOR a company, and therefore the company that contracted you to do the brochure owns the rights to it. You could put it in a portfolio, but never sell it.

[d2creative]

Originally Posted by Damon

In the case of your brochure, that's a commissioned work. You're technically working FOR a company, and therefore the company that contracted you to do the brochure owns the rights to it. You could put it in a portfolio, but never sell it.

Right, I kinda mentioned in my post that I understand when it's a fine art image or whatever that wasn't originally commissioned by a client. But when you are shooting commercially, you are hired to shoot something specific by the client just as a designer is hired by the client to design something specific. That's where everything gets all blurry for me.

[d2creative]

Originally Posted by ShaneKislack

This should win your arguments for you.

http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/licensing/index.php

That's a great link for anyone. Thanks!

[jeffkohn]

I actually agree with you Dennis that's a bit strange. I can understand a fine art photographer, stock photographer, or someone shooting on spec licensing based on usage. But in the case of staff photographers or commercials photogs shooting on assignment for a client the sales model for photography seems to be atypical compared to other "work for hire" situations.

I'm a software developer, I create intellectual property for my employer every day. But I sure as heck don't own the copyright to it. Even when I was a consultant as opposed to salaried employee, all IP rights were transferred to client and you certainly couldn't re-license that work product to other customers.