Do you sign contracts with "Work for Hire"????

[haring]

Do you ever give up all your copyrights in case of a wedding as a photographer?
My clients want me to agree to the following terms below. What do you think? Any drawbacks?





Intellectual Property Rights – WORK FOR HIRE
The parties agree that the Services are WORK MADE FOR HIRE as that term is customarily used.
All artistic, literary, and other material submitted by Service Provider, together with the results and proceeds of the services, in connection with this agreement (the "Material") was specially commissioned by Buyer, as a work made for hire. Accordingly, Buyer is the author and owner of the Material and entitled to the copyrights (and all extensions and renewals of copyrights) in the Material, with the right to use and change the Material in any manner that Buyer may determine. If any of the material is determined not to be a work made for hire, Service Provider hereby assigns to Buyer in perpetuity all rights, including all copyrights, renewals and extensions, to the Material. The forgoing extends to all Materials created by Service Provider but not provided to Buyer, such as but not limited to any pictures that were taken of Buyer or Buyer’s event and kept by Service Provider digitally or in any other format.
Service Provider hereby irrevocably waives the benefits of any provision of law known as "droit moral," "moral rights" or any similar rights or principals of law in any country of the world which you may now or later have in the Material, and agree not to institute or permit any action or lawsuit on the ground that the Project or any other production based upon the Material constitutes an infringement of any of your droit moral or is in any way a defamation or mutilation of the Material or any part thereof, or contains unauthorized variations, alterations, modifications, changes or translations.

Service Provider may not use the Material in any manner without express, clear written consent to do so specifically in each instance by the Buyer.

[auddii]

In my line of work, all informed consents for participation in a human medical research trial are required by federal guidelines to be 12th grade reading level or lower. I wish lawyers had the same restrictions. I have no idea what I just read.

*I think it means that the people in the wedding would own the copyright to the photos? That seems like a horrible idea to me. You can't use the photos for any promotional work, and you can't sell them prints (or at least not without their permission). Hopefully I read that wrong...

[haring]

Originally Posted by auddii

In my line of work, all informed consents for participation in a human medical research trial are required by federal guidelines to be 12th grade reading level or lower. I wish lawyers had the same restrictions. I have no idea what I just read.

*I think it means that the people in the wedding would own the copyright to the photos? That seems like a horrible idea to me. You can't use the photos for any promotional work, and you can't sell them prints (or at least not without their permission). Hopefully I read that wrong...

No, you have read it right.

[auddii]

Well, I think it's a horrible idea. You strip yourself of absolutely any power to make any profit off of the photos, and you must turn over every picture you snap, even if they are out of focus or whatever, because they are not yours and you don't have the "right" to delete them.

If they are making it a requirement for shooting their wedding (and they sound like lawyers), then I'd honestly just pass and let someone else deal with the problem.

Or, know that you aren't going to make the extra $500 or whatever you make from print sales, and tack that "lost" profit onto the upfront cost.

[groovyone]

You may give them print rights but giving them copyright rights seems ridiculous.

[LadyShutterBug]

i'd probably have the biggest issue with "buyer is the author and owner". they're pretty much saying you're just the worker, not necessarily the artist. they can then publish/sell as they please and you see no profit or credit/recognition of any kind, and images can't be part of your portfolio or anything like that.

if there's some reason they wish to not let you use the images, it's one thing. if they aren't famous or something, it sounds like a huge pain but i will say this-- i've got a price for pretty much everything. the price on something like this would be much higher than usual, but it's not an "oh, NEVER!" situation.

i could completely do without any one of my weddings in my portfolio. a work for hire situation isn't out of the question, so long as you're being compensated fairly.

[arich]

I would expect to be payed damn well to give up my copyright like that

[brewercm]

Paid damn well to do it with a disclaimer that my name is never to be tied to the photos. Last thing you need is giving rights to someone else to make horrendous edits and they be tired back to me in any way.

Not that I'm a wedding photographer but just my .02.

[auddii]

We were talking about this in chat, and brought up the point that this might be common for celebrities. They obviously wouldn't want someone else to own to the photo and possibly sell them off to tabloids.

If that were the case, you could put it in the contract to give yourself a little bit more control. Maybe a clause that only you are allowed to edit the photos. Or as someone else mentioned, only have the photos you edit associated with your name. I would at least say something that you have the option of editing (it would be horrible if they demanded raw edits and you never got to show them their vision). Maybe they would even allow you one or two photos for the use of direct marketing (like on your website) but not to be published anywhere else.

And like everyone said, make sure you charge enough that you don't feel regret about not having the photos. I'd just be very explicit in how you want the photos to be at the end of everything and make sure you and the couple are in complete agreement.

[ronocnikral]

work for hire?

does that mean they are going to setup every shot and tell you what to do, how to compose, how to light etc? what about equipment, will they furnish that as well? what about editing, will they do that as well?

there is a difference between privacy and "work for hire," which I can understand, but they need to get their check book out and you still retain copyrights.

There is also a difference from having unlimited printing rights, in which I can understand as well, but they need to get their check book out and you still retain copyrights.

I'm not sure what the issue is, but I wouldn't agree to the language above. The issue is either that of privacy, unlimited printing rights or both. Try and solve that. If they insist on the work for hire verbiage above, I'd tell them to stick it, unless they provide everything and set everything up and all you have to do is push a shutter button. But, I'd still probably tell them to stick it, b/c you will most likely hate that situation, or end up being screwed.

[ronocnikral]

another question...isn't work for hire intended to be used to assitants and the like? For instance, the "real" photographer comes up with the idea, sets it up, provides all the equipment and has their minion push the button. The minion pushed the button (and was paid to do so) so they shouldn't have claim to the artistic or copyrights since they were being directed by someone else.while the "real" photographer provided just about every other thing.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by auddii

We were talking about this in chat, and brought up the point that this might be common for celebrities. They obviously wouldn't want someone else to own to the photo and possibly sell them off to tabloids.

If that were the case, you could put it in the contract to give yourself a little bit more control. Maybe a clause that only you are allowed to edit the photos. Or as someone else mentioned, only have the photos you edit associated with your name. I would at least say something that you have the option of editing (it would be horrible if they demanded raw edits and you never got to show them their vision). Maybe they would even allow you one or two photos for the use of direct marketing (like on your website) but not to be published anywhere else.

And like everyone said, make sure you charge enough that you don't feel regret about not having the photos. I'd just be very explicit in how you want the photos to be at the end of everything and make sure you and the couple are in complete agreement.

I've worked with and for a number of celebrities and you don't need to turn over copyright. You can sign an NDA.

Originally Posted by ronocnikral

another question...isn't work for hire intended to be used to assitants and the like? For instance, the "real" photographer comes up with the idea, sets it up, provides all the equipment and has their minion push the button. The minion pushed the button (and was paid to do so) so they shouldn't have claim to the artistic or copyrights since they were being directed by someone else.while the "real" photographer provided just about every other thing.

Yes. But also when you are a full-time salaried employee. For instance, I am full-time salaried and do not own the rights to my pictures at my job, but I am given right to use for portfolio.

[brad]

Originally Posted by arich

I would expect to be payed damn well to give up my copyright like that

Originally Posted by brewercm

Paid damn well to do it with a disclaimer that my name is never to be tied to the photos.

What they said.

My rate to give up full copyright is three times my rate for unlimited usage rights.

Originally Posted by Tom

I've worked with and for a number of celebrities and you don't need to turn over copyright. You can sign an NDA.

Exactly. And my rate to limit my own rights to use the photos is double my unlimited usage rights.

[BRosePhoto]

I've also seen a number of references for contract work in the past that spell out what exactly "work for hire" means in terms of taxes, etc. Usually there is a list of stipulations such as providing the work place and all necessary equipment to accomplish the job, etc. (similar to what Ron mentioned).

It sounds like they are likely more concerned with the privacy issue or just really overdoing it to get print rights. Just my .02.

[marikris]

I'm interested in the follow up for this thread.
OP what did you end up telling your client and what was his/her response?