Working for copyrights...or something

[timmyquest]

Would you ever work for $6 an hour for a place to take photos for them under the condition that they own your work?

[belmondo]

Nope.

[timmyquest]

Nope.

Yes, i have an issue with it to.

I think i made a judgement error that this time will not be a problem. And perhaps they never will mind.

My soccer photo that made it into the paper was actually taken while on the clock at the photo studio. The people are very nice but my girlfriend was at work today and brought it up. "He can use the photos for a resume and stuff but they still belong to us". I had been meaning to ask about the conditions of my work but when the paper asked me if i was going to be able to take pictures of the game, and the studio asked me if i was going to take pictures of the game. I kind of jumped on it all and didnt think about it too much until after hte fact.

As i said i dont think they are going to be too upset. And if they allow me to sell my work then i wont have an issue. But i do have a problem giving my work away like that for such a low cost.

I just wanted your guys opinion on the price i was getting paid. RFM once said here that it would cost in the thousands for him to even think about selling a copyright. I've always kind of felt the same way.


:cry:

[JK]

Would you ever work for $6 an hour for a place to take photos for them under the condition that they own your work?

I would do it, if the shoot was a learning experience for me: something I hadn't done before due to lack of opportunity or lack of credentials etc.
(for example, women's bikini jelly wrestling or Formula 1 ! :D )

But if it's something more everyday, then I doubt it...

[timmyquest]

But if it's something more everyday, then I doubt it...

It's nothing i cant/wouldnt do on my own anyways.

And when they are telling me that my photos are better then theres it raises a whole other set of issues.

They hired me to work in the darkroom, i am learning and enjoying that so $6 an hour is a perk most of the time (other times i'd rather be at home...or taking photos).

They ask me to go out and do sports photos when they get into a crunch, when the realize they wont have another chance and they are already busy.

The two times i've done it i've come back with at least one shot that makes them tell me things like "I havnt even gotten a shot like this".

[JK]

You may not have realised it, but you have already learned something from all this! 8)

[timmyquest]

You may not have realised it, but you have already learned something from all this! 8)

:lol:

Very true.

[IndyJeff]

Timmy I would go out and shoot a game for $6 an hour and not own the rights to the image under 2 conditions

1. I hadn't eaten in at least 3 days

2. I didn't have a dime to my name.


As soon as the game was over I would get my pay and head for the nearest eatery and vow to never shoot for $6 an hour again in my life.....unless of course I hadn't eaten in 3 days again!

[neil_r]

Would you ever work for $6 an hour for a place to take photos for them under the condition that they own your work?

Only if it was taking passport photographs :o

N

[timmyquest]

Only if it was taking passport photographs :o

N

We do do those if you need one ;-).

I dont though.

[PhotosGuy]

How about they get first use free & you keep the ©?

[sGu]

did you actually sign on a piece of paper with your name and writing next to it saying so?

if not, i think you still own the copyrights of photos(i think), get them copyrighted at copyright office before it's too late.

I would never work for that condition, $6 an hour is already an insult to photographers, not to mention losing copyrights of your own work on top of that.

[defordphoto]

In Washington State, $6 an hour is an insult to burger-flippers.

[timmyquest]

did you actually sign on a piece of paper with your name and writing next to it saying so?

if not, i think you still own the copyrights of photos(i think), get them copyrighted at copyright office before it's too late.

I would never work for that condition, $6 an hour is already an insult to photographers, not to mention losing copyrights of your own work on top of that.

I did not, nor was an agreement ever actually made. So i still have to talk to them about it.

[belmondo]

Timmy:
You have to consider the value of what you bring to the equation: your knowledge, and experience (limited only by your age), your artistry, and your enthusiasm. $6 is an insult unless you can retain ownership of your work product. Let them have the initial use of it, but after a week, a month, or a year---whatever you can negotiate---you should own it.

Good luck.

Tom

[defordphoto]

did you actually sign on a piece of paper with your name and writing next to it saying so?

if not, i think you still own the copyrights of photos(i think), get them copyrighted at copyright office before it's too late.

I would never work for that condition, $6 an hour is already an insult to photographers, not to mention losing copyrights of your own work on top of that.

I did not, nor was an agreement ever actually made. So i still have to talk to them about it.

Unless you signed something, they own nothing except limited rights to the photos at best. Even though you did this without a contract, that does not give them a blank check to do whatever they want. You still own the ultimate copyrights. If the photo is that important, you should get it legally copyrighted. Otherwise if they do abuse the priviledge, you have something to fall back on.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'm not sure that is true..

If you are "on the clock" working for a company when the photo is taken it gets a little hazy.

There have in fact been lawsuits recently where the employer won the rights...

[belmondo]

Timmy:
You have to consider the value of what you bring to the equation: your knowledge, and experience (limited only by your age), your artistry, and your enthusiasm. $6 is an insult unless you can retain ownership of your work product. Let them have the initial use of it, but after a week, a month, or a year---whatever you can negotiate---you should own it.

Good luck.

Tom

Let me clarify:

In the absence of any other agreement, photos you take on company time would likely be deemed property of the employer. I'm saying that you should do your best to negotiate an agreement whereby you end up with ownership at some certain future time. If you are unsuccessful in so doing, then $6.00 an hour is not sufficient compensation, especiall considering the potential value of the images.

Unless you desparately need the money, this is not a good deal for you the way it's currently structured.

[Jon]

Yeah. If you're somewhere they sent you, it can be considered "work for hire" unless there's a pre-existing agreement. And "work for hire" belongs to the employer. If you took off on your own, and acknowledged up fron that you were off the clock, it may be a bit murkier (depending on what the job application and employment agreements might have said. Engineers and computer programmers, among others, frequently run into "employment agreements" where anything they do, on or off the clock, belongs to the company.

[defordphoto]

In the absence of any other agreement, photos you take on company time would likely be deemed property of the employer.

Oh yeah...I didn't realize he was hired at $6 an hr. I thought this was hypothetical...Anyway, $6 is about 150 miles too low for me to even consider that. I'd just as soon sell all my equipment before I went that far.

[Vegas Poboy]

Since you said you never had an agreement with your employer on ownership, I would like to know who owned the equipment that was used to take the shot? If it was your gear & no written agreement was made on copyright the photo is yours.

Even darkroom work should pay more than $6.00 hr. Managers like to be paid for their skill in keeping production going and employees under control. You should be paid for your knowledge & skill.

Shop yourself around to others and see what they will pay for your skills. You may receive a a better payoff.

[timmyquest]

Since you said you never had an agreement with your employer on ownership, I would like to know who owned the equipment that was used to take the shot? If it was your gear & no written agreement was made on copyright the photo is yours.

Even darkroom work should pay more than $6.00 hr. Managers like to be paid for their skill in keeping production going and employees under control. You should be paid for your knowledge & skill.

Shop yourself around to others and see what they will pay for your skills. You may receive a a better payoff.

This is another thing i thought of. All of the gear was mine, except for a roll of film they gave me yet i've done nothing with those photos.

The truth is that i'm not at all worried what they would do with the photos, i just want to have the right to sell them to the newspaper, mom or dad.

Shop yourself around to others and see what they will pay for your skills. You may receive a a better payoff.

I work there twice a week with my girlfriend. I enjoy it and until i worked there had zero darkroom knowledge.

Money is not the reason i work there. To earn my money i deal with servers and ****wad bosses.

[defordphoto]

Except that you were under they employ and not work for hire/freelance. As an employee the laws change drastically.

But, in a case like this, the issue would only come up if you won the Pulitzer Prize and the chunk of $$$ that would bring you. Otherwise they could probably care less.

Anyway, yet another lesson to be learned. Sure wish I had the Internet when I first started shooting anything semi-seriously back in 1970 or so. ;)

[jukas]

I work there twice a week with my girlfriend. I enjoy it and until i worked there had zero darkroom knowledge.

Money is not the reason i work there. To earn my money i deal with servers and ****wad bosses.

Assuming I understand correctly, you took the job for $6 an hour so you could learn your way around the darkroom right? Then later they asked you to fill in for their staff photographers at 3rd party events?

My thought is this, you took the job with very substandard pay in order to learn a skill, nothing wrong with that. Others hit it on the head with the work for hire issue. I'd suggest you either re-negotiate a written contract with them to give them first use rights but allow you to retain all full ownership or consider declining filling in for their staff photographers.

Unless being affiliated with them can get you access or other special circumstances that you otherwise wouldn't get stop giving away your images! Think how you would feel if you got one of those "once a decade" or even "once a lifetime" shots only to not own any of the copyrights to it.

Just my $.02

[timmyquest]

Assuming I understand correctly, you took the job for $6 an hour so you could learn your way around the darkroom right?

More or less, yes.


Then later they asked you to fill in for their staff photographers at 3rd party events?


Again, more or less.


My thought is this, you took the job with very substandard pay in order to learn a skill, nothing wrong with that.


As far as they know that has nothing to do with why they hired me. They hired me because they knew me and the kid that did their darkroom quit and they needed a replacement ASAP.

As for photography techniques i havnt learned anything, nor do i think i will as they are 99% studio portrait photographers and that is about as interesting to me watching paint dry.

[vfilby]

Hey Timmy,

I am in a similar situation. I just started working (for pay) not all that long ago. I get paid $50 a photo and I figure there is normally about 2 hours that goes into the taking and editing.

Now that want to hire me for $8 an hour for 10 hours a week. I think I would be off my rocker to take the job. I get paid almost 4 times that much doing other work! Now I just have to find a gentle way of turning them down but keeping the freelance options open. Tricky, tricky...

The first rule of for-pay photography is never undersell yourself. If you can guarentee a shot then you are worth paying for it. I think the darkroom gig is your job and the photo shoots is sort of an extra. I think you should do the photos for them as long as they understand you are doing it for free. Else, I would say you deserve more per hour. That way you get there photos and I am sure they will get a shot to use.

Cheers,

[timmyquest]

I think the darkroom gig is your job and the photo shoots is sort of an extra.


Thats kind of how i looked at it.


I think you should do the photos for them as long as they understand you are doing it for free.

That is a rather good idea, had i not taken the $18 i made that day, none of this would have been an issue.

[vfilby]

Hey TQ,

I would say try to work it out that way in the future. I have seen your photos here and I think you do a good job. I the job I have been offered is to replace shmuck who couldn't take a non-flattened, non-straight-on-flash and non-mundane picture to save his life.

If people like that can get hired you deserve to be paid in gold. (and that goes for most of the forum members here)

Vince

[CyberDyneSystems]

I feel that the photos allready taken would in fact be found to be the property of the employer if for sone reason this went to court.. (and this is even assuming the photog could afford to fight a company in court.. lawyer and all)

But.. there is no reason at all that an agreement can't be made that would garantee your ownership rights for future photos.

The "tools" point brought up is an interesting one.
Since you were not "freelance" but an employee being payed an hourly wage.. at least one aspect of the law would not even consider "personal owneship" of any tool used during the execution of the "employees task"

This area is workman's compensation law.

In this area of law.. any tool used while working for the employer is the responsibility of the EMPLOYER.. and there fore the law will see any tools as the employers.. even if they are owned by the employee...

Example.. I am working as an employee of Mondo Crane Company.

I purchase a tawainese crescent wrench to use at work on a daily basis assembling crane parts.

Due to a malfunction of the Crescent wrench.. a work related accident results.

The Employer is still liable for Workman's comp.. even though I was the one who bought the cheap wrench.

No idea whether this little corner of the law has any bearing in your copyright case.. but the precident is certainly there that while working for the Employer.. your tools or there tools has no bearing on the end result. At least in the cae of Workers comp law.. all tools are the responsibility and sort of backendedly "property" of the employer.

[timmyquest]

I think it is important to realize the makeup of this company. It is owned by a frail old man who has been in the buisness for 55 years.

The concern of mine isnt what they are going to do with the photos, it is more of what i can do with them.

I'm not worried about getting fired, about getting sued. Really, i just wanted to make sure my feelings were justified. I think its safe to assume that they are and i now need to work it out.

[Bruce Hamilton]

Would you ever work for $6 an hour for a place to take photos for them under the condition that they own your work?

If they're providing all the camera equipment and all I have to do is push the button, I might think about it for all of 2 seconds before rejecting it.

[BearSummer]

Hi Timmy,

If they hired you to work in the dark room for 6$/hr and you are getting something out of it, great. If you are happy then good for you.

If they then want you to "increase your job description" then you need to get your contract changed to match that. What that is is up to you.

Would I give copyright away for $6/hr, lol,... in four words, no.

Would I give copyright away for serious cash... possibly but it would have to be serious.

Whilst we are about it... how much are you charging them for you to use your equipment, have you worked out what the depreciation rate/day is for your kit. Subtract that from your $6/hr find out how much you are really getting paid.

[set humour=on]

I think that your gear list is lacking something important, a brain..

[Set humour=off]

Best regards and hope you get something sorted that works out for everyone. Just because the owner is old doesn't mean he is stupid or should be pitied. He knows a good deal when he sees it, thats why you are working for him at $6/hr and why he owns the company.

BearSummer

[ssim]

I think it is important to realize the makeup of this company. It is owned by a frail old man who has been in the buisness for 55 years.

You obviously have little respect for the man that has made his living for 55 years creating memories for people. That is pretty calous comment about your employer.

[belmondo]

I think it is important to realize the makeup of this company. It is owned by a frail old man who has been in the buisness for 55 years.

You obviously have little respect for the man that has made his living for 55 years creating memories for people. That is pretty calous comment about your employer.

It may not be delicately worded, Sheldon, but it might just be a factual statement. If his boss has been in the business 55 years, my guess is he's somewhere in his seventies (maybe even older). If so, he has every right to be frail.

On the other hand, give him high marks for still being involved in the business, regardless of how active he might be.

[jukas]

I think it is important to realize the makeup of this company. It is owned by a frail old man who has been in the buisness for 55 years.

You obviously have little respect for the man that has made his living for 55 years creating memories for people. That is pretty calous comment about your employer.

While it may not have been the most PC remark, consider the flip side. If he's spent 55 years in the business, he probably has a fairly good understanding of the situation he's got Timmy in and he should understand the aspects of the business. This if anything should make re-negotiating even easier!

If any of my actor friends or even my best friend in the world asked me to take a headshot photo of them I'd gladly do it, and I'd probably do it for free, but you know the first thing I'd do? Have them sign a model release.

This seems like a pretty good situation for Timmy, he doesn't think the guy is out to screw him, he just wanted to get our feelings and clarify the copyright issue.

Remember it's not personal, it's business.

[timmyquest]

I think it is important to realize the makeup of this company. It is owned by a frail old man who has been in the buisness for 55 years.

You obviously have little respect for the man that has made his living for 55 years creating memories for people. That is pretty calous comment about your employer.

It may not be delicately worded, Sheldon, but it might just be a factual statement. If his boss has been in the business 55 years, my guess is he's somewhere in his seventies (maybe even older). If so, he has every right to be frail.

On the other hand, give him high marks for still being involved in the business, regardless of how active he might be.

You hit the nail on the head.

His son is the active man behind the buisness these days, and when the worse happens his son will still be around.

I think it's safe to call a man frail when out of no where he ends up with a broken vertibrite.

I have an enourmous amount of respect for this man, he served in WWII, raised a family and has owned a buisness that has become the staple in portrait photography in the area for 55 years. When i say area i dont just mean town, i mean the entire county.

Remember it's not personal, it's business.

For sure. I love talking to the guy and hearing the stories behind all the photographs (belive me...there are many. I got 3 times as many reprints done today because he wasnt there :lol:)

[jboyd]

As for photography techniques i havnt learned anything, nor do i think i will as they are 99% studio portrait photographers and that is about as interesting to me watching paint dry.

My question is - if they are 99% portrait photographers, what do they want with a soccer photo??

[timmyquest]

As for photography techniques i havnt learned anything, nor do i think i will as they are 99% studio portrait photographers and that is about as interesting to me watching paint dry.

My question is - if they are 99% portrait photographers, what do they want with a soccer photo??

Give them to the schools for their yearbook (for free).

[jboyd]

So, this professional portrait studio sends thier photographers, who they are paying (very little, in your case), to high school sports competitions to take pictures which they then give to the school for free??

Have they done this in the past, or has this just started with your photo?

[timmyquest]

So, this professional portrait studio sends thier photographers, who they are paying (very little, in your case), to high school sports competitions to take pictures which they then give to the school for free??

Have they done this in the past, or has this just started with your photo?

They do it every year, and they also have a monopoly of sorts on the school portraits in the surrounding towns.

There are 2 highschools 2 middle schools and 4 elementry schools in my town alone, they do the photography for all of them. This includes dances (excluding proms), ID's, Sr. pictures, year book photo/portrait packages.

My guess is that the donation of the photographs is to keep 'em coming back as well as pay them back for their years of service.

[jboyd]

They didn't make you sign a "Do not compete" agreement, did they?

[evilenglishman]

Owning the copyright is a valuable commodity.

In your position I would shoot the photos and agree to let them publish the images once.
If they want to use any image again then ask for a small fee. What you quote would be really what you think you could get away with. But I wouldn't let them have the copyright.