Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Copyright???

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

ellaguru
ellaguru  3
7 Oct 2012 - 8:16 PM

A photo which i had published in the Telegraph last year is repeatedly being shown on a tv show. I was paid for the image by the broadsheet, and am credited at the end of the show in the titles. Does anyone know where i stand regarding my ownership and if i am entitled to a fee for the regular showing on the bbc? and also if my image is published on a DVD for public sale? Could i also ask the best way to sell my images without goin through a third party and losing 50percent of my fee?
Any comeback would be appreciated,
Thanks

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
7 Oct 2012 - 8:16 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

sherlob
sherlob e2 Member 82253 forum postssherlob vcard United Kingdom120 Constructive Critique Points
7 Oct 2012 - 8:23 PM

I'd check you terms of license with the Telegraph.

contemporary dave
12 Oct 2012 - 12:28 PM

Did you allow the Telegraph to syndicate the image?

Unless you signed your rights away I would think you are entitled to a fee from the BBC. Contact them, ask them to provide details on where they have used it and send in an invoice.

Sooty_1
Sooty_1 Critique Team 41173 forum posts United Kingdom196 Constructive Critique Points
13 Oct 2012 - 12:20 AM

It might seem like you lose a lot through a library, but they have big markets and will sell your images in a million places you never could.

Unless you have a foolproof method of marketing your work, I would consider 50% of £1 is better than 100% of nothing.

I would also consider you have a case for reproduction rights, but you need to check the terms you agreed with the Telegraph. You might have signed the rights over to them by mistake. If you only agreed the initial usage, then they should be paying to use the image under a different usage.

Nick

thewilliam
13 Oct 2012 - 8:29 AM

When submitting work to publishers, snappers need to read the T&Cs very carefully indeed.

There's one major broadcaster that seems to claim all rights to any image that's sent to them for perusal. Although they might not have paid anything for the image, the T&Cs allow them to sell it to third parties and even place it in a picture library, without giving a cut to the snapper who submitted it.

User_Removed
13 Oct 2012 - 9:12 AM


Quote: There's one major broadcaster that seems to claim all rights to any image that's sent to them for perusal

Interesting, who is it? Got a link to their T&C's?

_
_  9535 forum posts Virgin Islands, British4 Constructive Critique Points
13 Oct 2012 - 9:31 AM

It's so vague that it pretty well encompasses anything the BBC want to do with the image, but it does not say anything about selling it to third parties!

In contributing to BBC News you agree to grant us a royalty-free, non-exclusive licence to publish and otherwise use the material in any way that we want, and in any media worldwide. This may include the transmission of the material by our overseas partners; these are all reputable foreign news broadcasters who are prohibited from altering the material in any way or making it available to other UK broadcasters or to the print media. (See the Terms and Conditions for the full terms of our rights).

Focus_Man
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
13 Oct 2012 - 11:02 AM

Aside from agencies, I feel it is better to only sell 'restricted reproduction rights', you need to stipulate the limitations. Copyright to me should represent a massive fee, like selling the negative in the old days. Unlimited reproduction rights to me is almost exactly the same as selling copyright.

thewilliam
13 Oct 2012 - 11:14 AM

When one colleague shot a celebrity wedding, he signed away full rights. This was basically so he'd get the job.

A few weeks later, he saw his pix covering a good half-dozen pages in one of the "celebrity" magazines. The couple had sold their wedding pix for a 6 figure sum, something like 40 or 50 times what they'd paid the photographer.

Worse still, the couple wouldn't allow the photographer to use the wedding images for his own marketing purposes. There was nothing he could do because all the rights had been bought and paid for.

Always be on the lookout for any T&C that allows the client to assign the images to a third party.

User_Removed
13 Oct 2012 - 11:50 AM


Quote: This was basically so he'd get the job.

Always be on the lookout for any T&C that allows the client to assign the images to a third party.

That's really the crux of it. If he hadn't signed away those rights, someone else would have got the job, so he would have lost out anyway.

He sold his rights. Perfectly straightforward transaction.

No point crying over spilt milk when someone else makes more profit out of the rights they legitimately bought.


I think that what this thread typifies (and dozens of other very similar threads on ePz) is that there are three broad categories of professional photographer:

1. Those who are great photographers but possess no business acumen

2. Those who are good in business but hopeless at taking photographs.

3. Those who possess both terrific artistic talent and are accomplished in business skills.

The third category are the only ones who will really rise to the top of their profession.

(Presumably there is a fourth category - those who possess neither photographic skills nor business acumen but, hopefully, they sink out of existence before they embarrass themselves too much.)

.

Last Modified By User_Removed at 13 Oct 2012 - 11:55 AM
thewilliam
13 Oct 2012 - 1:16 PM

The so called "Matthew effect" will always apply in business. The biblical quote goes something like:-

Those who have will be given more but those who have not will lose even what little they do have.


(Presumably there is a fourth category - those who possess neither photographic skills nor business acumen but, hopefully, they sink out of existence before they embarrass themselves too much.) There's a huge army of such people.

Some have a degree in photography and were recruited because they satisfied the new entry requirements: warm to the touch and willing to get into debt. Others are drawn from the newly redundant because they have a nice camera.

The Federation of Small Businesses reckons that 80% of start-ups fail within the first two years of trading.

User_Removed
14 Oct 2012 - 1:22 PM

thewilliam, who is the "major broadcaster that seems to claim all rights to any image that's sent to them for perusal"? that you talk about?

Is it Sky News?

ellaguru
ellaguru  3
15 Oct 2012 - 6:21 AM

Would like to thank everyone fo thei comments. As things stand i am in contact with the Telegraph at the moment. It seems the company that reproduced my image also used the papers masthead without consent. They assure me the image was not passed on by them and that i am to entitled bill them. The company who used my photo is Avalon tv. Has anyone had any dealings with them?

Focus_Man
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
15 Oct 2012 - 9:13 AM


Quote: The Federation of Small Businesses reckons that 80% of start-ups fail within the first two years of trading.

Correct, because although they may be very very good at what they do, they cannot run a business.

My accountant told me about a partnership which had just started up. The first thing they both did was to buy BMWs even before getting any business in. They failed in year 1.

Slowly, slowly, catchee monkey.

thewilliam
15 Oct 2012 - 10:09 AM

I've never heard of Avalon tv but have heard of publishers who make a habit of stealing pictures from wherever they can. They work on the basis that the majority of copyright owners won't bother to pursue the matter.

The trick is to go in hard. Arrange a solicitor's letter to go with an invoice as soon as you've identified the culprit. Most publishers don't want the hassle and expense of defending an action that they know they're going to lose. But you will need to convince the offender that you mean business.

I'm reminded of #2 daughter's first day in secondary school her encounter with the school bully. He went away with a bloody nose (literally) and she wasn't troubled again. But that was nearly 30 years ago.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.