 |
I'd suggest they are trying it on. What with the sudden rush and all. And no mention of money. Whatever you do, don't be taken for a mug and give it away for free.
Sadly that is what Flickr is known for.
Ask them what their normal repro rates are for a start.
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Hindolbittern edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
 |
Its up to you but as Hindolbittern says above they are trying it on, trust me, if they want it they should pay you for it, but its your call...
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I have no intention of giving the images away for nothing. I just need some advice on how to negotiate a deal of some kind.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
There's a lot of resources on here that may help with pricing:
www.flickr.com/groups/procorner/discuss/72157594190929874/
Just be polite, to the point and business-like when you reply. If he wants it then it will be what he wants to hear.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Keep us posted, and good luck... btw anecdotally i have heard about companies and add agencies who will seek out flicker images and offer peanuts from their budgets to the flicker photographer as they assume the flicker posters not to be media savy... shame init.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Yes, def keep us posted. I'm always interested in hearing about the outcome of situations like this. David Hobby is posting a series of articles about this, in fact.
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Honoo Flammen edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
Well I sent him an email asking:
1. How would my image be incorporated into the commercial?
2. What are your wishes for usage rights of the image?
3. What compensation are you offering for use of the image?
He has replied with:
"As far as how we are going to use your photo, we plan on stringing up a few photos or electical outlets and sinks that have ‘face-like’ appearances. There will be a simple music track and then the lines at the end saying how we should all save electricity and use less water....or something to that effect.
We would like to use the finished commercial on TV as well as the internet I believe. As this is a PSA we are not able to offer any compensation to anyone for this.
If you agree to let us use the photo, attached is the release form. If you would be so kind as to complete it and email, fax, or mail back to me that would be really fantastic."
The release form states:
I ____________________, residing at __________________,
being over the age of twenty-one years, do hereby irrevocably consent that Young and Rubicam (“Agency”) may use my still photograph called ‘Faces’ in a public service announcement (PSA) commercial for it’s client, MTV (“Client”), and any of their subsidiary and affiliated companies and licensees for the purposes of advertising, promotion and trade in any media throughout the world in perpetuity.
I waive all so-called moral rights and similar rights throughout the world in respect of my services provided hereunder.
I further waive any inspection or approval of the finished materials, and I release the Agency and Client and any of their subsidiary and affiliated companies from liability for any permitted use of the materials, and/or for any use by third parties who access the Internet or other electronic media without Agency or Client’s permission, or for any claim of alternation, optical illusion or faulty mechanical reproduction and likewise with respect to any distortion or illusion in sound reproduction.
I understand that this release does not obligate Agency or Client to use my photograph in any advertising, promotion or trade materials.
The confirmation contained in this document is irrevocable and may be transferred by you freely to your successors, licensees or assignees.
So, if I understand the form correctly, they want to use the photo in any way they want, on television & on the internet, all over the world, for as long as they want, for free.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I'd tell 'em to take their own sodding picture if that's their attitude.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
MTV likes to promote itself as being 'aware of the issues' its all part of their corporate image IOW this is an advert, in part, for MTV one would like to know whether the agency "Young & Rubicam" are getting paid.
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Walwyn edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
 |
.Miles [deleted] says:
Just walk away. If they really want your image they will change their tune. Do not expect them to do so, they will keep looking for another chump. That is what they were counting on with you, they will not respect you unless you stand up for yourself. Unfortunantly, artists have a reputation for lacking business sense and skills and so everyone figures that they can take our talent for granted and have it for free. The only respect you will find is that which you make for yourself.
Have you ever heard of Seth Resnick? He is a great guy, talented photographer, and champion of photographers rights. Here is a short piece that he wrote to help photographers negotiating rights usage and pricing. Check it out:
www.pixelgenius.com/tips/resnick-pricing.pdf
The above is not a negotiation but an all out rights grab for no compensation - exposure and attribution do not constitute compensation. ; )
Best wishes and good luck
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I'm sure that "Young & Rubicam" are not making this advert on behalf of MTV out of the goodness of their hearts & I'm also sure that MTV aren't going to broadcast it solely for the wellbeing of the planet.
So I don't see a reason for me to give my time & effort (however small) with not even an MTV baseball hat (which I wouldn't wear) to show for it.
The above is not a negotiation but an all out rights grab for no compensation - exposure and attribution do not constitute compensation.
Unfortunately, it's even less than that!.. Adverts don't have credits so I wouldn't even get attribution..
I guess they think the "kudos" of having my image appear on a channel I don't watch in a country I don't live in would be enough.
Just have to find a nice polite way of telling them where to stick their offer.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Or offer it to them but on the undertanding that the not exactly short of cash MTV or Young and rubicam donate $50.000 to you fav charty then you might consider it! ... thanks for sharing the thread with us...
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
.Miles [deleted] says:
If it were me I would simply tell them that their terms are not in my best interest, that I will grant no usage, and bid them a good day.
"I understand that this release does not obligate Agency or Client to use my photograph in any advertising, promotion or trade materials."
You are not even assured that you will get exposure - they may or may not use your image but you may no longer use it yourself. And there is no telling where your image will show up next.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Just a note (and I must add that I'm not entirely sure about this, but I'm fairly sure) is that PSA's or some derivation of public service/broadcasting in the public interest is a requirement of most broadcasters in the US in order to continue to offer their programming, so it's an annually required cost of doing business. There are lawyers and administrative staff that handle all PSA filings with the government, etc. I don't think they work for free either.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
My response to their 'offer':
"Thank you for your reply.
I have read through your release form in great detail and while I think your 'project' is interesting, I do not feel your terms are in my best interest and the lack of any form of credit or compensation for my work gives me no incentive to allow use of my image. Therefore, I will grant NO usage of the image by neither Young & Rubicam nor MTV.
The fact that you are making a 'public service announcement' does not alter the fact that payments should be made for services provided. I am sure that Young & Rubicam are being paid by MTV for their services and see no good reason why I, in turn, should not be compensated for mine.
I hope you will respect my decision and I wish you well with your project."
-
Now should I block the guy to stop him just taking the photo anyway?
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Now should I block the guy to stop him just taking the photo anyway?
I'd say there's no point. You've been entirely professional, and blocking is more than a little petty, particularly since it wouldn't actually stop him from taking the photo, just from sending you any other communication. I'd say just leave it at this point.
That release is a little galling, though - it's not atypical of the kind of thing you have to sign as a staff photographer, but for soliciting an image from an individual who doesn't get a salary or any other sort of compensation, it's completely inappropriate. So maybe a little pettiness is called for.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I'm pretty much in agreement with all the sensible advice from the peeps on here however there is some small point to put in. The kudos for being in some way involved may have some value to you. Such connections or associations may have some merit. I'm thinking in the same way that new bands need to promote by allowing the odd free download in order to get themselves "out there". Of course I wouldn't make a habit of it.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
.Miles [deleted] says:
You have told them no, you didn't sign any rights away. If you find out that they did use it you will have opportunity to be compensated for the illegal usage. It might not be a bad idea to register your copyright if you haven't already done so.
www.pixelgenius.com/tipsandtechniques.html
Check out Copy right basics and registration
Blocking will not stop anything, plus you close the door to any opportunity should the firm like your work for something they would be willing to pay you for in the future.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
He has just responded with:
"Thanks for your response. I understand completely your decision. Luckily your image is very similar to many others and we see no problem securing the rights to a similar photo of a socket."
This is the photo they were talking about:
I know it's crap & really isn't worth anything... It's the cheek of them that made me refuse.
I haven't blocked him... if he steals it and uses it in his ad then i'll sue the arses of both companies and make a mint!!
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
This is the photo they were talking about:
hahahahahahaha!
gawd the guy can't even turn around in his office and take the picture himself? instead he wastes countless hours emailing back and forth .. pfft whatever.
btw it isn't crap, but it is so easily reproducible that i find it hilarious that they didn't just make their own.
even if they need, like 500 socket images for some mosaic or editing montage of socket images, being in NYC it'd be way easier to just go out and shoot the sockets than to get clearances signed for 500 socket images.
insane!
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I'm gonna leave my lights on as a protest!
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
.Miles [deleted] says:
@ saintbob Getting yourself out there is important but should be done so in an intelligent manner, otherwise you will become someone known as the go to guy when they want freebies.
An invoice is a very, very usefull tool. All photographers should use an invoice for any business transaction - even if you are giving them a freebie. Perhaps I should say especially if you are giving them a freebie.
On your invoice, list what they are paying for along with the cost of each service or item. This way they understand what they are getting, understand the work that was required to have the image, and can appreciate the value of what you are providing them. It also establishes rates for any future work, they have a clear understanding that you are favoring them with special treatment and that it is one time only. They come away from the deal with the impression that you are serious, professional, and someone they can respect.
In this way you have established prices for future negotiations and there is no expectation on the part of your client or their contacts that work can be had for free.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
.Miles [deleted] says:
You posted the image while I was writing...........
I'm sure that somewhere out there is a quote from Mark Twain that describes this situation to a tee.
Unbelievable
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
.Miles edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
it'd be way easier to just go out and shoot the sockets than to get clearances signed for 500 socket images.
Listen buddy, that's not in my job description, do I look like a photographer to you? And how am I supposed to ring up those billable client hours by doing things the easy way, huh?
[amazing how the business world works sometimes]
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I don't see what the problem is, frankly - reply or don't. I got an email and I'm happy for them to use my photo for free. Why not?
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I'm gonna leave my lights on as a protest!
YESS!!
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I don't see what the problem is, frankly - reply or don't. I got an email and I'm happy for them to use my photo for free. Why not?
Someone else, several people in fact, will be making (lots of) money from your photo. Your photo. When they are done making that one ad, they can use your photo again to make more money. For themselves. Your work, their gain. Do you not see how you are being cheated?
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Erm... no. Isn't that my choice? I don't feel cheated in the slightest, but then my images are available under creative commons and people using them fairly isn't cause for me to squeal about 'stealing' either.
Firstly, this isn't MTV, at least not quite. It's a public service announcement to be shown on MTV, for a good cause, I think. Even if it was just MTV proper, I would rather they had my photo for free than the photo of some pretentious sod with a $4000 dollar camera.
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
teotwawki edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
.Miles [deleted] says:
@teotwawki It is certainly your right to do as you see fit with your images. You are subsidizing an entity that will most likely never become a paying client when you do so but it is your right to do it. If you are ok with that and it makes you happy.........
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
.Miles [deleted] says:
Oh, and it was a $4500 camera straight - no flash, no lenses included. ; )
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
teotwawki - Your choice would be foolish. I guarantee you the ad agency is getting paid. MTV is getting paid to air the ad. You don't think the photographer should get compensated?
Even the Creative Commons license requires credit, prohibits derivative work and must be used for noncommercial application.
PSA doesn't necessarily mean charity cause.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
"@ saintbob Getting yourself out there is important but should be done so in an intelligent manner, otherwise you will become someone known as the go to guy when they want freebies."
I didn't exactly advise anyone to act stupid and I fully commended all previous comments. Anyway in that world of idiots you will not become known as anything, they don't even know who's in the cubicle next to them. It would have been worth it just to laugh at the stupidity of it all.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
teotwawki, it's absolutely your choice, but your choice reverberates throughout the world of photography because those people with the $4,000 cameras who have devoted themselves to creating sellable images are now being undercut by you. The value of their work is as substantial as the salaries earned by the conceptual guy who created the PSA script and the editors who will put it together, and the MTV paralegal who will document the value of the PSA airtime. You are free to donate your work to whomever you choose, but be aware that there is a real cost to your decision.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
my images are available under creative commons and people using them fairly isn't cause for me to squeal about 'stealing' either
1. You will receive no attribution.
2. They are using it for commercial purposes. (Heh... Literally, even.)
3. They are creating a derivative work from your photo.
But it is your photo and you're free to license it to them however you wish. Be sure to tell all your friends about your photo.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Why is it a foolish choice if you aren't a professional photographer?
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
BTW.. my camera didn't cost $4000 .. it was less than 200 quid.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
.Miles [deleted] says:
Hey saintbob, I have no beef with you - or anyone here really. My apologies if you felt I was speaking directly to you. I was using your post as an opportunity to get some more information out here to help anyone interested. In no way did I mean for my post to be offensive, I'm sorry.
Saludos
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
.Miles [deleted] says:
Well, it may not exactly be foolish but if you could potentially make good money from something as opposed to giving it away for free.........
well, professional or not I do not know many folks who would turn away money. Who couldn't use an extra buck?
This is a very good question Brenda. To be clear I am not a professional photographer but it is to my benefit to act in a professional way and use good business practices when dealing with those who would like to use my work.
If for no other reason respect yourself and value your work. Unfortunantly respect equals compensation because you are dealing with business people and that is the language that they speak.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
your choice reverberates throughout the world of photography because those people with the $4,000 cameras who have devoted themselves to creating sellable images are now being undercut by you.
Unfortunate, but those photographers are no worse off than the hands-on, wet-bench printmakers put out of jobs by the switch to digital. Or the employees in Agfa's film factories. Why do professional photographers deserve any more sympathy than any of the people they've been quite happy to undermine, deskill, and un-employ in the pursuit of their career?
This is to say nothing of the web designers you could hire to make a site for you rather than using Flickr. Or the bank tellers replaced by ATMs. Online check-in for flights. Trained technicians replaced by call centre scripts. The list goes on...
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
 No offence, Mark, I wasn't casting aspersions on you at all.
Anyway, on the subject of big corporations using my images... I'm off to write to Yahoo! to see where my royalties are, as my plug socket photo's been on the internet for years and I haven't had a single cheque. ;)
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
teotwawki edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
 |
teotwawki
I and right there with you I have been approached four times by people wanting to use my pictures. The first `i knocked back as it was a truly awful picture that they wanted but the remaining three I have allowed provided that they correctly attributed the source.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/29/photojournalism_and_copy...
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
"because those people with the $4,000 cameras who have devoted themselves to creating sellable images are now being undercut by you."
So it's ok if a totally talentless hack like me with a toy camera comes along, as long as I charge for the work? would that sting any less?
All the generalizations are nice, but what about the specifics? Zebra, if you thought this image was meh, and never expected it to go anywhere, then why wasn't just the use of it on MTV worth it to you? I mean, I have no real need to build a portfolio right now, but it might be nice to have on a resume/cv or someplace a screenshot and credit for a global tv spot.
Exposure can count as compensation, is I guess my meaning.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Exposure can count as compensation
The point is not just that there is no compensation but that they aren't even going to give credit. They want use without recognition.
It's the cheek of them expecting something for nothing that made me say no.
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Mark & The Zebra edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
 |
Wow. I'm pretty shocked at most of the responses here. If someone asked to use my photograph for an advert creating awareness about a worthy cause I'd be more than happy to let them. I find it pretty easy to see past, 'well its going to improve MTVs image so they benefit', and 'I bet the advertising company get a buck for it' etc etc and be pleased that I could be involved in a worthwhile project, that might enlighten a few people.
If I were working as a professional photographer, I can see how my opinion might differ. But personally, I think I would keep my ethical stance. As for suggesting that us ametuers have a responsibility to charge for our work in order to look after the pros out there..... well that's laughable. Ad companies are increasingly going to be looking to places like flickr to save costs, and its up to each individual to decide what they want for their work. I guess you pros will have to think of more creative plug socket shots than the rest of us!
"I'm gonna leave my lights on as a protest!"
I can see why they need the advert.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
young & rubicam
their a big worldwide ad agency
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ia__1d_rM
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Charging reasonable rates for your photos is not just helping the pros. I don't see how a shot of a electrical outlet is worth much, but if you give it away for free or charge almost nothing that just encourages advertisers to look for free and extremely low cost photos.
While this photo might not be worth several hundred dollars, what if was a very unique shot that was potentially worth hundreds of dollars? I don't take photos to make money, but if I was offered a couple hundred dollars I could upgrade to a new camera. Depending on how I felt about the shot and how it would be used and licensed, $50 might be enough.
I have been asked for using a photo in a book with credit, but no compensation. I had a hard time deciding. Some recognition of my work in print would be nice, but there was no guarantee my photo would have been used and they book author and publisher would have been making a profit off of my work without for free.
I don't see having your photo used for free is not that impressive recognition. If they really thought your photo was that good they would pay for it. But as long as thousands of other people are willing to give their photos away for nothing why pay?
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
with pleasure, it orders the image for where!
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
wrightferrugem_ edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
But the point is, this wasn't a book, it wasn't an advert selling a product, it was a PSA to create awareness about energy emissions.
If someone wanted to use the photo in a book, I'd ask for a credit and maybe compensation if possible. If it was for an ad for plugs, I'd want reimbursement for sure. But in the current context I think 'free' is a reasonable price.
At the least you'd have had a story to tell. Now you just get to tell your grandkids how you once had a chance to get a photo on mtv but you thought they were cheeky for asking so you told them to get lost.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
But personally, I think I would keep my ethical stance
Hmmmm. I would suggest that, if it was my work, that ethics can go to hell unless everyone is playing the same game.
They're making money? So shall I. They're doing a good deed for the community/public at no profit? Then so will I.
Level playing field and all that. But I;m buggered if someone else is going to finance their Porsche off my personal affinity with a particular cause...
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Dunno about the US but PSAs in the UK are either financed by the government, or by the industry as part of their broadcasting licence. No doubt the AD agency will have been paid X to produce the commercial, they won't be paid X-eps because they've managed to get free images. Additionally the client in this case is MTV not some public body.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
At the least you'd have had a story to tell.
I have a story to tell... A billion dollar advertising agency came to me on behalf of their multi billion dollar client wanting something for nothing and I told them where to stick it.
Do you really think MTV want to get people to use less power by switching off the tv?
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
no, no of course not. They want you to switch off the tivo and the lights and the laptop. So you're left with nothing but mtv. and maybe a blender, for the daiquiris.
yah, credit would be nice for pro bono work, that is true.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I think Matt and Brock hit it on the head with these two comments.
Brock - They're making money? So shall I. They're doing a good deed for the community/public at no profit? Then so will I.
Level playing field and all that. But I;m buggered if someone else is going to finance their Porsche off my personal affinity with a particular cause...
Matt - And how am I supposed to ring up those billable client hours by doing things the easy way, huh?
They could probably spare a few thousand for the photography, and I think that last comment sent to Mark & the Zebra was intended to be a slap in the face.
Dunno about the US but PSAs in the UK are either financed by the government, or by the industry as part of their broadcasting licence.
I'm not really certain exactly how it works, but I am fairly certain that it is an FCC requirement in the US that broadcasters run a certain number of PSAs per year and they must report it to the government or risk losing their license, so the broadcaster probably finances it themselves as they would any other kind of programming as part of the cost of maintaining their license.
Sort of like the old requirement that each broadcaster was required to have a certain number of hours of educational programming per week, but I think that requirement is now dead. I'm not a big fan of regulation. I like balance. There's such a thing as going too far in the other direction.
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
purplezebra edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
 |
If I were you..........I would register the image with the Copyright Office, if the image has not been published for longer than 90 days, you still hold all rights to it. If they use it after you told them NO.......and you have it registered, you can then file suite and they will have to pay you full market value, plus any damages, and all court costs !!! That would teach these thieving bastiches a lesson, and you could get some money, and satisfaction of nailing them for their arrogance in assuming that we all have no recourse when they steal our work !!!
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
If you do not to reply to this message before April 27th, 2007 at 10:00AM EST you hereby waive all rights to approve for use the above mentioned photograph in the MTV commercial."
If you are not going to do this send them a definative no. This little bit of double speak gives them the right to use this without your permission.
I know it only says approve but it also says waive all rights... dirty little lawyer trick.
and it may be petty but i would block the guy because if he does it once he does it for a living.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
simplyjake The paragraph you quoted is not enforceable in most jurisdictions that justify the concept.
You simply do not loose your rights to material because somebody else has given you a ‘deadline’ to agree to their terms, or otherwise they will use it.
As noted in many comments above, it is a bluff. One has to wonder at the morality and ethics of somebody purported to be legally trained authorising such a letter.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
.Miles [deleted] says:
As long as no rights were signed away then Y&R has no CYA - they would be stupid to use the image without a signed permission slip. Not to say they will not do it. ; )
As for the "grandkids" being impressed with MTV - unless he already has some, MTV by then will probably be about as exciting as Lawrence Welk. : P
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
This is strange
In Québec, we have a tv ad, (by Hydro Quebec) it is an animated version of a similar wall plug. The top plug (more aggressive) talks with the lower plug (more fearful) they discuss saving energy.
The two are like classic theatre masks. They (HQ) use the friendly one as a new logo for energy saving (the optimist)
www.hydroquebec.com/en/
It is very similar to your picture, maybe they own the copyright.
So maybe that ad company wants to sue you...
Believe me ad agencies usually pay, they are a money B
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I'm sorry that the ad agency did turn out to be a rights grabber Mark. But you've done a brilliant thing here by publicising the stunt these people are trying pull.
And it's great to see the almost universal condemnation of it. Flickr is a bit more savvy about these shysters than it was a few months ago I reckon. Long may it continue.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Y&R's release form is what I find so offensive. If they were truly being fair, they'd offer a one-time, specific and limited use release form for only this PSA and not this "we can use it for as long as we like, wherever we like, for whatever purpose we like, for free" release. That's just 100% cheek. You were right to refuse, "good cause" or not.
And the sobering thought is Y&R, at least, asked first.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Miles, you are very nice, thanks.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
God help us if anyone ever asks for use of a kitten photo or a flower macro or a bloody sunset shot instead of these very dull shots of plug sockets. Flickr's servers would collapse with the sheer volume of hot air and paranoid seething.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
It's all dust in the end teotwawki
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
@JenT: You got it exactly right.
I think (like most companies these days) Y&R knows that if one person refuses, they can always find a sucker to give their work away for nothing...
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
... i give away my pics all the time, particularly if it's a worthy cause in which i believe ... i've also sold pics on line asking for some small financial compensation and credit to be completed via Paypal ... the way i worked it is to send a bill for the item described (photo) and once the payment was received i sent the electronic image via email straight to the buyer ... it's like making money out of air! ... the money was already in my bank account! ...
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
jeepers .. i am going to start taking pics of outlets and doorknobs and dog bowls and cat boxes and blenders if thats what gets you on national TV! and for no money and no credit.. what a deal! career building.
you did right and you wrote your reply well. they need to get that rerply from us all.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
"If you do not to reply to this message before April 27th, 2007 at 10:00AM EST you hereby waive all rights to approve for use the above mentioned photograph in the MTV commercial."
Is this even legal? They can't take away your rights to your photo just because you don't respond to them.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
i give away my pics all the time, particularly if it's a worthy cause in which i believe
Me too, and in this case I think it's important to remember that there are many different manifestations of a particular cause.
If I want to contribute to promoting energy efficiency, there are a great many organisation that are more effective and consistent in promoting the cause, and also more deserving than MTV and their advertising agency, for whom the 'cause' represents not much more than fulfilling a regulatory requirement; any PSA would do, they just happened to pick this one.
Is this even legal? They can't take away your rights to your photo just because you don't respond to them.
It's legal to say. I mean, I could send a letter to the UN that says that unless they respond by noon tomorrow, they cede all title and claim to Olympus Mons. Doesn't mean anyone would actually believe it. It was said above pretty succinctly: it's not much more than intimidation and dirty lawyering.
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
matt edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
 |
To everyone who has uploaded photographs to Flickr:
I intend to use all of your photographs for any purpose I choose and will not provide compensation in any form for such use. If you do not reply to this message before April 27th, 2007 at 10:00AM PST you hereby waive all rights to approve for use the above mentioned photographs. In addition you waive all so-called moral rights and similar rights throughout the world in respect of your services provided hereunder.
Signed: Tab (the greedy) Hastal
p.s. I'm doing this for a so-called "worthy cause", like helping orphan kittens or something, so you really should be flattered and happy to help.
p.p.s. Direct all replys to brockneedsaporsche@britincanadaland.com
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Tàbhastal edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
 |
I think the best solution would be to charge e.g. 50 cents payable via e.g. PayPal.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
If you do not to reply to this message before April 27th, 2007 at 10:00AM EST you hereby waive all rights to approve for use the above mentioned photograph in the MTV commercial."
One should always refer to Pressdram vs Arkell in such cases
www.answers.com/topic/arkell-v-pressdram
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
... i give away my pics all the time, particularly if it's a worthy cause in which i believe ...
I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem with photographers (amateur or not) who give away their pictures to multi-million dollar, for-profit organizations who only do token charitable work. That just devalues the work of all of us.
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
RoninVision edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
After research i must stand corrected, American FCC rules state non payment for PSA (although i would believe it is tax deductible).
In Canada, only political parties get free air time during elections (they can also purchase air time). All other ads and air time for PSA are paid by the state (they own federal, TV & radio, and provincial, tv only, networks) all service ads are paid. Health care, car injuries, electric energy, education, work related accidents, unemployment (services in general) are administered by the government. A long time ago ads were made by government agencies (National film board, Canadian Broadcasting company) and placed in what was called interludes (dead air of sorts). Not so anymore, in Canada this has lead to a scandal, with gross overpayment to certain "partisan" ad agencies. But this is a different story.
"PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS
In the United States a public service announcement(PSA) is defined by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in a formal and detailed manner. A PSA is "any announcement (including network) for which no charge is made and which promotes programs, activities, or services of federal, state, or local governments (e.g., recruiting, sale of bonds, etc.) or the programs, activities or services of non-profit organizations (e.g., United Way, Red Cross blood donations, etc.) and other announcements regarded as serving community interests, excluding time signals, routine weather announcements and promotional announcements." "
www.museum.tv/archives/etv/P/htmlP/publicservic/publicser...
The ad council uses the energy hog in 2004, byTracyLocke ad agency.
www.adcouncil.org/default.aspx?id=19
Young and Rubicam is listed in other PSA services (not pertaining to energy saving).
The major point I believe is not the image (photo) but the concept, ie animated "faces" of the plug. If the ad that Y&B present is similar to the ad made by Hydro Québec (myself i believe that an electric plug does look like a face, it would be natural to extend it as an animated character) however it may be a breach of creative copyright.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
milanab [deleted] says:
here is some advice i received after several discussions with those in the "know" about such things
"it can't be legal. you have to get affirmative permission in writing to use someone's copyrighted work. No response=no permission. Y&R knows that. They assume the photographer doesn't. But asserting a right they don't really have is just a way to make themselves look big and intimidating. "
i have had a similar week with these guys concerning an image i have that they wanted to use. i took it off the internet so i won't post it here. BUT after much discussion with him and others well within the community of advertising etc, i decided against doing this. because of the copyright issues. he thinks i would still be free to use it, even if they do. but that form gives them total and complete control, as they say in perpetuity.
he wasn't expecting me to know anything about licensing or copyright i guess, and indeed i was confused and sought advice due to some of the wording.
i made him an offer for a one time use license which of course he said he had to refuse. he couldn't pay me, since he wasn't paying others. also he said they were not getting paid to do the commercial.
i don't have a problem sharing my photos for a good use, i love photography. but i won't give away my control over the copyright.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Ask them if they ever heard of a Creative Commons license. Distributions rights and permission already given for commercial uses:
flickr.com/search/?q=face&l=4
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Distributions rights and permission already given for commercial uses:
CC needs attribution.
for a TV spot, that'd be tricky.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
As striatic says they can't user CC because that requires attribution but no doubt some may waive that when asked. Also their standard licence agreement seems too biased towards the agency and may put others off. No doubt they'll find a way to get their image that satisfies all concerned.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Hello.
New to this group. Want to put in my two cents.
The issue here is not whether a good cause is the justification to donate the image or, rather, squeeze the advertising for what it's worth in order to get generously compensated for it. This is an issue of copyright protection. The advertiser was asking the photographer to give up his/her rights to that image. So that image will be wholly owned by the advertiser. Understand?
So... the photographer is not only giving this image up for the PSA but giving it up for good, which means the advertiser can use it whenever he wants wherever he wants -- PSA or no PSA.
It's important to create a license. A license specifies the use of that image for that particular project. Have you ever rented a car? When you turn the car in to, say, Avis or whatever, you usually fill out a sheet asking you how many miles you travelled, how many days, etc. Think of the license the same way. So that if the Advertiser uses the image beyond what they led you to believe, then it's in your right to go after them.
A lot of people here are also trying to differentiate between an amature photographer and a professional photographer and how one's treatment of their images should not effect the others'. There is no difference. Anything created by anybody, no matter how professional or amature, is copyritten (copyrightable?) due to US law immediately on conception. That does not mean you shouldn't bother with registering it with the Library of Congress, however. That way you'll have stronger ammunition to protect yourself in the long run.
Although the waiver presented by the Advertiser may not be legal, if you had consented to signing that paper, and found that your image was being used beyond it's requested use, you would have a very hard time going after them. The advertiser, and possibly MTV themselves, may have lot more money to spend on legal fees than you do and, ultimately, you could lose should you want to take it to court.
Another point: a poster mentioned how photographers should accept their redunancy in a business that has already made printmakers, analog film processors, etc, redundant as if a comparison can be made. The difference here, again, is ownership of copyright. A photographer owns the copyright to his work unless he/she works for a specific photo agency, publisher or client that holds the copyright to whatever he produces. Either way, it's an issue of who owns the rights to that image. And by giving that image away, even if by justifying that it's to something representative of a good cause, will make it that much more difficult for everyone else to properly protect their ownership.
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
rosakleb edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
.Miles [deleted] says:
The way Y&R acts is shady and underhanded. It's predatory. It's been common for some time and it's getting worse. The bottom line is that many in the industry feel that photographers are sheep to be sheared. The reasons why can even be found in this thread. There are photographers who want to be taken advantage of. There are even more who simply do not have experience negotiating rights.
Education is the best foil to this practice. With education you can still give your rights away if you so choose, but at least your eyes will be open while doing so.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
.Miles [deleted] says:
rosakleb - nicely put and to the point.
Welcome.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I'm still skeptical that there's no way to provide attribution ( cc-by license ) for an image used in a TV commercial. One could put "flickr user: jojobeans" as a small overlay; maybe you could post a URL where you give full credits.
The MTV'ers are engaged in brick-and-mortar thinkin', not very new-media-savvy, with their approach to getting images to use.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I'm still skeptical that there's no way to provide attribution ( cc-by license ) for an image used in a TV commercial.
It's not a technical problem. An overlay would be easy to do technically, but it's not enormously practical for the format, not least because if you credit some anonymous still photographer that you're not even paying, what about the cameramen, director, producer, writer, ad agency, and so forth?
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
To: arthurcoddington
Let's also face some very real facts about photography and art in general. Not all art, including photos, are created with a profit motive. I'm kind of tired hearing how photographers are being undercut by people selling cheap content or giving content away. It's all about personal choices, and if the fact that some people, like me, give away some content, I am not going to feel guilty about the market for photos going down. It's not my problem, and I would suggest that any photographer feeling the pinch might need to somehow supplement their income, just like I do.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
To Matt:
Attribution is given in commercials all the time, so that's a non-issue. I'm not really following you on your question about attributing the 'cameramen, director, producer, writer, ad agency.' What does that mean?
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Just to let everyone know that I signed the release form without a fee and, somewhat to my surprise, the moment I put pen to paper this little man with horns on his head appeared and I am now being disembowelled by demons in the hottest, most sulphurous depths of hell.
Or not, and it was all fine.
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
teotwawki edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
As for giving work away, I have no problem with it, and do it plenty myself. What I want to see, though, is tit-for-tat behaviour. If I'm giving something to you, gratis, you should be giving something to someone else, back to the community, or so forth. You should not ask for more than you need, nor attempt to take advantage in any other way.
In the case of Y&R, they're doing something for the community (barely - it's a regulatory requirement to produce PSAs), but they're not contributing any resources back to the common pool (for instance, if the PSA was available to other broadcasters free of charge, or part of an educational package for schools, or anything like that), and they're asking for many more rights than they would need for the single PSA they're producing.
Think of it this way: I'll give a donation to someone cavassing for a charity, but if some thug walks up and tells me to empty my wallet and make a "donation" to him, or else — that's a bit different.
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
matt edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
I'm kind of tired hearing how photographers are being undercut by people selling cheap content or giving content away.
That I believe has been the argument of the scab from time immoral.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Didn't anyone notice these terms in the contract above:
"I . . . do hereby irrevocably consent that Young and Rubicam (“Agency”) may use my still photograph called ‘Faces’ in a public service announcement (PSA) commercial for it’s client, MTV (“Client”), and any of their subsidiary and affiliated companies and licensees for the purposes of advertising, promotion and trade in any media throughout the world in perpetuity."
Which states that after they use it for free in the PSA, you have given them permission to use the photo for any uses, including advertising, for any of their companies and clients, forever. No one should ever give this right away for free. You probably will never get credit for its use, nor will they have to tell you that they used it. Even if they don't use it in the PSA, you have given them permission to use this photo forever.
Should someone later come in offering to pay for this photo and want an exclusive use of it, you can't offer that because you lost the ability to license exclusive rights when you gave Y&R the unlimited rights for free.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Hello there--
I am the person representing the agency that everyone is talking about. I wasn't going to respond but after getting some quite hateful emails directed personally towards me I thought I needed to say something.
I should start by first aplogizing to those that feel they are being taken advantage of as that was never the intention. The project I am working on is truly a PSA and therefore I have been asking people to donate their images for us to use free of charge, for a good cause. If they said no, then so be it, I completely understand and we would not use the image without permission. If they said yes but with compensation I also had to pass as I simply don't have any money in my budget. Yes, many of the images are of simmple items that I could find and photograph myself but we all thought it would be nice to at least give the photgraphers a chance to donate his or her image. Also, credits are given often for TV commercials and where we can we will give credit and a thanks to all those people who have been kind enough to dontate their images. Their generosity doesn't go unnoticed. Please trust me on that.
I have to say that many many people in this community have been very gracious and excited about this project and to those people I give a big thank you. On multiple occasions, at the photgraphers request, I modified the standard release form to better suit their needs. Also, to all those who did sign and send back the standard release you should know that we have no intenetion of using the image for any other purpose not related to the PSA and if you want other people to use your image for whatever reason then please go ahead and do so. Please also don't think that you have to remove the photo from Flickr or anyone else. This is also something I wrote to many people who were kind enough to ask about the standard release form wording.
This debate of 'the big man vs the small man' is ages old and it will continue forever I am sure. I do ask to please respect people's decisions as I respect their's.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
rjbeck, your response is much appreciated.
Though if you're open to advice, if it's your intention to only use the images for the single PSA, you could do yourself a lot of favours by only asking for those limited rights, rather than the "anything and everything in perpetuity" of your standard release.
There are a lot of shady contracts out there, using a lot of similar language to yours. I don't think anyone needs to think very hard to come up with an example of when a contract says one thing and a person says another, that it's the contract that matters in the end.
If you only want the images for one project, there's really no harm in only asking for them for that one project, and there's a tremendous amount to be said for clarity. I'd bet that people would be more willing to contribute, and a lot less likely to complain, if the assurances you're giving now were given up front, as part of the legal agreement you're asking them to sign.
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
matt edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
 |
wikiprophoto.blogspot.com/2007/04/amateur-discovered-on-f...
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
What a nightmare... I hope that rjbeck listens along with other companies. It seems to be the fashion to grab as many rights as possible nowadays and most companies don't realise that they're doing it.
I point out the problem within the contract to my potential clients and only a few of them have refused to remove it, I then refuse to photograph for them, simple.
What these companies need to do is really read these contracts their expensive lawyers are doling out and ask themselves the question "would I sign this?" and the answer would probably be no.
These times we live in are very odd, people seem to expect that the people they pay to do a job for them know their business and other businesses inside out, these contracts will change, slowly as long as we keep saying NO to rights grabbers.
I would've said no to the contract above.
It doesn't matter whether you are a pro or amateur, these contracts steal your soul bit by bit.
I see these contracts as asking for you to hand over your children, with no right to see them again and certainly no right to touch them. I don't like them at all and will say no at everyone offered. There is no principles or morals any more, where did they go?
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Michelle Jones UK edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
A STUNG Bee Keeper [deleted] says:
Yea,
If some one wanted my work I would sell it to them at a mighty fine price!! So I can gt some NEW Equipment!!
Signed,
- Would be nice!!
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
rjbeck, I agree with what Matt wrote above. Also, you should not write something like this in your email notifications to people whose work you want to use.....
"If you do not to reply to this message before April 27th, 2007 at 10:00AM EST you hereby waive all rights to approve for use the above mentioned photograph in the MTV commercial."
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
The utter ARRAGRONCE OF THE MAN ! especially since he could not spin away the effective transfer of copyright !! .. Aw shucks legal made me send
" the standard release you should know that we have no intention of using the image for any other purpose not related to the PSA and if you want other people to use your image for whatever reason then please go ahead and do so."
Intententions change especially when you now have granted them in effect your copyright .
Oh and that " please respond by" or loose your rights is deceptive, coercive, and will alienate the very people you are trying to solicit. People who might consider granting you a specific licence for your STATED public service campaign.
Copyright infringement on the web can be VERRY expensive. I hope some smart lawyer finds a client harmed by the coercive deceptive wording of your 'standard agreement' ie extortion letter and sues you to receivership.
All my images are posted all rights reserved to keep piss ants such as this at bay. I am shure he just trolls the less restrictive licences looking for free photos that he can use forever .
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
alanofsac edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
.Miles [deleted] says:
This is nothing but spin to place a good public face on Y&R after the thrashing they've been rightfully given here in this thread.
rjbeck I'm sure you would never sign a contract like the one you are offering if you were on the other side of the desk. It's more than a bad deal, it is predatory.
You can make your sales pitch on here and try to turn this sour deal into lemonade but the bottom line is this: what is written always trumps any sugar coated words or promises. A sincere individual, a respectable company would not set forth with such a contract - period.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
RJBECK,
I have a suggestion. Since you haven't paid for the images and part of the joy of giving away photos is the chance to see them in print or online, you should post the airtimes for this PSA commercial so that those who have either chosen to donate their images or haven't read their email this week can see their work. This is reward enough for some as they have stated here. (I don't agree but that is their choice)
I will also respectfully suggest that you review the copyright laws with house counsel. You are exposing your company to possible liability by your strange interpretation of the copyright law. You somehow think you are allowed under the copyright laws to email the copyright holder with a short deadline and if no response, grab the copyright. Surely you know that this subjects your company to copyright violations and does not constitute a valid license to use.
Posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Raoul Wegat [deleted] says:
rjbeck1978,
Thanks for making an appearance. I have one question. I'd like to know if you're doing this as part of you're paid employment at Y&R, or are you doing this from the goodness of your heart??
Originally posted 32 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Raoul Wegat edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
FlickrCentral /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to FlickrCentral discussion threads
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
