Owning yor work when working for others

You will always hold the copyright for your images, the only thing you are selling when you do an assignment for a client is the right for them to use your images. And in that sense you can established a lot of different clauses…

But your negatives, slides or original digital files are always yours!!! To do whatever you want with them!!!

Many cheers,

Armando

PS. Just because you get paid as an engineer, doesn’t means that you shouldn’t get paid when doing those photographic assignments. In fact it is advisable that you charge them for it otherwise you are blowing it for you in the future and for other photographers that the company might hire, as they are going to expect to have the pics done for free.

Ok, first lets clear things up… you will ask for money for this. It is not about how much you make but the fact that you are doing extra work that you are not paid to be doing and that you are doing work in a professional capacity. Essentially you took a job from a working photog, I have no problem that you did this so long as you are paid for it; if you are not, you are helping dilute all other photographers ability to make a living ever so slightly. welcome to the world of pro photography :). BTW none of what you are doing should EVER EVER EVER be work for hire… Especially in the music industry.

Now that thats out of the way, the contract would be something like full license for online and print distributions (either national or international you pick) for the first release of the album. What this means is that so long as the album is in it’s first incarnation they have the licesnse, after that, lets say they want to do a repackage with a live/studio 2 disk or they get picked up by a larger label, thats a new license. The fee is based on how big the band is, for example: a small local band would be worth $400 to $750 for first run, a large regional act would be worth up to $5000 maybe more depending, a national act can go for as much as $15000, and if we are talking about the U2s of the world then it’s what they will pay sometimes as much as $80,000 for all the art. Again these where the approximate prices I got on the small scale stuff in the Chicago area, and the numbers I have heard from pros at the national US level.

This however, would exclude retail merchandise, based on that being something that should be individually licensed (we are talking about something in the order .5 to 1 % of profit on these items).

Stuff like books and license for reprints remain with you so long as you, 1) obtain model releases, and 2) are not doing a book solely on one band.

If you want more info on how to run a business in this I will answer questions that I can and point you in the direction of the answer if I can’t. stuff like charging for the shoot verses charging for the product and figuring out costs.

ps good luck and best wishes.

“Up until now, I’ve been strictly a serious amateur”

jim,
no offence meant,but if you are not getting paid you are STILL an amateur.

If you are employed by a record company, you probably signed something when you started that gives them ownership of any intellectual property you create while on the clock for them. Even without the paperwork, it would be hard to argue against the company if you are shooting on company property while on company time. Check with a lawyer – Japanese law is probably different than US law.

Michael is right-you need to get paid in future!! I bet that band you photographed don’t perform for nothing.
No point pissing your employers off by asking for retrospective payment though-I’d write that last one off to experience and whatever you do, DON’T give them the negs !!
When that band becomes famous in twenty years time you will finally see some $$$$$$$$$

The problem is, I’m already being paid for the time I shoot, as the shoots have been happening during business hours. Should I ask for something above and beyond that?

For example, I will be taking next Thursday, a day I’d normally be at my desk working on servers or whatever, to shoot a group of three hip-hop artists. For that time, I am most certainly paid. I’m comfortable that I’m neither selling myself short, nor taking work away from anyone. I’d just like to know that I can use my stuff freely in the future.

How does it work when a photographer is on staff for a small magazine? The sort where the person draws a regular paycheck, regardless of how much they shoot. I would assume that such a photographer would have other responsibilities.

It is more complicated than you might think on the surface. It is more about whether you have a legal right to charge, not whether you should in fact charge.

The company probably has a policy (certainly for engineers and certainly in a record company) that any intellectual property you create in the course of your employment belongs to the company. You are probably subject to that, though I have no idea how the law in Japan works (which presumably applies to your employment situation). If you are, you may in fact not own the copyright in your photos. So you need to clarify that, and nobody here on Lightstalkers can do that for you…you have to ask up the chain of your employment.

However, having a portfolio of good, published band shots, however taken, puts you in a much better position to shoot pics for other bands where the work is not within your scope of employment. So for sure get out there and promote yourself.

And BTW, “amateur” also means someone who LOVES a particular activity…”The word comes from French, and can be translated as “lover of”, reflecting the amateur’s motivation to work as a result of a love or passion for a particular activity.” see Wikipedia. So keep on loving what you do!

I cannot stress this enough, IT IS DOING DAMAGE TO EVERY PHOTOGRAPHER HERE IF YOU DO NOT REQUIRE PAYMENT. I am sorry to sound like an ass but if I have to I will. This is a group for people who make a living with a camera, are training to do so, or are in some way making a living connected to this industry. There is no place here for people who do damage to our profession. This is not a personal attack this is about self preservation for those in the field who need to feed and house themselves with the content that they create with a camera.

If it makes you feel better clock out, don’t do this work on “their time.” For staff photographers, the situation is that they do what is in their contract… maybe once in a while they will do something that is not, but a staffer has a contract that spells out what they need to be doing for that salary. Most staff PJs I know shoot and edit and maybe tone, that’s it.

BTW, how are you fine with doing something that could be adding a couple thousand dollars to your paycheck a month for free? How are you fine with doing something that could, in fact, give you a steady source of income in the form of royalty and licensing checks to allow you to have the time to shoot more and become a full time pro, or to take a year off and do what ever it is that you have always wanted to do?

Again, please don’t take this as a personal attack in any way, I am trying to get you to see the bigger picture; I am trying to get you to see how your actions will have an affect on all of us.

Hi Jim.

Would you believe I have an employment lawyer sitting next to me? So for once this is not just backyard legal advise. :)

The following applied back home when I was once in a position not too different to yours. And it was in Australia, so who knows how it applies to you in Japan, but here goes. If the essential nature of your role and duties is IT, there is every chance that references in your contract (and local law) that cover the company’s claim to your IP while on their time does not extend to photography because it’s not part of your role or responsibility. This is also reflected in the fact that you’re not being paid for photography, you’re being paid for your IT expertise. So naturally they are not able to lay claim to IP over work you’re not being paid or employed for.

I know you feel you’re already on their dime so how do you ask them for more money? Well the first thing to do is realise that they’re presently getting away without hiring other photographers. So theye’re saving money. And you’re working beyond your role and responsibilities for no extra money. So in effect you are absorbing a loss that lets your employer make a saving.

Here’s what you need to do. You need to cover your shooting for them under a contract that is separate to your day job. If they don’t like this, the first argument to convey is that by shooting for them as an IT person IP is a very shaky area and that a question mark hovers over everything you’ve done this far, but can be cleared up for the future by creating a separate contract-relationship. And secondly, if they aren’t willing to also pay you through this contract-arrangement then you’ll realise the truth behind why they’re getting you to shoot for them and you must then stop (remembering that they can’t hold it against you because you’re an IT expert not a photographer by employment).

Best of luck.

Wade.

Wade (and the employment lawyer sitting next to him) are right. As I said in my post above, the key issue is whether the photography is done “in the course of your employment.” So the legal issue is the scope of your employment….is this work reasonably comprehended in your employment duties? You need a copy of your job description or the like to determine that, though most such descriptions in large companies will include something like “and other duties as assigned,” and that will be cited as supporting the likely company position that the work is within your scope of employment. So be prepared for that argument.

When you have that you will need to consult with a lawyer to know your rights. Then, and only then, should you begin negotiations with your employer, as you will know your legal rights by that point.

In fairness the employer should pay you an additional amount for this work, as it is different than the work you normally do, and it is saving them the cost of an outside photographer. But, practically speaking, there are a lot of cultural issues, especially in Japan, which might weigh in in these circumstances.

I cannot stress this enough, IT IS DOING DAMAGE TO EVERY PHOTOGRAPHER HERE IF YOU DO NOT REQUIRE PAYMENT.

Well, that’s being a little dramatic. He IS getting paid. Since it’s taking time away from his normal job, the company is trading that time for his time as a photographer. If it goes on long enough, they’ll have to hire someone to do his old job. So the company IS paying for the images, one way or another.

He’s an employee, which means the company probably owns the images since they were produced on the clock. It’s not an IP issue. If you are on the clock for the company, generally speaking anything you do is owned by the company. The flip side is that there are also liability issues – the company is also generally responsible if you screw something up while doing something they asked you to do…like take pictures…even if it’s outside your job scope. This is the balance – they assume part of the risk for your behavior, they pay you money to do the job, therefore they get the benefits of your labor.

Welcome to workin’ for da’ man.

The real argument is whether he should have done the job to begin with. Lots of examples that have nothing to do with photography of this type of thing going on – people doing jobs outside of their scope. Sometimes the employer just gets more out of the person, sometimes the person gets a promotion.

It’s not an IP/copyright issue.