* My Profile My Galleries My Networks

Red Cross

Hey there. What do you guys think about this contract and how much should each image go for, under this policy? I’ll appreciate any feed back. Thanks. c

“I agree that the ICRC holds all transferable intellectual property rights to the X annexed photographs, including but not limited to the right to use, modify, publish, sell or distribute the photographs in any material prepared for or on its behalf. The ICRC also holds the right to transfer these photographs to third parties. The ICRC does not hold these rights in exclusivity. The photos will be credited as follows: Photographer’s first name last name/ICRC

by Carlos Villalon at 2012-06-25 22:45:28 UTC | Bookmark | | Report spam→

I dont think anything about this. If you know what this means, just put a price on your images. Or, the alamy photo calculator might give you an idea of similar shots. http://www.alamy.com

by Tom Van Cakenberghe | 26 Jun 2012 19:06 (ed. Jun 26 2012) | Kathmandu, Nepal | | Report spam→
Thanks for that link Tom

by Carlos Villalon | 27 Jun 2012 17:06 | Bogota, Colombia | | Report spam→
Carlos, do you really want to agree to a contract that gives your client the right to resell your images and essentially transfers your intellectual property rights to the client in perpetuity? I’d suggest you at the very least make it clear that “The ICRC does not hold these rights in exclusivity; photographer retains equal rights to use, modify, publish, sell and distribute the photographs [possibly with an exclusive right for ICRC for x years to use or something along those lines]”. You might also want to consider limiting their right to further transfer the rights to your photos — that way at least you know it’s just ICRC making use of them. The way the contract reads now, they could essentially share them far and wide with others, who in turn would share them far and wide — and while that’d certainly give you exposure, it’d be a really sad business model…

by Lars Blackmore | 27 Jun 2012 20:06 | Norwich, United States | | Report spam→
I completely agree with Lars – Carlos, do you really want to concede all the rights to your photos? If you do, then make sure you get paid appropriately (and I guess that wouldn’t be no small sum and they wouldn’t be willing to pay it…).

By the way, could someone explain to me the following: to me it seems that there is a contradiction between the sentences “ICRC holds all […] rights […]” and later “The ICRC does not hold these rights in exclusivity.” Did I miss something here…?


by Laura Larmo | 28 Jun 2012 10:06 | Milan, Italy | | Report spam→
Thanks guys

I was curious about the language on this contract and after a couple of days of thinking about it, I’m pissed of at ICRC for the obvious reasons


by Carlos Villalon | 28 Jun 2012 12:06 | Bogota, Colombia | | Report spam→
Carlos, don’t be pissed off — try go get a reasonable agreement that works for ICRC and for you, too. Whoever wrote the contract you outlined may not appreciate how wrong it is for a photographer to agree to something like that — and may just need some help w/ the wording to reach a set of terms that works for everyone. If they really want the work done and need the photos, then they should be willing and able to pay for it. Your challenge is to make them realize that, and to make them an offer that’s reasonable. To begin with, you really don’t want to let you client dictate the terms of the contract — better to give them your contract (with the price and conditions you’d like to set) and then negotiate back from there. That’ll put you in the driver’s seat, but will also give them the sense that they’ve negotiated their way to a good deal. Good luck.

by Lars Blackmore | 28 Jun 2012 12:06 | Norwich, United States | | Report spam→
Hi Carlos,

I don’t know if this is a new way that media acquisition is being guided through the ICRC, but I recently had the same problem with a contract/terms with a small chapter of the ICRC. I ended up not agreeing to their outright rights grab and they dropped the offer and took someone that said yes..


by Ethan Knight | 28 Jun 2012 14:06 | Bangkok, Thailand | | Report spam→
This a problem with a lot of different outlets nowadays. Had the same problem with Vice Magazine a while ago. I said no to their contract and they left angry at me without buying. Now the ICRC. It looks to me like they want to have their own agency and make profits without sharing with us . I just replied to them saying that I could not abide to their terms and charge them a lot of $$$ in case they want to distribute to third parties. I guess I am going to be out of business very soon. Any waiter jobs out there in NYC?

Thanks for all the replies.


by Carlos Villalon | 28 Jun 2012 15:06 | Bogota, Colombia | | Report spam→
the problem is that they will always find a photographer that agrees to their terms and conditions. More and more NGOs and magazines want full rights in order to build their own archive and sell the images. I was recently asked worldwide and lifetime rights from a very well known US magazine, they wanted to publish a story I recently did. So lifetime and worldwide rights for 1000 US$.
And btw they know very well what’s written in their contracts, the contracts are written by their laywers who are highly specialized. so don’t get fooled :) let them pick someone else who’s willing to sell their soul.
BUT could this (The ICRC does not hold these rights in exclusivity. ) mean that you also own the rights? not clear
have it checked by a lawyer, many times these contracts are not legal but they rely on the fact that photographers won’t go verify with an attorney. good luck :)

by Matilde Gattoni | 29 Jun 2012 15:06 | Beirut, Lebanon | | Report spam→
Matilde, really appreciate hearing your story — although it’s extremely depressing to realize what we’re up against. Even if they’re not buying your rights entirely (i.e. the way some of us have mistakenly done when working as stringers for e.g. the AP), it’s still quite unacceptable to be hired for a job — or to sell a picture — and then proceed to see your work be sold as if it were now somehow “theirs.” Hopefully the quality of work they end up with as they make their way down the food chain to the desperate photographers will be bad enough that they realize they’re missing out on getting truly great photos — albeit at the price that good work should command.

by Lars Blackmore | 30 Jun 2012 01:06 | Norwich, United States | | Report spam→
well CNN recently fired many of their photographers stating that they can now rely on citizen journalists, that tells a lot on the quality and the reliability they are aiming at…
there’s not much we can do apart from refusing these contracts and keep in mind why we chose this job.

by Matilde Gattoni | 30 Jun 2012 06:06 | Beirut, Lebanon | | Report spam→
Well, if nobody would agree to this kind of contract, organizations like the ICRC and so any others would come down to the normal level again, much to everybody’s benefit.

Under NO circumstances would I sign away the copyright to my images! And if you do it for $ 1,000 is the equivalent of selling your shots off on a microstock site.

Small NCO’s are better for cooperation, they are often willing to help without demanding a lot.

by Johann Brandstatter | 30 Jun 2012 15:06 | Sofia, Bulgaria | | Report spam→
I would get a lawyer to read the contract – it’s nebulous.

The only way companies (charities), which are after all big Business, and all about the bottom line can get away with this is because many photographer’s don’t treat what they do as a Business. In any other Business if you are presented with a contract the first thing you do is get a lawyer to tell you what it means. there are Volunteer Lawyers http://vlany.org/ who charge a small amount based on income or sometimes it’s free.

This is not directed at you Carlos but the state of affairs right now as I see it. I think that professional photographers really need to get business savvy – it’s not just about taking photos ( as seen anything passes these days in newspapers etc.) it’s about having a business that thrives and survives and that means packaging our talent as a highly sought after professional service, building a profile, protecting our assets, creating a demand , having business skills – photos are assets, a photographers IRA, 401K – to survive you can’t just be handing them out for a credit or giving them away for pocket-change to be resold, the revenue going into someone else’s pocket.

The more I think about this the more insane and mind boggling it seems to me that photographer’s even countenance this kind of set up. and charities have the gall to pursue such a below the belt tactic. Seems to me that they think of photographers as a push-over, a dime a dozen , a conveyor belt of images to be snatched – not very flattering.
How did that come about? and How to change it?

by Angela Cumberbirch | 30 Jun 2012 16:06 | New York, United States | | Report spam→
BTW: Volunteers Lawyers for the Arts offers many seminars in Copyright, Intellectual Property for visual artists, photographers included.

by Angela Cumberbirch | 30 Jun 2012 17:06 | New York, United States | | Report spam→

Get notified when someone replies to this thread:
Feed-icon-10x10 via RSS
Icon_email via email
You can unsubscribe later.

More about sponsorship→


Carlos Villalon, Photojournalist Carlos Villalon
Bogota , Colombia
Tom Van Cakenberghe, Tom Van Cakenberghe
Kathmandu , Nepal
Lars Blackmore, Photojournalist Lars Blackmore
(LIfe is my reality show)
Boston , United States ( BOS )
Laura Larmo, Photographer Laura Larmo
Milan , Italy
Ethan Knight, Documentary Photographer Ethan Knight
Documentary Photographer
Bangkok , Thailand
Matilde Gattoni, Photojournalist Matilde Gattoni
Milan , Italy
Johann Brandstatter, Photojournalist Johann Brandstatter
Sofia , Bulgaria
Angela Cumberbirch, Photographer Angela Cumberbirch
New York , United States


Top↑ | RSS/XML | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | support@lightstalkers.org / ©2004-2015 November Eleven