Photo Rights Advice?

440Hz

Looking for some advice and opinions on this. I have just been contacted by a company asking to use some of my shots in an online brochure. I have never really had to think about this before so hope that if I posted their terms and conditions somebody here might be able to give me some advice.

I would like to give my permission as its a good opportunity but just wanna make sure all the legal stuff is ok first.

This is what they say about the shots

While we offer no payment for publication, many
photographers are pleased to submit their photos, as the brochures are FREE to download and give their work recognition
and wide exposure. Photos are published at a maximum width
of 150 pixels, are clearly attributed, and link to
high-resolution originals.

TERMS OF SUBMISSION

1. PHOTOS
The term "Photos" refers to one or more photographs and/or images licensed by You to us pursuant to the Terms.

2. LICENSE GRANT
Subject to the terms and conditions herein, You hereby grant us a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual license to include the Photos in the current and/or subsequent releases of our destination/local guides.

3. FAIR USE RIGHTS
Nothing in these Terms is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or other limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright law or other applicable laws.

4. LIMITATIONS
The license granted in Section 2 above is made subject to and limited by the following express limitations:
(a) We may only distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, and/or publicly perform the Photos pursuant to the Terms.
(b) We shall be required to keep intact all copyright notices for the Photos and provide, reasonable to the medium or means of utilization, the name of the original author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, for attribution in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, and a credit (implemented in any reasonable manner) identifying the use of the Photos in any derivative Photos created by us.
(c) We shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, provide Internet link(s) to your Photos.
(d) We shall not sublicense the Photos.
(e) We shall indicate to the public that You reserve all rights with respect to use of the Photos.
(f) We shall continue to make its destination/local guides available at no cost to end users.

5. RIGHTS
You confirm that You own or otherwise control all of the rights to the Photos and that use of the Photos by us will not infringe or violate the rights of any third parties.

6. NO OBLIGATION
We shall have no obligation whatsoever to reproduce, distribute, broadcast, or otherwise make use of the Photos licensed by You to us hereunder.

7. NO AFFILIATION
While the Flickr website and/or Flickr API have been used to short-list your Photos, we claim no affiliation or partnership with Flickr.

8. MISCELLANEOUS
If any provision of the Terms is ruled unenforceable, such provision shall be enforced to the extent permissible, and the remainder of the Terms shall remain in effect. The Terms constitute the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Photos licensed hereunder. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Photos not specified hereunder. If there is any dispute about or involving the Terms or the license granted hereunder, You agree that such dispute shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without regard to its conflict-of-law provisions. You agree to personal jurisdiction by and venue in the state and federal courts of the State of California, City of San Francisco. The license granted in the Terms may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of You and us.

Enygma

I was also approached by the same company today and I agreed. It's not a shot that was ever going to make me rich or anything anyway

But then again, I know nothing so take anything I say with a spoonful of salt.

shepthedog

Just out of curiosity, where had you your photos displayed that the company approached you?

Enygma

Flickr, I've actually been approached a few times. Once by an organization of lawyers in San Francisco who wanted an image for a Christmas Card and another time by a guy that wanted to do a painting of one of my photos.

Apparently there are rumblings about setting it up as a stock photography site.

7. NO AFFILIATION
While the Flickr website and/or Flickr API have been used to short-list your Photos, we claim no affiliation or partnership with Flickr.

440Hz

Seems like a few people were approached on Flickr today, may as well go for it so!!

joolsveer

I was approached a couple of months ago for permission to use one of my shots in an online guide to a French city. There was no payment involved. |I let them go ahead and the guide has now appeared. To be honest I was flattered to see some of my work being published in this way. Maybe I'm gullible?

440Hz

Sounds like the same thing jools, yeah I think its nice to be asked as well. I think Ill just go along with it, cheers for the advice guys.

qwertz

I recommend you include a timelimit in the contract.

Enygma

What pic is it 440? My one is of Torc Waterfall in Killarney, they must be covering Kerry at the moment.

CrowdedHouse

I got one of these 'offers' today as well for one of my Inishbofin pics.(For their Galway guide)

I wonder is this all legit ?

What are you going to do Katie ?

This is the one of mine (nothing special which makes me wonder)

440Hz

4 Limerick shots.... not very exciting ones I must say, tis a bit odd alright Crowded House. Seems to be the case for everyone though. Seems they did a search of tags and picked randomly.

These are two of them:

Equinox

I asked a friend (who is in the know about this kinda thing) about this last night and this is what they had to say about the T's & C's. Please don't ask me any questions about the text below as I would not be able to answer any of your quires nor am I going to get back to them with any questions you may have. Hope you find this helpful.


Firstly, they have to appreciate that this is a non-negotiable contract so really it comes down to a judgement call on their part as to whether or not they want the photos published. It is a fairly standard US set of terms and conditions for this kind of thing.

The main points I guess that they should be aware of would be:-

There is nothing in the T's & C's about revocation. This would mean that if the photographer wanted to terminate the licence, and the user refused, they would have to ask a court to imply a condition allowing for revocation. The most likely scenarios where someone would want to revoke the licence would be if either a) someone else was willing to pay to use the photos but wanted an exclusive licence or b) the nature of the publication changed and the photographer no longer wanted to be associated with "that sort" of publication.

As a follow on from that, there is an exclusive jurisdiction clause that provides that any disputes have to be resolved in the San Francisco court under Califiornian law. This would be a total pain for someone in Ireland to do! This also applies to the section entitled "Fair Use Rights" - I presume this is something contained in the copyright legislation in California, I don't know what that provides. It sounds as though it is in the photographers favour though....

The licence that is granted is defined as "perpetual" - it is possible that a court could interpret that as irrevocable. This would be unlikely in an Irish court but who knows about the US! The fact that it is a non-negotiable standard set of conditions would go in the photographers favour in Ireland but again, I don't know about the US.

They refer to "derivative photos created by us" - presumably this means that they might edit the photos in some way. No restrictions are placed on this so the original photographer has no control over the end product.

Under clause 5 they "confirm" that the use of the photos will not infringe or violate the rights of any third parties - depending on what is being photographed, they might need to be slightly careful there. This would be relevant if eg they were commissioned to take the photo or if there was someone famous in it / it was of a private area or function etc so its publication could be a breach of confidence etc.

FinoBlad

Call me old fashioned if you like, but a photographer should always be paid for their work. Run to the hills.

440Hz

Wow thanks Equinox!! That is super info, cheers

eas

FinoBlad wrote:

Call me old fashioned if you like, but a photographer should always be paid for their work. Run to the hills.

I agree, the only peolpe to get anything out of this will be the publishers.

don't do it!

CrowdedHouse

eas wrote:

I agree, the only peolpe to get anything out of this will be the publishers.

don't do it!

I'm think I'm inclined to agree also.

PS Thanks Equinox

Fajitas!

/agreeing with Eas & Finoblad.

Small freebies are grand and all, like bands or whatever to an extent, but something being published is a different story. Where are you going to be credited like?

Maybe a google could bring up previous info from the company, even from other forums with members in similar situations?

I wouldn't be rushing into it, and if you were gonna go for it, do it on your terms, they're getting free photos like.

Enygma

After a little more thought on the matter I'd tend to agree with you guys for the most part. Here's a good article on the subject: http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/08/photographys-vanishing-middle-class.html

The only thing that gets me is this company isn't going to pay anyone for their images. Their plan is obviously to scour Flickr for free pics and use them, there's no negotiating. They're not looking for fine art and they're not looking for professional quality images either. If you say no then there'll be plenty of people out there who'll be more than happy to provide an image for free.

At the end of the day it's down to the clueless majority to restrain themselves from giving away free images, but that will never happen. There will always be someone willing to give away their work. It's almost like the Open Source Software "Paradigm Shift" that Tim O'Reilly is always blowing on about. Fighting it is futile, and in the end it'll just be an excercise in frustration.

I don't think the pro's have much to worry about, it's not like National Geographic will be depending solely on Flickr for its photographic content any time soon. I think if your work is worth something then people should pay for it, if it's not worth anything or very much, then I don't really see a problem.

Borderfox

Free nothing. I spend a lot of time taking pictures, not always with the express intention of getting paid but it is still time used and if someone wants to use my pictures then it will be for cash...dont get me wrong I have given pictures to the Irish Field to publisise myself but there are clear guidelines I have included with the pictures to their usage...

CrowdedHouse

BTW - I decided to Withdraw mine

joolsveer

I got this message via Flickr today.

I am writing to let you know that nine of your photos with a creative commons license have been short-listed for inclusion in the second edition of our Schmap Dublin Guide, to be published mid-September 2006.

www.schmap.com/shortlist/????

Clicking this link will take you to a page where you can:
i) See which of your photos have been short-listed.
ii) Submit or withdraw your photos from our final selection phase.
iii) Learn how we credit photos in our Schmap Guides.
iv) Download the first edition of our Schmap Dublin Guide.

Our submission deadline is Friday, September 1. If you happen to be reading this message after this date, please still click on the link above (our Schmap destination guides are updated frequently - photos submitted after this deadline will be considered for later releases).

Best regards,

Ali Moss,
Managing Editor, Schmap Guides

What, in your opinion, should I do?
Is a creative commons licence not advisible?

joolsveer

any thoughts on this company or its guides?