any ideas?

i would be grateful!

Ben

Access to details like the ones you have suggested bring me to this blog. This is important information.

Keep in mind many of the clients and media companies an image maker will work with are large powerful organizations like the NYT.

In advertising the larger agencies are mostly held by one of six mega holding companies:

-WPP Group
- Omnicom
- Interpublic
- Publicis
- Dentsu
- Havas

I appreciate the aspects you have contributed so far on these recent threads and those in the past. As I understand it, both of you are consultants for hire by image makers. If standardization is sought, why not got straight to the source? The language, terms, business models have been developed by photographers over many decades, possibly hundreds of cumulative years of experience. I’d bet both of you are well aware of these sources.

While it is nice to get a third party opinion, including the perspective from former ABs, the clients and agencies are not the originators of these practices. They were developed by and for image makers to manage healthy businesses. It is not the role of the agency to define the image makers business or terms.

With regard to your last line. I’m here for business information. I’m not here to represent my own business, nor to social network. Nothing about this is personal. I don’t know either of you. I look at facts. Those details I can’t determine as fact are analyzed and deconstructed to try to understand reason, motive, behavior. I try my best to align my beliefs with reason and fact, making changes when warranted. I’ve chosen to post anonymously based on observation of online communication. So often I see cognitive distortions, emotional reasoning, reaction to feedback, personalization, etc. Communication can get messy, -as has been said- posts on the internet are forever. Again, it’s up to *me* to decide what I’m comfortable posting (including identity). We all have the option to accept feedback or reject it based on our own criteria. I wish you the best.

It’s nice to see the information provided by a print producer as an agency guide. Maybe I missed it, but how exactly is this “agency guide” used and distributed? Pardon my assumption about this forum being primarily used by image makers. I was not aware there are many ABs and PEs in the audience as well. I can see this may be a good guide to educate those assigning projects.

Yes, it does look as though membership is required to unlock these forms. I haven’t been an APA member for years. What I’ve learned from APA, ASMP, AOP (Great Britain) EP has not changed significantly. Business is still business. Membership in one of these organizations is a fundamental cost of business as an image maker, just like a lens, insurance, or software.

Regards,
Carl from T.O.

However, PLUS is only an effective tool when employed by a knowledgeable person who takes the time to think through the licensing process. I do not think that is even 50% of the photographers shooting today. The value of standardized forms is that they fill a gap that all the education in the world will not fill. That gap is the one that straddles laziness on one side and lack of comprehension on the other. You can educate many, but you have to train others. Plus is an educated user tool. Unfortunately, and I am certain you know it as well as I do, there a lot of photographers who just don’t get it or care to.

Hope all is well with you and great book.

WHY OH WHY re-invent the wheel? There is already a cross-industry STANDARD for defining every conceivable usage term and it’s called the Picture Licensing Universal System (PLUS). It’s been around for several years, was approved by every photo trade organization of note including photo buyers, museums, and so on. For me, I’ve been using it since it came out. It’s not clear to me why someone didn’t bother to mention PLUS in the above post at all, and thanks to Lenn for referencing it in his comment!

Go look into PLUS at http://www.UsePLUS.org

– John Harrington

I’ve turned down more than my fair share of jobs too, but rarely because of the project itself, let’s face it, there’s a lot of uninteresting work out there. I don’t turn them down because of Rights issues either. I turn them down when the client appears to be an a**hole. Not enough money in the world for that.

Maybe that doesn’t directly answer your question about Rights issues. Quite simply, if I don’t like the terms, then I will turn down the project. I have to be fair to my clients, and myself.

As far as I’m concerned it’s the cost of doing business in this field. Wouldn’t mind a credit when media pick up the shot though -fat chance!

I was just interested in what “Rights Nazis” would do in this situation. No slur intended, but if Seinfeld can have a Soup Nazi, I can have a usage and rights one. I’m not out to change the world on this, but I do wonder what others do.

It’s the same way with entertainment and music promotions. Press photos go out to anyone who asks. You get credit if you’re lucky. You just build this into your fee, its how the industry works. But honestly, these photos are only up-to-date for a couple of years before they need to be redone, so it’s not like you’re losing major money.

I have a particular problem in this regard that I have never comfortably resolved. I do a fair amount of Hotel/Resort work and the standard of their industry is in total conflict with ours – and probably the law too, come to think of it. Hospitalty clients hand out images left right and center to any business partner or media that asks for them and they pretty much lose all control of them after that point. In addition, any media credit is to the hotel and not the photographer – just think of any editorial piece that you have seen, the shot is always credited as “courtesy of xxx Resorts” etc. The shooter gets no mention whatsoever.

Attempting to educate them is a waste, it’s the way they all work and always have. If you don’t like it, don’t work for them, it’s that simple. As they point out, many others are willing to take your place on these terms.

I see no point in trying to beat my head against a wall because I’m not going to change an entire industry. I’ve basically handled the issue by not handling it and just building this knowledge into the price up front. It may be the chicken way out, but I do like to work and eat.

I’m not really looking for a way to make more money, I’m happy with my fees, but I would like some control and a credit for my life’s legacy.

Be as SPECIFIC as you can as that term, if used standalone in a contract, can be creatively exploited to the detriment of the photographer.

If the client has specific collateral pieces in mind, list them as specifically as possible in the estimate so there is no confusion or vagueness. I would avoid terminology like “anything in print that ‘goes along with’ the campaign.” A less-than-honorable client can interpret that to mean just about whatever they want and there is scant precedent anywhere describing what is and is not considered “collateral.” Getty’s definition is probably the most thought out.

Bottom line, be specific. It’s better for everyone.

Trust me.