Kaouthia wrote:
Charities are still businesses.  They're just businesses that (in theory) give their profits to a worthy cause.

They still have expenses, they still have to pay rent, electric, etc.  If they want copyright, present them with a bill.

Otherwise, you tell them what you are willing to give them (ie, a usage license).  If they're not paying, they can't make any demands.

+1
The Golden Rule and if they are not paying they certainly do not make the rules.

Kaouthia wrote:
Charities are still businesses.  They're just businesses that (in theory) give their profits to a worthy cause.

They still have expenses, they still have to pay rent, electric, etc.  If they want copyright, present them with a bill.

Otherwise, you tell them what you are willing to give them (ie, a usage license).  If they're not paying, they can't make any demands.

This. Why would you sign over your copyright for free? Just because it doesn't say they are going to sell the images if you sign over the copyright they can do whatever they want.

Grant them an exclusive license for a period if you want but copyright? No way.

WR Photographics wrote:
This isn't how donations work. How it works is you donate what is yours, and it becomes theirs.
It sounds like the OP wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants the feel good of making a donation, and perhaps getting a nice tax write off for it, but doesn't really want to make a donation.
Sometimes we just have to decide if a charity is worth a donation or not.

And this is also a valid point. If you think a lot of them, then it doesn't hurt to give stuff away either.

I personally like to reuse images for advertising or for showing off at events so I keep copyright. And some of what I let people use are historical event and news photos so I may want to have them in the future to tell a story.

WR Photographics wrote:
If you donate something (IE: give it away), then you are releasing ownership. It doesn't really matter what the valuable consideration is. It could be money, a car, or a photograph.
If you give them a hundred dollars in cash, are you going to insist on telling them how to spend it?
If you fund your local Humane Society for a new van, are you going to tell them they can only pick up puppies?
This isn't how donations work. How it works is you donate what is yours, and it becomes theirs.
It sounds like the OP wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants the feel good of making a donation, and perhaps getting a nice tax write off for it, but doesn't really want to make a donation.
Sometimes we just have to decide if a charity is worth a donation or not.

There is no tax write off.
And I am donating the usage of the images.
And believe it or not, one can make a donation and specify how it is going to be used. Happens all the time.

But you are right about "How it works is you donate what is yours, and it becomes theirs." Which is a little when you consider the millions of dollars worth of properties they have. Means they can turn around and sell any part, or all of them to developers when ever they want.

Requires some rethinking.

WR Photographics wrote:
If you donate something (IE: give it away), then you are releasing ownership. It doesn't really matter what the valuable consideration is. It could be money, a car, or a photograph.
If you give them a hundred dollars in cash, are you going to insist on telling them how to spend it?
If you fund your local Humane Society for a new van, are you going to tell them they can only pick up puppies?
This isn't how donations work. How it works is you donate what is yours, and it becomes theirs.
It sounds like the OP wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants the feel good of making a donation, and perhaps getting a nice tax write off for it, but doesn't really want to make a donation.
Sometimes we just have to decide if a charity is worth a donation or not.

I have about 13 years' total experience working for non-profits. It is extremely common for donations to be directed, meaning, you DO tell them exactly what they can and cannot do with your donation. In fact those donations are more common than unrestricted donations.

In addition, copyright is not a tangible object like a van is. If you donate a van, it's gone and within a few years the value of that van is depreciated to zero. Copyright never depreciates and the value goes up.

I don't know about Canada, but in the US, the value of services performed is not tax-deductible as a charitable contribution.

WR Photographics wrote:
If you donate something (IE: give it away), then you are releasing ownership.

He can give away what he wants to, either ownership or a usage license. It is not the same as giving away a car where once it is gone it is gone.

If they do not like his terms then they are free to decline the gift.

WR Photographics wrote:
If you donate something (IE: give it away), then you are releasing ownership. It doesn't really matter what the valuable consideration is. It could be money, a car, or a photograph.
If you give them a hundred dollars in cash, are you going to insist on telling them how to spend it?
If you fund your local Humane Society for a new van, are you going to tell them they can only pick up puppies?
This isn't how donations work. How it works is you donate what is yours, and it becomes theirs.
It sounds like the OP wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants the feel good of making a donation, and perhaps getting a nice tax write off for it, but doesn't really want to make a donation.
Sometimes we just have to decide if a charity is worth a donation or not.

No. That's NOT how it works.

He is donating USAGE of the images. Not OWNERSHIP. And since it is a donation, he can also set up conditions of use. THAT is how it works.

Using your analogy: someone may want to donate a CAR, but that doesn't mean he has to donate the business that owns the car. Please take a moment to learn how usage works.

NewBoldPhoto wrote:
Perhaps you could provide them with a usage license.

EXACTLY.

I write all my initial agreements. Sometimes a client has a house agreement that I defer to my licensing agent, but it makes more sense for a photographer to spell out the initial agreements up front to prevent getting fucked.

WR Photographics wrote:
If you donate something (IE: give it away), then you are releasing ownership. It doesn't really matter what the valuable consideration is. It could be money, a car, or a photograph.
If you give them a hundred dollars in cash, are you going to insist on telling them how to spend it?
If you fund your local Humane Society for a new van, are you going to tell them they can only pick up puppies?
This isn't how donations work. How it works is you donate what is yours, and it becomes theirs.
It sounds like the OP wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants the feel good of making a donation, and perhaps getting a nice tax write off for it, but doesn't really want to make a donation.
Sometimes we just have to decide if a charity is worth a donation or not.

And it sounds like you don't have a firm grasp of intellectual property. None of those items you mention are intellectual property, copyrighted by an owner (i.e. the photographer). They are simply physical objects. Once you give those items to someone, they become the owner and you give up all rights to them. That's not the case with intellectual property.

The rules of copyright don't change simply because it's a charity.

NewBoldPhoto wrote:
Perhaps you could provide them with a usage license.

I did, and the OP is what they came back with.

Appears that I will have to create my own again, and tell them 'take it or leave it'.

But, also let them know that they have ticked off a bunch of nature photographers. Actually the responses from the nature site were a lot stronger then here. But on MM, you can get responses from people who actually know what they are talking about, and have been there and done that.

I wonder if Art Wolf or Moose Peterson would sign such an agreement?
Perhaps I should ask them?

ME_ wrote:
Even for a physical object, the donator is perfectly free to specify EXACTLY how the item is to be used. If someone wants to donate a van and specify that it only be used to pick up puppies and not adult dogs, or cats, or people, or supplies, then they are free to do so and the charity is free to accept or decline, and if they accept they better follow the rules and document it or they're gonna be mighty sorry if they are audited.

Yep.
But you still have to be careful how you donate. Many a donation has been used in ways not intended.
I would never donate anything to a government group, without a third party covenant. Donate property for a park, and next thing you know there is a shopping mall on it.

Herman Surkis wrote:
There is no tax write off.
And I am donating the usage of the images.
And believe it or not, one can make a donation and specify how it is going to be used. Happens all the time.

But you are right about "How it works is you donate what is yours, and it becomes theirs." Which is a little when you consider the millions of dollars worth of properties they have. Means they can turn around and sell any part, or all of them to developers when ever they want.

Requires some rethinking.

Hi Herman,
Use PLUS to create the license you're comfortable with. You can embed the license directly in the images. If the charity has any qualms about having a license rather than the entire copyright, you should tell them that they can NEVER have all rights in Canada. Your moral rights, as the author of the work, CANNOT be transferred.

Copyright is not a single thing, it is often referred to as a bundle of rights. You can give away or sell as many or as few of those rights as you wish. It is not an all or nothing proposition.

Copyright is said to comprise a "bundle" of incorporeal or intangible economic rights of authors of works and certain "neighbouring" rights of performers, makers of sound recordings and broadcasters

from CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 1999 CanLII 7479 (FC), [2000] 2 FC 451

In some cases, donations may be made where a work of art is donated to a museum or art gallery by the original buyer of the work. This is allowed under the first sale doctrine. The copyright of the work remains with the artist unless explicitly transferred. In most cases, the buyer of the work of art will not own the copyright to the work.

People who donate to a charity often have conditions attached to their donations. For example this donation at the Royal Ontario Museum:

In December 1999, Patricia’s husband William surprised her with an early Christmas gift of $1 million towards the establishment of a permanent textile and costume gallery at the ROM, later to be named the Patricia Harris Gallery of Textiles

WR Photographics wrote:
If you donate something (IE: give it away), then you are releasing ownership. It doesn't really matter what the valuable consideration is. It could be money, a car, or a photograph.
If you give them a hundred dollars in cash, are you going to insist on telling them how to spend it?
If you fund your local Humane Society for a new van, are you going to tell them they can only pick up puppies?
This isn't how donations work. How it works is you donate what is yours, and it becomes theirs.
It sounds like the OP wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants the feel good of making a donation, and perhaps getting a nice tax write off for it, but doesn't really want to make a donation.
Sometimes we just have to decide if a charity is worth a donation or not.

Actually the donation of a photo or photographic services is much more like the donation of your time to a charity.  If you agree to work the food drive for 8 hours then that is what they get.  They do not get your services for life as some form of indentured servant. 

If you give them some prints in frames to sell at auction then you can't have those prints back, but there is nothing stopping a photographer from selling another print of the same photo (unless the photos are part of a limited edition then only that number may be sold). 

If you feel the charity is worth $250 then give them usage rights.  If you feel they are worth $5000 then give them the copyright and maybe they can raise money using that copyright.

Just my $0.02.

Herman Surkis wrote:
What do people think of the following paragraph?
Not sure what it means. Seems like I am discharging them from any liability for anything that they do with the photographs.

"I hereby release and discharge NCC from any and all liability, claims, causes of action, or any other responsibility whatsoever from or relating to the use, editing, reproduction, publishing, exhibit, distribution or otherwise of the Photographs. "

Not a good idea. You have no control over what use they might make of your images. See Bad Contract Tutorial

Edit: I just re-read your OP and I wonder how much the person writing the contract actually knows about intellectual property.

I acknowledge and agree that I shall not receive, or be entitled to receive, any fee or proceeds whatsoever from such use. NCC agrees that they will not sell any of these donated images.

The above paragraph refers to the "donated images" but does not specify exactly what they're referring to. Are they saying that they will not sell reproductions of the images? That they will not sell the copyright? It is unclear.

NewBoldPhoto wrote:
Perhaps you could provide them with a usage license.

Herman Surkis wrote:
I did, and the OP is what they came back with.

communication and your tactical approach is key when it comes to negotiations. you are in charge as its your imagery, your doing the donating and its already shot. if they choose not to accept those fair and realistic terms (if you are being fair and reasonable of course) then thats their loss.

you can communicate fair terms in an understandable way but you can also confuse conflict and balls it up just as easy with misunderstandings like the way you come across or have been picked up

i dont know who approached who here (the full story) but it seems your copyright and a usage license that they need to use the pictures have been/ are being misunderstood

Herman Surkis wrote:
But, also let them know that they have ticked off a bunch of nature photographers.

my first question would be why? this has no part in negotiations stage never mind as part of a passing conversation.. if you told me this I would just show you the door even if you are giving me free stuff or other wise

Herman Surkis wrote:
But on MM, you can get responses from people who actually know what they are talking about, and have been there and done that.

you really think so? lol

Herman Surkis wrote:
What do people think of the following paragraph?
Not sure what it means. Seems like I am discharging them from any liability for anything that they do with the photographs.

"I hereby release and discharge NCC from any and all liability, claims, causes of action, or any other responsibility whatsoever from or relating to the use, editing, reproduction, publishing, exhibit, distribution or otherwise of the Photographs. "

how much are the photographs realistically worth and what realistically will happen to your images?

do you think the charity will sell them for a lot of money and you lose out or something?

seriously would a verbal agreement not suffice .. "heres the pics you wanted to use for your website or to use as illustration.. please dont give them to a third party unless you pass it by me first and thats all im asking for and were all good . thank you for your time and i hope your charity does well"

end of

or are you practicing for real paid gigs ?

SoCo n Lime wrote:
do you think the charity will sell them for a lot of money and you lose out or something?

or are you practicing for real paid gigs ?

And as usual, there is always - in every thread - someone who takes a swig at someone  - or is less than polite..

Sad.

SoCo n Lime wrote:
how much are the photographs realistically worth and what realistically will happen to your images?

do you think the charity will sell them for a lot of money and you lose out or something?

seriously would a verbal agreement not suffice .. "heres the pics you wanted to use for your website or to use as illustration.. please dont give them to a third party unless you pass it by me first and thats all im asking for and were all good . thank you for your time and i hope your charity does well"

end of

or are you practicing for real paid gigs ?

The Nature Conservancy of Canada is a large, well-known Canadian NPO. If the NCC wants to use the images, for whatever purpose, that demonstrates that the images have value. From what has been said so far the NPO wants an assignment of copyright which must be given in writing. If a license is all that the client needs, then that can be given verbally. There are many issues which should be dealt with in a written agreement.

Herman Surkis wrote:
I tried to get the release amended to something more reasonable, to allow them a usage, and this is what they came back with.
NCC is Nature Conservancy of Canada. Unless I am mistaken instead of disallowing 3'rd party sales, they now take full ownership, and I would have to ask them for permission to use my own photographs.

Photograph Release Form
I, _________________________, the undersigned photographer, for value received, (the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged), represent and warrant that the photographs I have provided to NCC (hereinafter referred to as the “Photographs”) are my original works and are not copied from any other material, that the use of the Photographs will not infringe on the copyright or other proprietary right of any other party, that I am the sole author and creator of these photographs, that I am at least eighteen (18) years of age and that I have the right to execute this Photo Release without the consent or knowledge of any other person.

I hereby irrevocably transfer and assign to NCC all my right, title and interest in and to the Photographs, including all copyright and grant to The Nature Conservancy of Canada (“NCC”) irrevocable permission to, at its sole discretion, use, edit, reproduce, publish, exhibit, distribute, create derivative works of, and otherwise exploit all or part of the Photographs in Canada or throughout the world for promotions, recruiting, brochures, advertising, or any other reason whatsoever, and in any medium whatsoever now known or hereinafter developed, including without limitation, print, web based, video, social networking and all electronic media. I agree that I am granting this consent in perpetuity.
NCC agrees to credit all Photographs used in publications intended for external use with the following credit:
“Photo by [Name] ___________________________”.
I hereby release and discharge NCC from any and all liability, claims, causes of action, or any other responsibility whatsoever from or relating to the use, editing, reproduction, publishing, exhibit, distribution or otherwise of the Photographs.

I acknowledge and agree that I shall not receive, or be entitled to receive, any fee or proceeds whatsoever from such use. NCC agrees that they will not sell any of these donated images.
I have read this consent and I understand its contents.
Name of Photographer:
Address:
Signature of Photographer: Date:
Name of Witness:
Signature of Witness: Date:
Name of NCC representative
Signature of NCC representative Date:

That's the easiest wording for them to be able to use them however they want.

If you want to be able to use them without asking, add in wording where they grant an unrestricted usage license to you.

Herman Surkis wrote:
What do people think of the following paragraph?
Not sure what it means. Seems like I am discharging them from any liability for anything that they do with the photographs.

"I hereby release and discharge NCC from any and all liability, claims, causes of action, or any other responsibility whatsoever from or relating to the use, editing, reproduction, publishing, exhibit, distribution or otherwise of the Photographs. "

I have a hard time believing there's any liability in the first place.

This would be between you and them. You're not indemnifying them from liability to third parties.

MC Photo wrote:

I have a hard time believing there's any liability in the first place.

This would be between you and them. You're not indemnifying them from liability to third parties.

In some cases this doesn't matter. In the case of Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa inc., [1998] 1 SCR 591 a person in a photo successfully sued both the publisher and the photographer. The actions of the publisher are not under the control of the photographer but could result in the photographer having some liability.

me voy wrote:
Photographers should NEVER donate Time and Services to charities. It can quickly turn into a headache.

1.- You can't claim it in your taxes
2.- It is very hard to determine the actual value.

OP. Tell them that they can only use the photos for promotion on Web, Print and Social Media. That's it. That is all they need.

See Gifts and Income Tax 2012  - Are you an artist?. This refers to a physical painting; gifts of intellectual property are not addressed.

See also Gifts of services