Posted by marksora: 
A Jewelry company may not be happy with giving you copyright. 
Tread lightly with that one.

Try ASMP.  They have books and have some information online, including the issues of copyright and usage for such shoots.

ahem, they won't be able to give him copyright, he has it. You mean they will probably want him to give them copyright or something akin to it. However he should avoid it as has already been mentioned.

Checking out the ASMP or APA is good advice indeed though.

In fact the ASMP has recently set up a site for the purpose of newer or aspiring photographers to ask questions and get advice on biz issues from experienced working photographes, some of the best and most experienced in fact. And the ASMP's head legal counsel will often be answering questions on legal issues. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASMPproAdvice/

You can get good forms from the ASMP or APA if you were a member, but you can also get them from the free program [url="http://zimberoff.com/photobyte.htm"[/url]

Have you already established this "reduced" rate or been told that you needed to do that in order to secure the job or are you just assuming you'll need to? I don't think you should just offer that out of the blue, they already have seen and like your work so don't sell yourself short. But if you do give them a discount there are two important things, #1 make sure they realize this is a special, and one time, discounted fee, and reflect that on your invoice. #2 You should always get something if you give something. So if you reduce your rate to meet a budget they should either get something less (less usage rights, less shots etc.) or you should get something more in exchange, that could mean a credit line in the ads (usually not done in advertising), extra copies of a brochure for your marketing materials, free or discounted jewelry or something else of value.

Show your full fee in your paperwork with some percentage "comped" or crossed out with the discounted fee as part of making sure they understand these aren't your regular rates and you don't get the reputation as the cheap guy.

Posted by Aaron_H: 
ahem, they won't be able to give him copyright, he has it. You mean they will probably want him to give them copyright or something akin to it. However he should avoid it as has already been mentioned.

Aaron, Aaron, Aaron,  it is not so black and white..

The jewelry company will be aware of the work for hire issues and from experience I can tell you that they will cling to this right.  If they pay for the work and the conditions are met then it is owned and copyrighted by the employer. 

From the ASMP site.

WORK FOR HIRE
Work for hire is another way the client can become the copyright owner. The difference between work for hire and a copyright transfer is rather simple. In the case of a copyright transfer you own the copyright until you transfer it. In a work for hire situation you never own the copyright. It is owned by the client from the moment the work is created, and the client is by law the author of the photograph. The photographer is denied authorship and is treated as a tool of the client.

Work for hire exist automatically in the case of an employee taking photographs for the employer. As provided in the copyright law, no agreements are required.

An independent contractor ("freelancer") can do a work for hire only in certain circumstances. First, the work must be commissioned-that is specifically ordered by someone, and if it is commissioned, it can be a work for hire only if the photograph comes within one of the nine specific categories enumerated in the copyright act as qualifying for a work for hire:

Contribution to a collective work Contribution to a motion picture or audio-visual work Translation Supplementary work Compilation Instructional text Test Answer material for a test Atlas

The category most frequently involving photographers is a contribution to a collective work such as a magazine or other periodical.

WORK FOR HIRE AND COPYRIGHT TRANSFER DIFFERENCES
  Although many see work for hire and copyright transfer as the same thing, they are not.

Under the law, if you transfer the copyright you can get it back after thirty five years. This "recapture" provision of the law was designed to allow photographers the eventual control over their body of work. Also, when negotiating a copyright transfer you have the ownership and can bargain for the price of the copyright.

In a work for hire situation you never have the copyright. You have no recapture right at any time. You are simply selling your services for a fee. That fee should reflect the present and the future value of the copyright. If you signed a work for hire and later want the copyright to the work, the only way you can get it is to negotiate with the copyright owner to transfer it to you.

Finally, a work for hire will apply to all photographs taken on the assignment, not just to those used by the client. A transfer of copyright can be customized and apply to all the photographs or some portion thereof, such as only those used by the client.
======

If a work is created by an independent contractor (that is, someone who is not an employee under the general common law of agency), then the work is a specially ordered or commissioned work, and part 2 of the statutory definition applies. Such a work can be a work made for hire only if both of the following conditions are met: (1) it comes within one of the nine categories of works listed in part 2 of the definition and (2) there is a written agreement between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire.

Which I take to mean that there is nothing that the client can do that will force the WFH situation unless you as a photographer agree to it. Sure, failing to agree to it could be a deal breaker - but it doesn't happen automatically.

For the concerns that the jewellery designer may have, the end result would be better met by using exclusivity terms.  WFH, and our nearest equivalent; the copyright grab, should be avoided.

Posted by marksora: 
Maybe not,  But you might be chasing away the client before you get in the door.

Your advice is valid but not the only way to look at the issue.  Jewelry companies are very sensative to their designs and the leaking of these designs.
 

Well it's true you can chase away clients by talking usage, usually clients you'd be better off not having in the first place. But if you just try to find out what their real needs are you accomodate those needs within the usage model and explain how it is cheaper for them to only pay for the usage they actually need and will use than to pay for unlimited use or a copyright transfer.

As far as Jewelry goes, he said it was a store not a designer, although it may be both, but regardless, the leaking of any designs has absolutely nothing whatsover to do with WFH, copyright, usage or anything we've been discussing. If leaking the design before it goes public was a concern they can make a confidentiality agreement or simply discuss the issue ahead of time and decide if they trust the potential photographer or not. But that issue of trust and such an agreement would be needed regardless of the rights issues. Corporate, industrial and advertising photographers operate under confidentiality and NDA agreements every day, but completely apart from what business model they use regarding usage.

Posted by Aaron_H: 

Well it's true you can chase away clients by talking usage, usually clients you'd be better off not having in the first place. But if you just try to find out what their real needs are you accomodate those needs within the usage model and explain how it is cheaper for them to only pay for the usage they actually need and will use than to pay for unlimited use or a copyright transfer.

I disagree with you there. 

No need to state again what I used to make from a jewelry company but simply put,  I was WELL compensated for giving up my rights and not being a bitch about it.

I will try to find some of my old contracts. 

I get your point but the jewelry world is a bit sensative on all of these issues.  Ask a lawyer who deals with these issues everyday if it is a grey area or not. 

Oh well,  I think there are grey areas.

Posted by rwspangler: 
no one seemed to mention use rights... creative fees or any of the important stuff.

Yes, no one is my middle name

Posted by marksora: 

Posted by Aaron_H: 

Well it's true you can chase away clients by talking usage, usually clients you'd be better off not having in the first place. But if you just try to find out what their real needs are you accomodate those needs within the usage model and explain how it is cheaper for them to only pay for the usage they actually need and will use than to pay for unlimited use or a copyright transfer.

I disagree with you there. 

No need to state again what I used to make from a jewelry company but simply put,  I was WELL compensated for giving up my rights and not being a bitch about it.

I will try to find some of my old contracts. 

I get your point but the jewelry world is a bit sensative on all of these issues.  Ask a lawyer who deals with these issues everyday if it is a grey area or not. 

Oh well,  I think there are grey areas.

Well Mark, when photographers themselves consider holding on to our meagre rights being "a bitch" it well illustrates, illuminates & exacerbates the problems we face in the photo industry.

I have no idea what your definition of WEll compensated was, but I can assure you that plenty of other photographers are well compensated for assignments while holding onto copyright and licensing usage rights, and then they are further well compensated when clients extend, expand or renew the usage rights or when they license the work as stock down the road. I think you might be surprised at how much people get paid using those practices and what kind of additional streams they get from stock.

Explain what gray areas you're talking about and why they're gray?