Digitoxin wrote:

A simple contract between you and the photographer that spells out the terms of the deal would be fine (he can't sell images for revenue).  You pay him and you get a usage license to use the images in the manner that you wish. 

Understand however that if you wish to use the images to generate revenue for yourself, you will be paying the photographer a much higher fee than just a testing rate.  You will pay a full commercial rate.

Does that make sense??

Yes, yes it does.
I think I know what I'm looking for now.


...now does anyone have an example I can tweak or should I google around until I find something?

Damianne wrote:
[
Well I seem to not need copyright for what I want, I guess beyond the typical usage I want to be involved in publications or sales involving the photos I paid for.

Would commercial usage be what I'm looking for?

Answer me one more question:  Are you going to be selling ("licensing") the images for revenue?

Damianne wrote:
Yes, yes it does.
I think I know what I'm looking for now.


...now does anyone have an example I can tweak or should I google around until I find something?

No.  Each photographer has his/her own usage license that details the usage they are granting.  Ask the photographer that you are hiring for their standard license, then tweak it for your purposes and what they're willing to charge for it.

Damianne wrote:
[
Certainly. I have no problem with deciding not to pay for a shoot if we're not on the same page.

I'm trying to do the leg work and find out what I'm asking for, rather than coming into it sounding like an idiot.

there is no legwork to do.  It's all negotiation, haggle and barter.  there is no standard.  Your dealing with individuals and their property. 
What I value my work's worth at is quite different figure than my friend Tim does in Austin.

Stop looking for forms, don't re-invent the wheel.  Get on the phone and negotiate.

Digitoxin wrote:

Answer me one more question:  Are you going to be selling ("licensing") the images for revenue?

Most likely not, but I would like the ability to.

Cain Quixote wrote:

there is no legwork to do.  It's all negotiation, haggle and barter.  there is no standard.  Your dealing with individuals and their property. 
What I value my work's worth at is quite different figure than my friend Tim does in Austin.

Stop looking for forms, don't re-invent the wheel.  Get on the phone and negotiate.

I pretty much got the answers I was looking for.

Now I'm just interested in the conversation that has rolled its way out of it, getting educated and what not.


What did you mean by the bolded section?

D Magi Visual Concepts wrote:

No.  Each photographer has his/her own usage license that details the usage they are granting.  Ask the photographer that you are hiring for their standard license, then tweak it for your purposes and what they're willing to charge for it.

Sweet.

Can and will do.

Damianne wrote:

Certainly. I simply like to be prepared and I am looking for something basic that I can tailor to cover the things that I won't be backing down on. I'm coming into it with specific requests that I want to be able to cover with my own legalities if the need arises.

This is like, I'm paying for the photos so I would require my permission to post them, I would be the only one allowed to sell them, I have control over the product.

That's not unreasonable and I'm really just looking for something I can tweak that means if the photographer doesn't have a release that fits that, I'm doing the work and not bothering him with it.

What you are asking then is for the photographer to sign over all release of copyright over the images used. This is indeed a very hard thing for you to find and you will indeed not find an easy fix template for this.

The photographer will charge a phenomenal amount to give over the copyright of this imagery as it will also entail the fact that you have asked to be the sole right of distribution of prints of this image. This will mean that the photographer is losing out on business with this and monetary gain in their own sales of image by either magazine, prints, exhibitions or books.

However, if you are also willing to barter down a bit and let the images go over to the photographer by means of using them in their portfolio you may well be able to capture an audience suitable as you would a person doing wedding photography.

I think it is how you are wording it that is making it a bit hard to understand exactly what you are after. Are you looking for sole ownership of rights and copyright meaning that you are just really looking for the photographer to push the button and do light setup, or are you trying to get a specific look that you want to be able to sell as prints yourself?

If it is the latter then you don't really need to have copyright over it. Just find a photographer that suits this and ask for a Usage Agreement.

If it is the former then WHY exactly do you need the copyright and for them not be able to do anything with the image after shooting it?

Sorry, I can't help because your question is too vague.

I'd suggest getting a lawyer to draft one up on your requirements. But before that I suggest moreover to just give clear communication to a photographer that strikes your fancy and see where that takes you.

Digitoxin wrote:
Answer me one more question:  Are you going to be selling ("licensing") the images for revenue?

Damianne wrote:
Most likely not, but I would like the ability to.

OK, you have answered all my questions.

What you need is this:

1) a USAGE LICENSE from the photographer to you that grants the usages you want for yourself.  If you want commercial usages, you may need to pay more, sometimes significantly more, for the session.

2) a CONTRACT between you and the photographer that specifies the compensation to you if the photographer sells ("Licenses") the images of you.   Or, conversely,

3) you can skip the contract entirely if you sign a model release that grants only non-commercial usages to the photographer in the first place.  The model release could be very limited and only allow the following uses:  "display in the photographers print book and online web portfolios and personal website and used solely by the photographer for self promotion and may not be licensed to any third party for any purpose."  (note, I would not agree to this as I would want to preserve my rights to publish a book one day that would possibly include your images however, others may readily agree to this).  Further note:  I am not a lawyer and I am not suggesting to you that this language is valid and enforceable in your jurisdiction or anywhere else.  Do not rely on my words.


Hope that helps.

Oh, and you are unlikely to find examples of this on the 'net.  The photographer should be able to provide you the usage license.  The contract can be fairly simple and the Model Release language can also be fairly straight forward (although the devil is in the details).


Finally, you can get full copyright assignment as it will cover every contingency.  You will own the images lock-stock-and-barrel and the photographer can do nothing with them.  Just be prepared to pay more for this assignment of rights.

SouthFLpix wrote:

Copyright means you 'own' the photos. This gives you the right to sell them to clients either as prints, or as commercial images to be used in the promotion of services or products.

Unless you are a celebrity who's name is a 'money making label' it's just not worth it to buy the copyright for yourself. Basically copyright is for people that want to sell  photos.

Anything else other then selling the photos, you can do with an appropriate usage license.

Yes, if you buy out the rights, it will cost you dearly. You just need to get the usage rights you need, and specifically if you want to sell prints, rights to do that. You will likely have to pay a bit more for rights to sell them, as we are talking about creating a product for profit.

Work for hire is work you do as an employee of a company, such as  a newspaper or corporation. Paying a photographer does NOT make it work for hire...this is a common misconception.

Damianne wrote:
This is like, I'm paying for the photos so I would require my permission to post them, I would be the only one allowed to sell them, I have control over the product.

That's not unreasonable and I'm really just looking for something I can tweak that means if the photographer doesn't have a release that fits that, I'm doing the work and not bothering him with it.

You don't just want a usage license - you also want to restrict the photographer's rights. The way copyright law works, the instant a photographer presses the shutter he's granted certain rights. Rights, as you say, that give him "control over the product." You want to take that control away from him, which means you want him to assign copyright to you.

I would strongly suggest that you ignore the people who say, "Just get a usage license." A usage license will not do the job that you want to do - it will not restrict a photographer's rights in any way, so he will still have the rights that are granted to him automatically by copyright law. If you want him to have no rights to the photos whatsoever, a usage license is NOT ENOUGH.

W Lawrence Stevens wrote:
What you need to be thinking about is a written agreement which specifically states that the photographer is creating a specially commissioned work under the engagement; the work is being done solely on a "work for hire" basis; to the extent that the work for hire provisions of the copyright act do not apply, the photographer irretrivably transfers any and all rights (including copyright) to the photos to you as the party engaging his services, in perpetuity. 

If you pay, you should own completely.  Follow the above and you will.

Besides a bit of glamour photography, I am also an intellectual property lawyer.  (See, WeinLawGroup.com.)

Cheers!

Steven

^^ good advice

Damianne wrote:

Why thank you very much. So I'm looking to make this specifically "work for hire", and mention that the rights are transferred to me?

I do want to add that you can create a contract to make it work for hire as mentioned in lieu of a typical work for hire situation, BUT expect to pay much more than a typical photo session for full rights.

Damianne wrote:
I'm considering paying for some pictures and while I see a lot of templates for model releases, I don't see any for photographer releases.

I want to get a comprehensive template I can work with to tailor to my needs so I have complete rights to the photos.


Anyone have one?

YOu probably wont get a full release from any photographer.  But you need to arrange ahead of time for a copyright release, giving you permission to print and reprint the images for your own personal use.  This is usually done by a written authorization, written by the photographer transferring copyrights of the images to you.

Damianne wrote:

I don't really want to pay for photos in the first place, so if I decide to, I'm willing to put up more money to get what I want from it.

If I'm going to pay for it, I'm not going to half-ass it. I'll be securing the MUA, hair, and wardrobe for the shoot and I'm willing to pay to make sure I get the quality and rights I wanted from it.

If all else fails. Do it yourself. You want to be in control and own the images, get the hair and makeup, style the shoot and not worry the photographer on writing up an agreement nor really wanted to pay for it then it is by logistic standard the easiest option.

Sorry, just read that and it quite put me out.

Photographers are quite a flexible breed, and more than capable and willing to bring to the table exactly what you want. That is what we are here for, and that is what we get paid for. A lot already have a fantastic team of stylists together that they work with because all know exactly how to get the right look.

But most are doing it so that you buy the prints. You can easilly state that you are wanting this for promotional purposes hence this becomes a corporate/advertorial/editorial shoot where you become the client and you also buy the rights to digital imagery and its distribution.

But the photographer always keeps the negatives. It is what promotes their own business. If they sold off their copyrights then why have a business really because you have nothing to show of it.

If you want to have copyright hon, please be warned that you will be looking at the mid-range of thousands of dollars.

studio36uk wrote:
Paying to have the work done does not pay for the use of it. They are two different things. The later usually involving more money.

Clients [you in this case] sometimes speak about getting "all rights" but they seldom need "all rights", or, even more seldom, want to pay for them when they find out the cost.

Studio36

Pure Visions Photograph wrote:
If all else fails. Do it yourself. You want to be in control and own the images, get the hair and makeup, style the shoot and not worry the photographer on writing up an agreement nor really wanted to pay for it then it is by logistic standard the easiest option.

Sorry, just read that and it quite put me out.

Photographers are quite a flexible breed, and more than capable and willing to bring to the table exactly what you want. That is what we are here for, and that is what we get paid for. A lot already have a fantastic team of stylists together that they work with because all know exactly how to get the right look.

But most are doing it so that you buy the prints. You can easilly state that you are wanting this for promotional purposes hence this becomes a corporate/advertorial/editorial shoot where you become the client and you also buy the rights to digital imagery and its distribution.

But the photographer always keeps the negatives. It is what promotes their own business. If they sold off their copyrights then why have a business really because you have nothing to show of it.

If you want to have copyright hon, please be warned that you will be looking at the mid-range of thousands of dollars.

*sigh*
I don't want the copy right.
I don't even want to stop them from selling it or promoting themselves with it.
I just don't want to pay a photographer for a shoot and then find out they sold prints from it and I didn't see a dime or that they submitted it for publication without telling me or paying me for it.

I really, really don't want the copyright. I have stated this.

I didn't mean that I would REQUIRE myself to secure the MUA and whatnot I just mean that if I wanted one, I would go through the trouble to find one if the photographer didn't have one they work with, rather than just going "I'd like an MUA" and expecting them to find one.

PDF IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
Take a template of model release and change wording in word processor to fit your needs.

A model release has nothing specific to do with image usage.

MEK Photography wrote:

A model release has nothing specific to do with image usage.

As I was saying basic, take template (format) and have her change the wording to fit her needs, I have taken standard model releases and changed wording to fit my needs.

PDF IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:

As I was saying basic, take template (format) and have her change the wording to fit her needs, I have taken standard model releases and changed wording to fit my needs.

She needs a usage agreement, not a release.  Two different forms.

Damianne wrote:
I just don't want to pay a photographer for a shoot and then find out they sold prints from it and I didn't see a dime or that they submitted it for publication without telling me or paying me for it.

I really, really don't want the copyright. I have stated this.

Okay you just said there you want the copyright, and then stated you dont want the copyright? Which is it?

Because its the copyright holder's right to sell prints, AND publish it, all without a release unless its commercial/advertising (Selling the image itself is not commercial).

Dan Lee Photo wrote:
Okay you just said there you want the copyright, and then stated you dont want the copyright? Which is it?

Because its the copyright holder's right to sell prints, AND publish it, all without a release unless its commercial/advertising (Selling the image itself is not commercial).

But... but... that's not cool.


edit: wait... that can't be true. Just being at a shoot doesn't mean you can sell images of me. Otherwise, you'd be able to sell prints of people just walking down the street that didn't know you were taking photos of them.

MEK Photography wrote:
She needs a usage agreement, not a release.  Two different forms.

LOL, yes I am aware of that, and again Change the wording the format layout is basic simple if you can use word processor, and have an idea of  word structure. like the HEADING instead of MODEL RELEASE put AGREEMENT, and word it to her taste and needs. all that basically counts is that the parties signing it agree if not whom ever would not sign !

Damianne wrote:
*sigh*
I don't want the copy right.
I don't even want to stop them from selling it or promoting themselves with it.
I just don't want to pay a photographer for a shoot and then find out they sold prints from it and I didn't see a dime or that they submitted it for publication without telling me or paying me for it.

I really, really don't want the copyright. I have stated this.

But the only way to really, and absolutely, accomplish what you do and don't want to allow is to pay for the copyright, or pay for exclusivity without buying the copyright. If you own the copyright you can then license BACK TO THEM the rights you will allow them to have.

You can not have it both ways at the same time. And don't even get started on future revenues that a photographer "might" earn from the images. That will be equivalent to walking blindfolded into a mine field around here.

Studio36

Al Lock Photography wrote:
Just curious...

Have any of the photographers in this thread ever sold ALL rights to an image?

not to hi-jack the OP but only usage rights never FULL/ALL rights

studio36uk wrote:

But the only way to really, and absolutely, accomplish what you do and don't want to allow is to pay for the copyright, or pay for exclusivity without buying the copyright. If you own the copyright you can then license BACK TO THEM the rights you will allow them to have.

You can not have it both ways at the same time. And don't even get started on future revenues that a photographer "might" earn from the images. That will be equivalent to walking blindfolded into a mine field around here.

Studio36

I'm really more reasonable than you think I am.

If it's in public, yes you can do that, under certain conditions, depending upon the usage.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
Just curious...

Have any of the photographers in this thread ever sold ALL rights to an image?

Sure... at the right price. Hell, the client can have my first born at the right price.

Studio36

PDF IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:

not to hi-jack the OP but only usage rights never FULL/ALL rights

Highjack away, I got all my questions answered.

studio36uk wrote:

Sure... at the right price

Studio36

And that price varies. I had a model I had worked with, pay me to shoot her wedding on film. The price she paid, was for doing the shoot, and a full set of 4x6 proofs, from there, she had the option to order more prints, in various sizes, and quantities.

Since the model was a sweetheart, when she came to me with her list of reprints, rather than deal with orders, and reorders, etc. I did the nice guy thing, and sold her the negatives, along with a usage release, and directions to my photofinishing lab that I used. The price we negotiated, was roughly what I would have made in  profit on that first batch of prints.

So her initial cost was about the same, and I eliminated all the hassle. From there, anytime she ordered more prints, she saved money, and again, I saved hassle. It was a win/win for both of us.

studio36uk wrote:

Sure... at the right price. Hell, the client can have my first born at the right price.

Studio36

I didn't ask if you would. I asked if you had.

John Edward wrote:

And that price varies. I had a model I had worked with, pay me to shoot her wedding on film. The price she paid, was for doing the shoot, and a full set of 4x6 proofs, from there, she had the option to order more prints, in various sizes, and quantities.

Since the model was a sweetheart, when she came to me with her list of reprints, rather than deal with orders, and reorders, etc. I did the nice guy thing, and sold her the negatives, along with a usage release, and directions to my photofinishing lab that I used. The price we negotiated, was roughly what I would have made in  profit on that first batch of prints.

So her initial cost was about the same, and I eliminated all the hassle. From there, anytime she ordered more prints, she saved money, and again, I saved hassle. It was a win/win for both of us.

Did you sell her all rights? Could she have sold a shot to a bridal magazine or a bridal shop for advertising legally?

Damianne wrote:

My boyfriend is a photographer, and a damn good one, he just likes shooting product shots instead and I'm enjoying running around town collaborating with others.

I'm really not trying to be "holier than thou". I just thought that if I was paying for shots (and I definitely respect both sides of this work) then I should be getting the rights to them.

I don't think I'm doing anyone a favor, I'm just trying to protect everyone involved. I want to be able to use the photos for whatever I deem necessary, and sell them if that ever comes up. I want to be able to publish them if that seems like something I feel like doing.

Please don't assume I don't respect the photographers I work with. I really do, and I would of course discuss everything with the photographers I'm considering working with, and tweak this form to tailor the situation. If it's usage rights that fit my needs, then that's what I'll come to it with. I just think it's polite to do the work to make the form and print it out and bring it if I'm concerned about getting something specific together, rather than discussing it and expecting the photographer to have a release that fits our shoot specifically.

you should read the US copyright laws..and if you can find a photographer who will agree to a work for hire, then you'll have no issues

John Edward wrote:
edit: wait... that can't be true. Just being at a shoot doesn't mean you can sell images of me. Otherwise, you'd be able to sell prints of people just walking down the street that didn't know you were taking photos of them.

If it's in public, yes you can do that, under certain conditions, depending upon the usage.

depends upon the situation and state