I can't find the other thread at the moment, but that scam- excuse me- that "scheme" has been discussed before. There's essentially no money in writing as they propose, and more than there is in unassigned photography. Too many writers are giving their stuff away for free, just like photographers. You wouldn't believe all the requests I get for articles to be written for free, in exchange for which I'll get good "exposure." Sheesh. I'd be leery. Very, very leery. And ask them for examples of published work.
Long and short, heck no I wouldn't sign off exclusive rights to them. If they want to pay you market rates for single use, go for it. But if they're taking a cut for all their hard work, they can take a hike right along with their cut.
Posted by Tony Prower on February 14, 2012 at 1:04 PM
Hi Hank, thanks for your response.
I have no doubt as to the legitimacy of the company, they are the top news media agent in the uk, but they do have a reputation for not paying fairly, but of course we only here the complaints don't we.
All I wanted was a way to revise the clause in my contract so that 'Exclusivity' is Time limited relative to use.
I don't know how to go about that Tony, other than to suggest exclusivity apply only to barring other editorial uses while not preventing you from marketing through other channels, and for a very limited time period- perhaps one month since editorial material is so time-sensitive.
I don't know about editorial photo rates in the UK, but here in Alaska our local paper pays $10 per photo, if forced to pay. Meanwhile they're free to market to a wider market if the news event is of interest in a larger market. They get paid for subsequent photo usage, even if you don't. If that's likely to happen in your market, you might add an "exclusivity" term of your own- the rights to a share of payments acrued beyond your initial sale.
Feel free to cross out any lines in the 'contract" that are unacceptable to you (I do that frequently when licensing images for editorial use and initial where I cross out and where I add text). Without seeing more of the contract, it seems that they want to be the (your) exclusive distributor to newspapers of reportage (articles? and images?). If you do not want them to be the exclusive distributor to newspapers, then say something like "I grant [Media name] the non-exclusive right to license the use of my images for one-time use in newspapers only (UK only?, worldwide?) for a period not to exceed xxx..." or something along those lines. Be as specific as possible and clear. It sounds like they want to avoid your using other distributors to submit the same material to (just like a stock agency would).
Just heard an interesting discussion on NPR this morning about the larger question of tracking, cookies, etc.
But the part that really pricked my ears was a reference to "content mills," any of several companies that gin up thousands of free articles and photos for wide distribution on the web, deriving their income from imbedded advertising.
Makes me think of these "media companies" that are soliciting free photos and writing all the time these days. If they're giving the stuff away for free, your share of nothing is nothing, no matter what the contract sezz.
In your shoes Tony I'd google "content mills" and see if your company appears in the discussions. Evidently the companies in question HATE being called content mills, but I bet the term will yield names if you search.
Posted by Tony Prower on February 27, 2012 at 6:36 PM
Thanks for all your contributions!
In the end we managed to iron out the exclusivity issues, but they were not able to guarantee a credit to me on every publication. Fair enough, I see it all the time, photos in the press with no credit. I didn't really want that happening with my images. So what if I get paid, I am not in this game for the money... I want the FAME!!
"So what if I get paid, I am not in this game for the money... I want the FAME!! "
Enough said. That makes it easy to understand the low price of photos and writing these days. If you're giving it away, it cuts the throats of folks trying to make a living at it.
Posted by Tony Prower on March 10, 2012 at 4:07 AM
Hank, I think you have misunderstood my humour. I was trying to say that being paid is not the reason for taking photographs. I would hate it if that was the case. I take photographs for art's sake and recognition as the artist is more important than getting paid. I hope this is clear. I am certainly not suggesting that I am prepared to give away my work!!
Discussion
8 repliesThey want... "the exclusive right license publication of any reportage I provide"
I don't want my images to be tied to them and unable to sell them. I want to negotiate a time limited exclusivity for any usage.
Are there any special clauses you might recommend?
Long and short, heck no I wouldn't sign off exclusive rights to them. If they want to pay you market rates for single use, go for it. But if they're taking a cut for all their hard work, they can take a hike right along with their cut.
I have no doubt as to the legitimacy of the company, they are the top news media agent in the uk, but they do have a reputation for not paying fairly, but of course we only here the complaints don't we.
All I wanted was a way to revise the clause in my contract so that 'Exclusivity' is Time limited relative to use.
I don't know about editorial photo rates in the UK, but here in Alaska our local paper pays $10 per photo, if forced to pay. Meanwhile they're free to market to a wider market if the news event is of interest in a larger market. They get paid for subsequent photo usage, even if you don't. If that's likely to happen in your market, you might add an "exclusivity" term of your own- the rights to a share of payments acrued beyond your initial sale.
Feel free to cross out any lines in the 'contract" that are unacceptable to you (I do that frequently when licensing images for editorial use and initial where I cross out and where I add text). Without seeing more of the contract, it seems that they want to be the (your) exclusive distributor to newspapers of reportage (articles? and images?). If you do not want them to be the exclusive distributor to newspapers, then say something like "I grant [Media name] the non-exclusive right to license the use of my images for one-time use in newspapers only (UK only?, worldwide?) for a period not to exceed xxx..." or something along those lines. Be as specific as possible and clear. It sounds like they want to avoid your using other distributors to submit the same material to (just like a stock agency would).
regards,
David
But the part that really pricked my ears was a reference to "content mills," any of several companies that gin up thousands of free articles and photos for wide distribution on the web, deriving their income from imbedded advertising.
Makes me think of these "media companies" that are soliciting free photos and writing all the time these days. If they're giving the stuff away for free, your share of nothing is nothing, no matter what the contract sezz.
In your shoes Tony I'd google "content mills" and see if your company appears in the discussions. Evidently the companies in question HATE being called content mills, but I bet the term will yield names if you search.
In the end we managed to iron out the exclusivity issues, but they were not able to guarantee a credit to me on every publication. Fair enough, I see it all the time, photos in the press with no credit. I didn't really want that happening with my images. So what if I get paid, I am not in this game for the money... I want the FAME!!
Enough said. That makes it easy to understand the low price of photos and writing these days. If you're giving it away, it cuts the throats of folks trying to make a living at it.