I have been offered a payment for the copyright for one of my images of a group of people, that the buyer would like to use in an advertising campaign.
The offer includes the statement "any fee paid to you would be on an all rights cleared basis".
Can anyone help me understand what this means?
Any help appreciated.

John

Do you have model releases from the people in the photo so that you can use their likeness for commercial (advertising) purposes?
All rights means he can use the photo for whatever purpose he wants, for as long as he wants. Could be a local ad or a national one, a shampoo bottle label, tshirts - anything, even selling it as a stock photos.

I have been offered a payment for the copyright for one of my images of a group of people, that the buyer would like to use in an advertising campaign.
The offer includes the statement "any fee paid to you would be on an all rights cleared basis".
Can anyone help me understand what this means?
Any help appreciated.

They probably think they would be purchasing the copyright, but that's not necessarily the case even with that line in the contract. However, you would do better to give them a contract that licenses them for the specific uses they need, specifying that you still retain copyright.

However, as mentioned, there needs to be a model release of everyone in the photograph before it can be used for commercial purposes. That's primarily the problem of the company, but you would have to advise them that you have no model release (if that's the case).

It would be nice if that were a problem for only the company but that isn't always the case. I've know a couple of photographers who wound up with problems, not with model releases but with photographs of products that the manufacturer hadn't given releases on which is basically the same idea I would think.

I'm not even going to touch the "payment for copyright" issue (it is flawed on so many levels that no amount of forum advice will solve your problem fully) BUT to answer your question, "all rights cleared" is a term used by distributors to indicate that all rights have been cleared for the distributor to maximize profits by selecting different types of licenses for different territories (e.g. countries) or usage types (educational, commercial, etc). It usually implies dotting your i's and crossing your t's so that the agency does not run into any hang-ups when distributing your photo to different markets. I don't know what is meant by "paid on an all-rights cleared basis" (just as I don't know what is meant when a buyer asks "send me a 300 DPI file" ) but perhaps what he means is you will receive payment according to how the agency licenses the photo assuming all rights have been cleared.

Best plan is just to ask the agency what that term usage means. You risk sounding ignorant, but who really cares? I'd rather appear ignorant at first and have full knowledge of how my photo is being licensed rather than avoid appearing ignorant and never know.

mdude85 wrote:
Best plan is just to ask the agency what that term usage means. You risk sounding ignorant, but who really cares? I'd rather appear ignorant at first and have full knowledge of how my photo is being licensed rather than avoid appearing ignorant and never know.

How is asking a question sounding ignorant? I deal with many different ad agencies in LA, Detroit, once in a while Europe and they all have different internal languages and say the same thing many different ways. I learned that there is nothing wrong with asking for clarification. A simple term like exclusive can be interpreted many ways.

Regarding unreleased (model or property) images I have had the agency indemnify me against any claims. I make them very aware they are not released and it's up them deal with it. I write it on the PO, the invoice, imbed it in the file and also have an art buyer sign off on it.
Most agencies have people who clear trademarks, etc. with the other companies or products involved.

Not knowing what the image in question is I'd be careful 'selling copyright' with a bunch of recognizable unreleased people in it.

Micky Bill wrote:
I learned that there is nothing wrong with asking for clarification. A simple term like exclusive can be interpreted many ways.

I agree completely, which is why I suggested it....

except 'all rights cleared' is not really internal language, it is quite commonplace, but I think usually it refers to film (movies) and music, not so much photography. I've actually never seen it in reference to photography, I am just extrapolating its meaning in this scenario based on other places where I have seen it used. So I could be wrong in its usage in this case. Best just to ask the agency.

Best just to ask the agency.

Best to tell the agency what you're offering for sale.

RDKirk wrote:
Best just to ask the agency.

Best to tell the agency what you're offering for sale.

You open yourself up to a lot of problems if you tell the agency you are providing a product which is all-rights cleared when it really isn't. If you don't provide all-rights cleared product, the agency may not sign your contract, regardless of what you tell them you are offering for sale.

mdude85 wrote:
RDKirk wrote:
Best just to ask the agency.

Best to tell the agency what you're offering for sale.

You open yourself up to a lot of problems if you tell the agency you are providing a product which is all-rights cleared when it really isn't. If you don't provide all-rights cleared product, the agency may not sign your contract, regardless of what you tell them you are offering for sale.

Why would you offer something that you didn't understand? Clearly, if you're making the offer, you're offering what you know you want.

RDKirk wrote:
mdude85 wrote:
RDKirk wrote:
Best just to ask the agency.

Best to tell the agency what you're offering for sale.

You open yourself up to a lot of problems if you tell the agency you are providing a product which is all-rights cleared when it really isn't. If you don't provide all-rights cleared product, the agency may not sign your contract, regardless of what you tell them you are offering for sale.

Why would you offer something that you didn't understand? Clearly, if you're making the offer, you're offering what you know you want.

RDKirk wrote:

Why would you offer something that you didn't understand? Clearly, if you're making the offer, you're offering what you know you want.

In this instance, it's not about offering what you know you want, it's about receiving an offer stipulating a term you don't understand. That is why the OP should ask what is meant by "all rights cleared", so that he can offer exactly what he wants to offer and not something he doesn't.

Also, if you browse the first few pages of this forum, you'll see several instances of people asking questions about business practices and contractural terms they offer where they 1) do not understand the rationale for offering them and/or 2) do not understand terms in their own contractural agreements. Like you, I do not know why people do this.

Is this an ad agency or a stock photo agency or did the OP disappear?

Thank you for your replies, some knowledgable people here. I did as suggested and asked the ad agency for clarification, this is the answer "We would pay you as copyright owner on an all cleared basis. You would warrant all rights are cleared therefore It would be up to you to pay any relevant fees to the girls from the monies we pay you".

If you are willing to adhere to those terms, then go for it. Good luck ...

"We would pay you as copyright owner on an all cleared basis. You would warrant all rights are cleared therefore It would be up to you to pay any relevant fees to the girls from the monies we pay you".

If you don't have model releases, you can't make that sale.

RDKirk wrote:
"We would pay you as copyright owner on an all cleared basis. You would warrant all rights are cleared therefore It would be up to you to pay any relevant fees to the girls from the monies we pay you".

If you don't have model releases, you can't make that sale.


Sure you can. You can sell that picture a thousand times. It just can't be legally used.

Sure you can. You can sell that picture a thousand times. It just can't be legally used.

The document they want him to sign would (they think at least) indemnify them against any legal liability. So, no, he does not want to make that sale if he doesn't have releases.

nathanlake wrote:
RDKirk wrote:
"We would pay you as copyright owner on an all cleared basis. You would warrant all rights are cleared therefore It would be up to you to pay any relevant fees to the girls from the monies we pay you".

If you don't have model releases, you can't make that sale.


Sure you can. You can sell that picture a thousand times. It just can't be legally used.

He would be breaching the contract.

Guys, let's not forget that the law in the UK is different to the US. Use of model releases is less universal in the UK. John, they just want to be sure that no-one will come out of the woodwork and complain if they see themselves on the side of a bus advertising incontinence pants.

Whether they have any grounds to complain depend on what circumstances you originally took the photo. If they were modeling for you and had reason to believe the shots would be used commercially, then as long as the usage doesn't amount to defamation, you should be alright. In truth people are usually pleased to see themselves in print, so you could just take the risk. That depends on whether you want to put your professional reputation at risk if it backfires.

That said, if you know the models, far safer to get them to sign a simple model release in exchange for a box of chocolates each

Matt,
the circumstances of the shot were at a Summer Ball where I was the official photographer. The ladies bought copies on the night at the Ball then somehow an agent sees the shot and makes me an offer for the copyright. The really anoying part is that he also told the ladies what he had offered me and they want 50% to sign model releases.
I might be wrong but I feel I am being duped here somewhere, At least one of the ladies in the shot must know the agent well enough to have shown him the shot in the first place. I am tempted to say the shots not for sale, but would that be like shooting myself in the foot.