Micky Bill wrote:
Have you ever taken pictures as part of your job as a graphic designer? If you have, then why is this shot different than other shots that you may have done as 'part' of your job as a designer.
I have not. I've been asked, but I've told them in no uncertain terms to go pay the photographer because it's not my job. I've done WFH and I've also done photography as part of other jobs, but I didn't want to do it here so I've taken a stance against it. This was an isolated exception.
Deezie wrote:
This is not necessarily true. As a partner at a design studio there are many factors that come into play that our designers are never aware.
I work right next to the account rep so I happen to know that it's how this particular job is billed.
Perhaps you work at a really nice and loving place, generous with money and all that other good stuff.
I never have. There would be glimpses of 'the love' but when money was on the line, TFB.
If I had employees that made mistakes such as these and then essentially blackmailed me to get paid I'd fire the lot of you - and for good reason. Accident or planned? How is the boss to ever really know?
You both have jobs and didn't buy lottery tickets. You all made mistakes and its time for you to learn from them, and pay the price for YOUR mistakes by not getting paid extra.
The model should sign the release and ask for some money, NICELY. I infer from what you have written she works for the same company. If she starts to get a lawyer, holds their feet to the fire on getting paid, etc, she may win the battle but lose the war - meaning her job. And if your name comes up that you advised her to hold out, well, what do you think the boss will think of that?
prof_fate wrote:
Perhaps you work at a really nice and loving place, generous with money and all that other good stuff.
I never have. There would be glimpses of 'the love' but when money was on the line, TFB.
If I had employees that made mistakes such as these and then essentially blackmailed me to get paid I'd fire the lot of you - and for good reason. Accident or planned? How is the boss to ever really know?
You both have jobs and didn't buy lottery tickets. You all made mistakes and its time for you to learn from them, and pay the price for YOUR mistakes by not getting paid extra.
The model should sign the release and ask for some money, NICELY. I infer from what you have written she works for the same company. If she starts to get a lawyer, holds their feet to the fire on getting paid, etc, she may win the battle but lose the war - meaning her job. And if your name comes up that you advised her to hold out, well, what do you think the boss will think of that?
...Show more →
Actually the model should put her hand out and when it has a check in it then she signs the release . That is the only way she will get paid . Otherwise she needs to to them to piss off until the check is written . If the shoot was on company property during her normal business hours she may be screwed anyway .
Ok, having read this thread, I have a question: The guy used his own camera and did something that wasn't his job, and probably not in his job description. Does that have any impact?
Second, let's assume this isn't a company, but a college where a student shoots a photograph of some part of the campus using the school's camera as part of a class assignment. Whose image is that? A twist.
PhotoGuy76 wrote:
Ok, having read this thread, I have a question: The guy used his own camera and did something that wasn't his job, and probably not in his job description. Does that have any impact?
Almost every job description has 'other duties as assigned'. Besides, the boss asked and he did it. too late now to squawk about it. the only reason to squawk is greed - he wants paid extra AFTER agreeing to do the work for his regular pay...
If you have a regular job and take pics for the boss/company the company owns the copyright unless it's spelled out in some other form. as a graphic designer i'm sure his employment contract says any cretive work he does belongs to the company.
S Second, let's assume this isn't a company, but a college where a student shoots a photograph of some part of the campus using the school's camera as part of a class assignment. Whose image is that? A twist.
Not a twist. Who owns the gear has nothing to do with it. You can rent gear to make a photo or a movie - the rental outfit has no rights to the art you create.
where or what you shoot isn't a factor either - to SELL the image you may have to have a property release or a model release.
As always, you've got to read what you sign when you get a job or go to school. If you are going to art school and create a sculpture during a semester long class and at the end sell it for $500 who's money is it? Whose sculpture was it? the person that created it.
ericevans wrote:
Actually the model should put her hand out and when it has a check in it then she signs the release . That is the only way she will get paid . Otherwise she needs to to them to piss off until the check is written . If the shoot was on company property during her normal business hours she may be screwed anyway .
Uh huh. And the next time she's 5 minutes late getting back from lunch she'll be fired. Everyone will know why she was really fired. You can't put a gun to the head of your employer and expect it to not have any repercussions.
prof_fate wrote:
Almost every job description has 'other duties as assigned'. Besides, the boss asked and he did it. too late now to squawk about it. the only reason to squawk is greed - he wants paid extra AFTER agreeing to do the work for his regular pay...
If you have a regular job and take pics for the boss/company the company owns the copyright unless it's spelled out in some other form. as a graphic designer i'm sure his employment contract says any cretive work he does belongs to the company.
I've clarified with my superiors on several previous occasions that it isn't my job. I was not specifically asked to shoot this, it was something I did as part of delivering the artwork for the presentation job.
My employment contract does not say anything about me performing photographer duties, nor does it say that my creative work belongs to the agency.
The bottom line is, if the OP values his job, he'll take the hit on this and speak up the next time BEFORE he takes a photo. If he hates his job and thinks he can get a little dough on the side, then so be it. Write-off the job and collect your money. Just don't expect a reference from your former employer.
If I were in this situation where nothing was specifically discussed in regards to compensation, I would feel blind-sided if the employee then asked for money - regardless if it was used as an exploration or a final comp.
Out of fairness, I would compensate the employee, but they would be removed from any future important projects and eventually fazed out of my company - sooner than later. There's an element of integrity and trust at stake, and I would always be looking over my shoulder waiting for the other shoe to drop on the next project.
Our designers wear many hats from copywriting and design and art direction. The more initiative they show, the more we reward them come bonus time and extra days off just for the hell of it. But if a designer comes to me and wants extra money for copywriting because he came up with a cool tagline for a poster, and without my asking him to, then we're going to have a real problem.
I would suggest, like many here have, that you keep your mouth shut and learn to offer your extra services with a caveat, or be prepared to lose the trust of your boss and eventually your job. It's kind of a no-brainer, here. It's mind-boggling that you can't see it.
dinoadventures wrote:
I've clarified with my superiors on several previous occasions that it isn't my job. I was not specifically asked to shoot this, it was something I did as part of delivering the artwork for the presentation job.
My employment contract does not say anything about me performing photographer duties, nor does it say that my creative work belongs to the agency.
This scenario has 'work for hire' written all over it. You won't have much to say in court, and should you make a fuss with your company it could mean a very short leash or termination. You were asked to do something by your employer and you did it. Just because its different than normal work doesn't mean you are entitled to double dip. Did they pay you for the time you were shooting? If so then that is your pay for this photo.
If the models image is used for commercial appropriation without her consent, the agency is $crewed. When they consult their attorney after receiving the complaint from the models attorney, they will $hit themselves. Really though, all of us should have a copy of the Photographer's Legal Guide written by Carolyn E. Wright. I have a copy on my desktop, and just read about this issue on page 87. The model has the strongest case, and holds the cards in my opinion.
nyjshooter wrote:
If the models image is used for commercial appropriation without her consent, the agency is $crewed. When they consult their attorney after receiving the complaint from the models attorney, they will $hit themselves. Really though, all of us should have a copy of the Photographer's Legal Guide written by Carolyn E. Wright. I have a copy on my desktop, and just read about this issue on page 87. The model has the strongest case, and holds the cards in my opinion.
As stated earlier this falls in to a much different situation than a standard model. She is an employee and contracts can often state such uses of image and likeness are allowed. My friend had it happen to her.
She would be better off just saying, "I don't want my image used..." to which they may respond...OK, what if we pay you. Then the offer is from them and she gets her money and does not look like an employee out to get them.
CT: Ahh, I missed the part where she's an employee. I agree with you that she should make it known that she doesn't want the image used. I don't know though......it's still a bit touchy. It may be worth it for her to do a consult with an attorney. There are still a few out there who will do a free consultation.
She would be better off just saying, "I don't want my image used..." to which they may respond...OK, what if we pay you. Then the offer is from them and she gets her money and does not look like an employee out to get them.
Very well put, CT. Management may realize it's cheaper to pay her and the photographer for something the client's already signed-off on, instead of doing a reshoot.
On another note, I find it troubling that these two employees recognize that there is a legal issue in play that could result in damages to both company and client. To put their own self-interest above the well-being of the company they work for and not disclose this matter is untenable. Management sometimes gets overwhelmed and details fall through the cracks. Many times we rely on the people close to the project to bring up an issue that is unresolved or forgotten - and we are always thankful when they do.
I find myself relieved that the OP doesn't work for my firm.
nyjshooter wrote:
If the models image is used for commercial appropriation without her consent, the agency is $crewed. When they consult their attorney after receiving the complaint from the models attorney, they will $hit themselves. Really though, all of us should have a copy of the Photographer's Legal Guide written by Carolyn E. Wright. I have a copy on my desktop, and just read about this issue on page 87. The model has the strongest case, and holds the cards in my opinion.
Carolyn is an FM member and does post here on occasion. If she happens to see the topic she may offer her advise. Her book is excellent.
It's a good start in getting to the decision if you want to move forward - but you'd want qualified employment attorney advice.
If you want to beef the terms and conditions of your employment contract, you may want to do so quietly with an attorney before doing so loudly with your boss - as do many of the others, I'll remind you the squeaking wheel may get greased.
They should get a release for the model, as while it's not at all unusual for contracts to include pro forma release for company publicity, etc., her image is being used for someone else. I'd suggest this be looked as a loose end to be tied up and not as an opportunity to put it to the company or the client.
If it gets to the point that this obviously isn't appreciated or reciprocated, then you might consider working someplace else. If you try to mess with them, you almost certainly will.
Hmmmm - maybe I'm off base here and the OP can straighten it out but I think a lot of folks are skimming the top and jumping to conclusions. It sounds like what happened was the OP had some work that involved laying out a concept ad to be considered for a big account. He had an idea for a photo to go into the ad in the process of designing his take on the layout (usually several will be entered for consideration). Rather than rough sketch/storyboarding it he snagged a coworker and shot a take on what he thought the ad needed. So now the ad department gets this submission and because it looks finished they assume it is. They get excited (maybe someone had dropped the ball and it was late), jump the gun and show it to the client.
So now the OP who shot the pic is thinking maybe he deserves a piece of the marketing pie because if he hadn't done it they would have paid a pro contract shooter to do the job. And as far as he is concerned it is not part of his job duties. Not to mention now we have a coworker who may or may not want her image splashed across the world for free. She might even hold the OP liable for getting her into this mess.
Not that this makes it any less of a sticky wicket but some folks have been popping off about all sorts of stuff.
One of the thoughts that come to mind is how they normally contract out a photographer - is it as a work for hire? If so then the best the OP could hope for would be the normal fee paid to the "normal" shooter.
Personally I'd submit my case to the powers that be and accept whatever they offer. Anything else is a combat situation and will not end well for the OP in any scenario I can envision. The manner in which the OP's company handle it will speak volumes about the folks he works for. The female coworker is responsible for her own negotiations - hopefully it won't result in a finger pointing back to the OP.
Regards,
Jon
BubbaJon wrote:
Hmmmm - maybe I'm off base here and the OP can straighten it out but I think a lot of folks are skimming the top and jumping to conclusions. It sounds like what happened was the OP had some work that involved laying out a concept ad to be considered for a big account. He had an idea for a photo to go into the ad in the process of designing his take on the layout (usually several will be entered for consideration). Rather than rough sketch/storyboarding it he snagged a coworker and shot a take on what he thought the ad needed. So now the ad department gets this submission and because it looks finished they assume it is. They get excited (maybe someone had dropped the ball and it was late), jump the gun and show it to the client.
So now the OP who shot the pic is thinking maybe he deserves a piece of the marketing pie because if he hadn't done it they would have paid a pro contract shooter to do the job. And as far as he is concerned it is not part of his job duties. Not to mention now we have a coworker who may or may not want her image splashed across the world for free. She might even hold the OP liable for getting her into this mess.
Not that this makes it any less of a sticky wicket but some folks have been popping off about all sorts of stuff.
One of the thoughts that come to mind is how they normally contract out a photographer - is it as a work for hire? If so then the best the OP could hope for would be the normal fee paid to the "normal" shooter.
Personally I'd submit my case to the powers that be and accept whatever they offer. Anything else is a combat situation and will not end well for the OP in any scenario I can envision. The manner in which the OP's company handle it will speak volumes about the folks he works for. The female coworker is responsible for her own negotiations - hopefully it won't result in a finger pointing back to the OP.
Regards,
Jon...Show more →
That's exactly right. To answer your question, our usual shooter is work for hire.
Last I heard they're negotiating with the model while planning out the logistics of a reshoot.
At the time you did this, did you consider it just part of your job? Was the model also a regular employee doing her job too? If so, I would guess the product now belongs to your employer.
Even if that is not the case, how far are you willing to take this? If you ask for money and the company says no, will you take them to court? Is it worth losing your job over this issue? You need to answer these questions before you move forward.
dinoadventures wrote:
That's exactly right. To answer your question, our usual shooter is work for hire.
Last I heard they're negotiating with the model while planning out the logistics of a reshoot.
Isn't that funny that they have to plan the logistics for something you popped off? Welll maybe more effort than a simple pop but I get the impression that it was a fairly quick setup and execution. You might want to point out the costs of their endeavor vs just paying you a fee - after all they already have what the customer wants. Of course they might see that as setting a bad precedent...
Good luck and keep us posted.
