|
Forums >
General Industry >
Paid release form?
I only have TFP/CD forms , does anyone have a form for the below situation? Photographer is paying me 25$ n hour and i retain copyrights and a CD is provided of the days raw works. Dont worry about the minor part, that i can write in.but im not sure where to find one for the above specifications (oh keep your bashing to yourself , if you think its a bad situation,fine..i just need a release form guys -__- ) May 01 06 08:56 pm Link That is a very strange agreement. However, if it's what you two agreed to, so be it. The hard part is the fact that you get the copyright, but are not the photographer. To do that, you have to do two things: compensate him in some way, and execute a "work for hire" agreement in writing before the shoot. Then you will own the copyright. Here is a "work for hire" agreement that you can modify as needed for your particular purpose. WORK FOR HIRE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT (âAgreementâ?) is dated as of, by and between (âAuthorâ?) and Client, with its principal place of business at _____________________________________. WHEREAS, Client is a user of photographic products; and WHEREAS, Author will contribute certain material to Client for photographic product (âWorkâ?) and the parties intend that Client be the owner of all rights in Work. The agreement will confirm such understanding. NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. The Work is a commissioned âwork for hireâ? which will be owned by Client. If the Work is determined not to be a âwork for hireâ? or such doctrine is not effective, the Author hereby irrevocably assigns, conveys and otherwise transfers to Client, and its respective successors, licensees, and assigns, all right, title and interest worldwide in and to the Work and all proprietary rights there in, including, without limitation, all copyrights, trademarks, moral rights, and all contract and licensing rights, and all claims and causes of action of respect to any of the foregoing, whether now known or hereafter to become known. In the event, I have any right in the Work which cannot be assigned, I agree to waive enforcement worldwide of such right against Client, its distributors, and customers or, if necessary, exclusively because such right, worldwide to Client with the right to sublicense. These rights are assignable by Client. 2. Author represents and warrants that: (a)the Work will be created solely by him, his full time employees during the course of their employment, independent contractors who will assign all right, title and interest in their work to Author; (b) Author will be the owner of all right, title and interest in the tangible forms of the Work and all intellectual property rights protecting them. (c) the Work and the intellectual property rights protecting them will be free and clear of all encumbrances, including, without limitation, security interests, licenses, liens, charges or other restrictions; (d) the use, reproduction, distribution, or modification of the Work will not violate the rights of any third parties in the Work including, but not limited to, trade secrets, publicity, privacy, copyrights and patents; (e) the Work will not be in the public domain; and (f) Author has full power and authority to make and enter into this Agreement. Author agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Client, its officers, directors and employees for any claims, suits or proceedings alleging a breach of these warranties. 3. Author agrees that he or she will take all actions and execute any and all documents as may be requested by Client, at Clientâs expense, from time to time to fully vest in Client all rights, title and interests worldwide in and to the Work. 4. In consideration of the foregoing, Client agrees to pay to Author the sum of ______________Dollars ($). May 01 06 11:11 pm Link Sorry, The model can't write in a WFH agreement. It just doesnt work that way (at least not in the real world). The photographer would need to be a bona-fide Employee of the Model for the WFH agreement to be valid. See here: http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/copyright/wfh.php What would need to happen is a Copyright Transfer. Read here for more: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#toc Getting back to the Model's question - Write up a contract however you want. If you want it to be enforceable - Contact an attorney. -steve http://www.stevennoreyko.com/ May 02 06 12:43 am Link Kassandra wrote: Yeah, its a raw deal, since you are worth much more than $25/hr with your talents. May 02 06 12:51 am Link StevenNoreyko wrote: No, that is not true. Your own citation includes the second, non-employee case in which "work for hire" applies. In the case of this model, assuming she intends to use the pictures on a comp card or a portfolio (either of which is a "compilation"), "work for hire" is applicable and preferable. May 02 06 06:10 am Link Sounds like the WFH agreement would work, although it's overkill. Typically, when I do work where the client buys some or all rights to the photos, I write a simple letter of agreement that transfers the necessary rights to the photos. I rarely actually transfer the copyright -- I simply transfer the usage rights that the client wants and pays for. If I had pictures of Saddam Hussein being captured, or Paris Hilton and her brand-new husband after a Vegas wedding or something like that, I would absolutely consult a lawyer. For work at this level? You've GOT to be kidding. Transfer of usage rights for thousands of dollars of photos is done on the basis of a simple letter all the time. Running to a lawyer and spending more money on the agreement than the pictures are worth strikes me as bad business, not to mention bad karma. Ask the photographer to draft one and send it to you at least several days before the shoot so you can ask for changes if needed. May 02 06 06:30 am Link TXPhotog wrote: Im with TX on this one, I've done plenty of WFH and never been an employee of the company doing the hiring, as far as the tax man cares if your doing WFH your simply an outsider providing personall services. May 02 06 06:37 am Link There needs only be a contractual agreement between parties to establish WFH. One need not be an "employee." I'd be interested in knowing what kind of knuckleheaded "photographer" would enter into an agreement such as that described by OP. LOL...I just looked at the OP's profile...she's 17...too young to enter into any kind of agreement in most states. May 02 06 06:58 am Link Pete Flanagan wrote: Right -- which is why, if the photographer just drafts a letter of agreement outlining his transfer of rights, it's going to be enough to keep everybody happy and honest. It's not like they're all going to end up in court asking for a judgement on the ownership rights of these masterpieces. . . . May 02 06 07:10 am Link Yes, I am a little confused by this one. I agree with the people who say that it can be a work for hire arrangement, accept I have a problem here. The model isn't hiring the photographer, the photographer is hiring the model. She wants to have the copyright to the images. It seems to me that she needs two simple things. First a standard release. The fact that it is a paid shoot has no significant difference if it is a full release. Second she needs a brief document transferring the copyright to her. Here is the problem though. If the photographer transfers the copyright to the model, then we need a third document. That would be a license issued by the model enumerating the usage rights she is conveying upon the photographer. A release has no meaning if he has no authority to use the images and if he gives her the copyright, he no longer could use them with or without a release. So that having all been said, the clean and proper way to do this is for the model to execute a release to the photographer and the photographer provides a license to the model permitting her to use the images he provided her. If he wants to grant her "all rights" including the right to duplicate and re-license, that is fine if it is agreed upon by the two of them. In the end though a release by the model and a license by the photographer is the simplest way to accomplish what the OP wants. P.S. Did anyone notice that the OP is only 17? The release will have to include provisions for the parent to sign on her behalf unless she is emancipated. May 02 06 07:40 am Link Alan, there is nothing in the original post to indicate that the photographer retains any rights to publish the pictures. If he does, then you are correct that additional pieces of paper would be needed. However, that wasn't the question asked. This whole arrangement is so strange I decided not to try to second-guess it. You are also correct in saying that he is paying her, so there is an issue of her "hiring" him to do the photography. That's why I said she would have to find some form of compensation to him (not necessarily money) sufficient to induce him to do the shoot (and pay her). May 02 06 08:22 am Link Kassandra wrote: If it is you, and you alone, that will own the original work copyright (you didn't really say beyond retaining) then this is pretty simple. Bring your own CF card or film. After the shoot leave with your fees and images. May 02 06 08:39 am Link Kassandra wrote: It seems like it should be the other way around. I seem to be asking myself why the photographer would shoot basically for nothing in the case presented here. Perhaps the fact that he/she would be in the same setting as you is payment enough for him? or maybe he is gaining experience in shooting models? I am just baffled by this kind of agreement, but if it works, who am I to question it. Good luck, let us know how it works out for both of you:) May 02 06 08:50 am Link well..youre in NY...doesnt NY have New York Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts? Not that youre guaranteed to find someone but what youre asking really can be handled by most attornies who know Contract Law... There really is a simple contractual way to handle the matter which would deal with the transferring of copyrights by using either a "Work for Hire" or "Transfer of Copyright" clause.... May 02 06 09:10 am Link TXPhotog wrote: No worries, I am not really critical of you here. I am actually in agreement. I think the arrangement is strange. It makes no sense to sign a release and then expect ownership of the copyright as well. May 02 06 10:22 am Link Alan from Aavian Prod wrote: Possibly neither of them do. The whole thing is bizarre - photographer PAYS the model them gives them the © too? Kassandra wrote: She never had © in the first place so what is the word "retain" supposed to mean here? May 02 06 11:21 am Link studio36uk wrote: Actually, in work for hire arrangements, the client does have the copyright de novo. It is never vested in the photographer, never transferred. May 02 06 11:40 am Link Kassandra wrote: Hi Kassandra, May 02 06 11:56 am Link oh yes ... the part about 17 .... until you are 18 you need to be cosigned by a legal guardian to make it binding. May 02 06 12:02 pm Link Sigh. Click Hamilton wrote: And that will or will not satisfy the legal requirements of Title 17? Do you think it is best to use contracts written by 17 year old girls, or by lawyers? Click Hamilton wrote: Why would she add that? She is the copyright holder, so there is no point in telling a photographer than he can't use the pictures in any particular way, since he can't use them at all. Click Hamilton wrote: No, you don't. In this case if, as many have recommended, she receives an assignment of all copyright from the photographer, it need only be signed by him, not by her. Which avoids the whole issue of her being a minor that you raise later. Click Hamilton wrote: No, it doesn't. It belongs to the "author" or client under a work for hire agreement, who may well not be the "orginal artist". Ideas are not copyrightable; putting things in tangible form (which is what the photographer does) make them copyrightable. Click Hamilton wrote: Yes it can. It can also be sold or otherwise completely transferred. It need not remain with the original author. Click Hamilton wrote: You can, but it's not clear that would have any legal effect. It would be much better to follow the requirements of the work for hire provisions (specify who the employer is, for instance). May 02 06 12:43 pm Link I suspect the parties really don't understand exactly what it is they are trying to do. I agree considering the OP is concerned about "retain"ing the copyright, yet uploads all her stuff to Deviant Art. May 02 06 12:56 pm Link I don't get this (maybe I'm just dumb or soemthing). The OP is being hired by a photographer and is also receiving the copyrights for all images taken? For some odd reason, this just doesn't sound right . Does the photographer (who's paying the model) and the model understand what it is they're doing? Does the photographer *really* want to pay a model to take the copyright for his images? Does the model understand what a copyright is, who actually owns the copyright, and what a model release is? I'm not convinced she's asking the right question, and unless I missed it I don't recall any responses from her. I just think a few things need to be clarified -- this just sounds too weird for me. -P- May 02 06 02:23 pm Link As a father, I know minors cannot enter into contractual agreements. The OP's parent(s) have to enter into the wfh or whatever it is. It smells to high heaven. Something ain't right. Does your parents know about this so called "shoot"? edit: I hope this is not SG stuff. May 02 06 07:59 pm Link 1. a minor cannot enter into a contract of any kind (rather they can, but it will not be binding). As a minor you cannot "write in" anything, because you can't enter into the contract in the first place. 2. why would a "photographer" give away copyright without being compensated? And he is compensating you IN ADDITION? and you're a minor? waaaaaaaay fishy. May 02 06 08:09 pm Link |
