Michael McDowell on tue 9 dec 97
------------------
Wendy -
I have delayed a bit in replying to your post regarding photo credit
because I felt it brought up issues that I needed to consult with my
photographer about in order to properly address. He was out of town for a
few days, hence the delay. Besides the question of photo credit, whether
and when it should be given. Your post went on to give some useful
information about slide quality =26 the differences in what is a good slide
for jurying vs. good for publication purposes. Thank you for that. On
behalf of my photographer, though, I need to take exception to your opening
paragraph on photo credit and reproduction rights. I speak not as any kind
of expert here, but only as a paraphraser of my photographer's remarks.
Your paragraph follows:
Professional photographers should provide you with slides that have their
photo credit information clearly printed on the slide. This assures them
a credit when it is possible to provide one. All commercial photography
should be purchased with =22full rights=22 unless otherwise noted in a
contract.
My photographers slides come not only with his name stamped on it, but also
a copyright symbol indicative of the fact that he retains all reproduction
rights not specifically granted to me in our contract. Even in the absence
of a copyright mark, there is an implied copyright recognized by the courts
which protects the photographer against unauthorized use of his images. The
American Society of Professional Photographers publishes guidelines for
standard contract types and amounts of compensation for various levels of
rights to reproduce an image. According to these guidelines the standard
fee for reproduction will depend of the size of the image as reproduced and
the number of reproductions in the run. A half page sized image in a run of
ten thousand would normally run around three hundred dollars, and any
subsequent use of the image would require further compensation on a similar
scale. It is possible to make a contract to buy the right to reproduce an
image in perpetuity without further compensation to the photographer, but
in such cases the rate will reflect a similar scale and the photographer's
estimation of what the potential uses of that image might be. I.E. if you
ask for such unlimited rights in a contract with a photographer you set the
cash register ringing in his mind. It is important to note that in all such
contracts it is still specified that the photographer will be credited when
the image is used. That is the professional standard.
Now I'm not saying that my photographer is ready to start taking people to
court over this. My point is that he is graciously doing me a big favor
providing me with slides for submission to shows in the knowledge that if
accepted these images may well be reproduced without his authorization,
compensation, or even knowledge. Yet he supplied me with a couple dozen
slides, of nine different pieces for only a couple hundred dollars. This is
a big gift to me, and indirectly to any show which accepts my work and
takes the right to reproduce it's image in their publicity. It is not that
uncommon that professional photographers will be so generous in the support
of artist/craftspeople in other media. I am only suggesting that in the
face of such generosity on their part, crediting the photographer seems to
be a minimal recognition of their support.
I've several times now heard the objection that these shows are about
pottery, not photography. But personally that objection seems a little
thin. Photo credit can be given at the bottom of a page or poster if
necessary for best compositional effect, and the typeface can be kept at
the minimum legible size. Besides that, these shows are very much about
photography. We are repeatedly cautioned that if our slides are not of
professional quality, we probably won't get in. That has certainly been my
experience. All the publicity that subsequently goes out to promote the
show is composed of images, not pottery. Giving credit to the photographer
of every accepted piece whenever the image is used is simply following
established standards for commercial reproduction, and a common courtesy
that is the photographer's due.
As I've said before, I don't think that it is good form for us as potters
to seek to promote recognition and respect for ourselves and our medium in
a manner that fails to give due respect to another. All that said, I'm
still going to submit to shows regardless of how they handle this matter.
I'll just continue to be uncomfortable about it if things don't change.
Michael McDowell
Whatcom County, WA USA
Wendy Rosen on wed 10 dec 97
Well stated... I was just trying to simplify things tooo much in terms of
"common usage" people get all too hung up on some of this stuff when
common courtesy and open intent is the always the best solution. I have
heard of photographers making unreasonable demands regarding these issues.
The artist often doesn't realize that it's their responsibilty to secure
whatever rights they need up front ... not on the back end of any deal.
Wendy :)
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>------------------
>Wendy -
>
>I have delayed a bit in replying to your post regarding photo credit
>because I felt it brought up issues that I needed to consult with my
>photographer about in order to properly address. He was out of town for a
>few days, hence the delay. Besides the question of photo credit, whether
>and when it should be given. Your post went on to give some useful
>information about slide quality & the differences in what is a good slide
>for jurying vs. good for publication purposes. Thank you for that. On
>behalf of my photographer, though, I need to take exception to your opening
>paragraph on photo credit and reproduction rights. I speak not as any kind
>of expert here, but only as a paraphraser of my photographer's remarks.
>Your paragraph follows:
>
>Professional photographers should provide you with slides that have their
>photo credit information clearly printed on the slide. This assures them
>a credit when it is possible to provide one. All commercial photography
>should be purchased with "full rights" unless otherwise noted in a
>contract.
>
>My photographers slides come not only with his name stamped on it, but also
>a copyright symbol indicative of the fact that he retains all reproduction
>rights not specifically granted to me in our contract. Even in the absence
>of a copyright mark, there is an implied copyright recognized by the courts
>which protects the photographer against unauthorized use of his images. The
>American Society of Professional Photographers publishes guidelines for
>standard contract types and amounts of compensation for various levels of
>rights to reproduce an image. According to these guidelines the standard
>fee for reproduction will depend of the size of the image as reproduced and
>the number of reproductions in the run. A half page sized image in a run of
>ten thousand would normally run around three hundred dollars, and any
>subsequent use of the image would require further compensation on a similar
>scale. It is possible to make a contract to buy the right to reproduce an
>image in perpetuity without further compensation to the photographer, but
>in such cases the rate will reflect a similar scale and the photographer's
>estimation of what the potential uses of that image might be. I.E. if you
>ask for such unlimited rights in a contract with a photographer you set the
>cash register ringing in his mind. It is important to note that in all such
>contracts it is still specified that the photographer will be credited when
>the image is used. That is the professional standard.
>
>Now I'm not saying that my photographer is ready to start taking people to
>court over this. My point is that he is graciously doing me a big favor
>providing me with slides for submission to shows in the knowledge that if
>accepted these images may well be reproduced without his authorization,
>compensation, or even knowledge. Yet he supplied me with a couple dozen
>slides, of nine different pieces for only a couple hundred dollars. This is
>a big gift to me, and indirectly to any show which accepts my work and
>takes the right to reproduce it's image in their publicity. It is not that
>uncommon that professional photographers will be so generous in the support
>of artist/craftspeople in other media. I am only suggesting that in the
>face of such generosity on their part, crediting the photographer seems to
>be a minimal recognition of their support.
>
>I've several times now heard the objection that these shows are about
>pottery, not photography. But personally that objection seems a little
>thin. Photo credit can be given at the bottom of a page or poster if
>necessary for best compositional effect, and the typeface can be kept at
>the minimum legible size. Besides that, these shows are very much about
>photography. We are repeatedly cautioned that if our slides are not of
>professional quality, we probably won't get in. That has certainly been my
>experience. All the publicity that subsequently goes out to promote the
>show is composed of images, not pottery. Giving credit to the photographer
>of every accepted piece whenever the image is used is simply following
>established standards for commercial reproduction, and a common courtesy
>that is the photographer's due.
>
>As I've said before, I don't think that it is good form for us as potters
>to seek to promote recognition and respect for ourselves and our medium in
>a manner that fails to give due respect to another. All that said, I'm
>still going to submit to shows regardless of how they handle this matter.
>I'll just continue to be uncomfortable about it if things don't change.
>
>Michael McDowell
>Whatcom County, WA USA
*******************************************
Wendy Rosen
The Rosen Group
Niche & AmericanStyle Magazines
http://americanstyle.com
3000 Chestnut Ave #304 Baltimore, MD 21211
Voice: 410/889-3093 Fax: 410/243-7089
*******************************************
| |
|
