RE: [Leica] Photos on the Web

["Henning J. Wulff" <henningw@archiphoto.com>]

At 8:56 AM -0500 3/25/00, Austin Franklin wrote:


>Unfortunately, you are right as far as architects, and as with
>photographers, I think that's just plain silly.  The architect is being
>paid what s/he asks for to do the work for you..why should they benefit
>from it after the fact?  We just redesigned some buildings on our property,
>and I specifically wrote in the contract that I owned the copyrights to the
>work, and wanted the drawings in computer readable form.  Same with the
>surveyors...
>
>If the architect did the plans, uncompensated, then I would agree, they
>should own the copyrights, as they invested all the time etc.

Unfortunately????? You don't seem to have the basic concept of what we do
as architects straight. We produce a design which we communicate through
drawings to clients, owners and municipalities to facilitate the
construction of the design. We sell a design for a single site and purpose.
If you want more, you pay more. The design, as expressed on our drawings,
are copyright. If a client wants the drawings in computer readable form,
he/she gets them in pdf form, not in editable form. If you browbeat an
architect into signing what you describe, that's his/her poor choice. Not
one endorsed (or permitted) by our architectural association.


>> Similarly, engineers retain the copyright to their designs.
>
>In practice, you are wrong.  Companies require contractors (employees have
>NO rights along these lines) to sign over any rights to the work they are
>paid to do.  That's just common sense in my book...and I have never
>understood why anyone could believe it should work differently.  It's a
>misplaced entitlement issue in my opinion.  And I know it offends a LOT of
>photographers when I say this.  No offense is meant.

Consulting engineers I work with and hire don't work that way. If that's
the practice in your area, I'll stay away.

>> I sell certain types of usage, I don't sell
>> photographs.
>
>And if YOU paid for the materials to do create the photos, and you took the
>time to make the photos, etc., you took all the risk, therefore, you should
>own the copyrights to these photos.  If you were paid (for time and
>expenses) to do a shoot for a client, that's a completely different story.

Why do you equate copyright ownership with taking risks? These are not
things that are joined by any natural logic or law.

With respect to my photography, if a client hires me to procduce images for
a certain usage, he gets those images in the form that he requires, he uses
them for that purpose, and he pays me for that usage. Straight up, that's
the basic concept. There are details to the contract, such as that I will
not sell the usage of this image to anyone else for a specified time (a
looong time, usually) he'll get a good deal on further usage contracts, I
get to use the photos for my promo in ways that don't interfere with his
business, etc, but that is basically it.

I don't see how my client gets a poor deal out of this as he pays for and
gets what he wants.

Your model of business is almost like that of a hotel owner, who provides a
customer a room for a month, but then, as part of the one month lease, lets
the customer come back whenever he wants for further stays.

   *            Henning J. Wulff
  /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
 /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
 |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com