Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/11/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Geoff Hopkinson offered >> On the previous archive that was on a Life site, I recall that it was only the covers that were available. I assumed that Life originally purchased the publishing rights for those at the time?<<<<< It has always been my understanding that if "YOU WORK AS A HIRED EMPLOYEE." The employer owns all the rights, period! Regardless of what people might think. This doesn't mean I agree with it! But you have been hired to work for an employer, they pay your salary to take pictures for them. In other words you are a "HIRED HUMAN!" The employer paid all the expenses, your salary, you did the assignment and moved onto the next. Then the employer some 60 or so years later decides to make all their photo files available to the world. for a fee? So you come back looking for more money? But you were paid to do all this stuff without any thought that it.. "MIGHT BE SOLD OR USED AGAIN".. I'm not defending the employer, nor am I saying the photographers shouldn't be paid some extra for their efforts. But my gut feelings are the "originators of the photographs should enjoy some extra compensation." By the same token, one must take into account, you were a hired employee enjoying a fine salary for your ability at the time. HOWEVER! If you were a freelance, in other words, you owned your own company and leased your services for a particular assignment. Then by all means you should receive extra compensation if the material is being sold again. This is a very tough topic to work through from an independent business person point of view and the opposite. a hired gun to a magazine or government employer situation point of view. ted