Quote:
Originally Posted by CanonRebelz
Don't give away the copyrights, Nevar!!!! unless you're being paid an upwards of maybe $500 an image? IF you give them the copyright, they are free to use that image in ANYTHING they want. Billboards, magazines, stuff that generates revenue and since you gave them the copyright, you don't get a share in the profits, I think that's called "royalty free", meaning they owe you no royalties since you gave them the copyrights.
|
Once you give away your copyright, the image is no longer yours.
You have NO RIGHTS AT ALL.
Ultimately, the only thing a photographer has to sell is their copyright. Copyright is a bundle of rights and parts of that bundle can be leased to image users, by the photographer.
A contract like the OP described is known as a 'work for hire' agreement. Work-for-hire agreements are typically avoided by commercial photographers because of the loss of copyright ownership.
Royalty-Free (RF) usually means you still own the image but the entity you licensed it too doesn't have to pay anymore to use the image. You still own the copyright and a RF agreement normally allows the photographer to sell use licenses for the same image to other companies including stock photography houses.
Exclusive use costs more, much more, than non-exclusive use.
Commercial photographers usually write a use license that is Rights-Managed (RM), so called because the photographer is specifically managing the publishing rights for the content. Rights-Managed usually entails a time limit. 12 months is typical. If a company wants to continue using RM images after 12 months they can purchase an extension or a new use license agreement. It's a good idea to write a 12 month use license with a clause that lets the client know, now, what an extension will cost them. That helps them budget for next years advertising.
Stock photography houses many times fall into one or the other category. Some of the bigger stock houses do both RF and RM.