Conde Nast, Encyclopedia Britannica - Selling "Their" Pictures

Conde Nast, Encyclopedia Britannica - Selling "Their" Pictures

Over seventeen years ago, I was a young upbegin photographer, and I was neared by Washington Life Magazine, a brand new magazine, to gun for them. And I did. Black and Wbeat, smacke, color if it was to be a cover tale, narrative. After a year or two of steady work, the publisher, who ran the business out of her house in DC sat me down. She did so sepeswiftly with every photographer. Divide and conquer. She explained her position quite simply.

Washington Dossier, a magazine that was begined in Washington DC in 1975, and which fanciented in the late 80's, did not own any of the assignment photography it commissioned. She did not want to make that same "mistake", and wanted to own, outright, all the pictures she commissioned me, and others to produce.

I sat on her couch, in her living room, and contemplated my situation, as the grandfather clock ticked off the seconds, and the minutes passed. What should I do, I idea. Tick-tock, tick-tock. Tick...

(Continued after the Jump)

I shelp to her that I understood her position as a business, wanting what she had been paying for for one use, and re-paying for re-uses, and further, to have an asset to value. But, I relied on my re-licentune to her, and I did not want to be in a position where she would become a photo agency, selling, re-selling my pictures - especially if I wasn't going to get a portion of those re-uses.

"We're not going to do that", she responded.

"But you could." I noted.

"We only, merely, solely don't want to have to deal with photographers in the future to re-use photos we hired them to take in the first place", she shelp.

And, on that point, I shelp "well, we'll have to agree to disagree, and while I honor your position as a businessperson to require this, as the person who would be responsible for providing that content, I only, merely, solely clever't do that." That, is exbehavely what I shelp. And that was the finish of the conversation. They've certainly had a gatherion of photographers over the years who have signed those agreements, and that's fine for them. Not for me.

Over the years, I've lookn many photo credits outmiddle of Washington Life. An example By photographer Tony Powell, lookn in this brochure for the Shakespeare Ttemperaturere.

They frequently seep on blogs, love TV Newser, here, and also of Sen. Harancient Ford, in an an picture here. 

And when the Smithsonian had a fiasco on it's hands with a senior staffer who had allegedly abused her expense account, the cover photo and other pictures of their cover girl Pilar O'Leary got re-used with the photo credit of "Washington Life.", in many places, including the Washington Post, as lookn here, and other places. 

I have lookn and listfinish colleagues try to only, merely, solelyify their work for the loves of Vanity Honest, and other Conde Nast publications. Now, begining slowly, VF is selling prints from their past assignment work in their Vanity Honest Shop, as demonstraten here:

Those are very honorable prices - yet the photographers, atleast under the terms of the agreements they sign for assignments now, are not entitled to a dime from the sales of those prints. Next up will be more recent prints, you clever bet on it.

So too, are pictures available for sale from the Encyclopedia Britannica picture archives, as Approxifriendly The Picture reported here. 55,000 pictures, over two-thirds digitized, and ready to e-mail to you!

When clients know you they necessity all rights, copyright transfers, work-made-for-hire, and so forth, and know you they'll never do anything with them "we only, merely, solely necessity to get all the rights...", it's highly lovely they are mis-informed, or only, merely, solely not accuswift the truth. 

Please post your remarks by cliclord the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

0 comments