[interested_observer]

Not mine in any way, shape or form. I just happened across a link that lead to this blog about photography contracts and though it was interesting in terms of how the entire episode developed. There are probably a few of the folks on the forum that shoot commercially - but for the rest, it's a reminder as to how not to get rushed into signing something in a hurry.

A photographer recently asked me to review a contract governing the license of his stock photographs to a record company. The record label (one of the largest in the country) was initially interested in using four of the photographer’s images of a musician performing live on the cover and interior of a vinyl record edition of the musician’s upcoming album. We were told that they planned to press and release 25,000 copies of the vinyl record, and that they had a firm budget of $2000.00. The fee didn’t seem to quite match the value of the images, but we asked if they could send over a contract to take a look at. That’s when things got interesting.

• Pricing & Negotiating: Stock Contract For A Record Label | A Photo Editor

[tvdtvdtvd]

Tales like this always make me think how spoiled the art of photography is relative to other visual media with it's ability to sell a single creative act ad infinitum.
And what a mess it's made for itself by insisting on that policy.

As an artist accustomed to making one sale per creative act, (ie, I sell unique originals), the very notion of haggling a contract like that are frightful, annoying
and even a little distasteful. Not that I object to the concept of selling 'creative rights' but I have no passion for making contract negotiation a regular part of my
occupation as an artist.

And the most depressing part is that I know that's a fairly 'modest' contract for usage rights.

[redcat]

wow, the soft skill is so important here, beside the photography skill ! interesting article, thanks for sharing ^^