Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-14-2017, 05:22 AM
|
|
What's interesting about product photography is that it's the merger of TWO legally-protected creative works: 1) the photographer and their copyright; and 2) the company and their copyright/trademark/design patents for the product itself.
In the absence of an explicit agreement, either side could block the use of a product photograph especially for commercial purposes (e.g., the product maker's marketing or the photographer's marketing).
From there it's just a matter of negotiating who has what rights to distribute the image and in exchange for what payments. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with any kind of agreement as long as both sides have accepted it.
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
08-30-2017, 10:38 AM
|
|
"Work for hire" contracts aren't evil as long as the payment reasonably covers the full revenue potential of the image (which might be quite limited).
It's natural that a company would want exclusive use of an image. The company that paid you to take the image doesn't want that image to be plastered all over the internet, used to advertise nausea medicine, or as a stock photo for a food poisoning article.
Yet it makes sense that you might ask for limited rights for including the image in your portfolio (without asking for the rights for reselling or granting others the rights to the image). Note that this last bit might prohibit use of social media because posting on most platforms is the granting of the right of the platform to republish the image. (Ask a lawyer!)
And even if the client won't budge, makes you sign an NDA that you ever took this image, swear secrecy, etc. you might still take the contract. If you take the existing contract as is you will gain experience, money, and a happy client even if you gain no promotional value from it. If you refuse the contract, you still don't get any images for your promotional portfolio and have lost the money, experience, and the client.
|