🚀 go-pugleaf

First, this will be my last post in response to Patty's post.

Even though this discussion is not on chasing, chasers do need to understand the
value of the images they create.  Publishers, broadcasters and film makers are
typically tough negotiators and will try to get the best agreement for their
company.  That's fine, but you must be tough too and make certain that you
negotiate the best deal you can get.  If you do less or give your work away, you
will do yourself and other chasers a disservice.

If you sell your images, make sure it is for one program or a one time use only
and/or for a limited time and for domestic use only (not worldwide).  Make
certain that you specify no derivative works, and do not allow use throughout
the universe, in all media, for eternity (a common phrase), unless the purchaser
pays a premium for each of these.  And make certain that you are not selling
your copyright but are only licensing your images for a specific and limited
use.

Another word of caution, many of the production companies with whom I've dealt
used poorly trained "interns" (college students who work for free to get college
credit) who have little or no understanding of copyright laws.  They ask you to
ship your video via overnight express, but are then slow to respond to inquiries
for status.  You may not hear anything for months!  Personnel changes occur
frequently with many of these companies, often making it difficult to locate
anyone who knows anything about your work.  As standard procedure, most will ask
you how much you want for your video and will always express disbelief at what
they will want you to believe is an inflated price (regardless of whether it is
or not).  They will also say that they either have no budget or a very small
budget.  You do have to be willing to walk away from the deal, like the
photographer Patty referred to in her response (whether or not he was
unreasonable depends on your point of view).

But the real danger comes when production companies (or news organizations)
include your work in "their library" for future use.  Your name may or may not
be connected with your work (it is hard to believe that a national network would
be sloppy enough to allow this to happen "accidentally").  A producer may walk
into the library needing tornado, lightning or other storm footage for his
upcoming production and find your spectacular footage, then use it and not
inquire as to who the copyright owner is and since I assume it is not labeled,
the producer may assume your video is in the "public domain" and not copyrighted
material.

If you are lucky enough to see and tape the program for use as evidence of
infringement, you can then work through the  broadcaster's legal department to
get compensation.  (Don't waste your time trying to deal with the producer, but
go directly to the legal department.)  Persistence pays and can pay well.

OBTW, I've never experienced a copyright infringement by a printed publication.

Here's my response to Patty:

> (Believe me, copyright notice doesn't stop many people using the web, and it's
> hard to get recourse.)

It may be hard, but it isn't impossible.  Locked doors don't stop thieves
either, but eventually they get their just reward.  Copyright registration
provides more legal remedies, such as the copyright violator having to pay court
costs and lawyers fees in addition to a high price for the stolen work.  Fear of
theft won't stop me from doing what I want to do.  However, so far, I've made
more money per individual copyright infringement than from individual legal
sales.   Thieves must pay more than honest people!

> I've also known professionals (including myself) who give away their work for
> good causes . . .

So do I and so have I.

> Then again, I know the guy . . .   Now, in summation: he'd already been paid
> for his work. The writer didn't ask for copyright or control of the work, even
> though it was going in her book.

As it should be.  Your writer friend apparently paid for use of the images in
the book only.  Other uses must be specified in the license and compensation
provided.   Outright purchase of a copyright or rights for use in derivative
works is and should be very expensive, since the potential income from such an
arrangement is greater than one time use.

> The museum then sweetened the pot with a chance to have his work backed by
> them, plus recognition, plus money.  He pitched a hissy fit and declined. He
> got his way. The writer didn't (should state "couldn't") use his photos,

Unfortunate, but that was his choice.

>  However, that means tough haggling. I recommend that you get an agent to
> handle the really tough  stuff.

Thank you for your recommendation.  I currently take both routes.

Chasers must realize that their images can be valuable.   Don't give your work
away to someone who will profit from your efforts.  Do some research and
determine what the going market rates are and then be a tough and smart
negotiator.  But, don't give your work away for free, except maybe for valid
non-profit and beneficial purposes (but still demand a formal release that
states the terms of use).

Sam Barricklow

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
To unsubscribe from WX-CHASE send e-mail to LISTSERV@PO.UIUC.EDU with
"unsub wx-chase" in the body of your message.  For help with WX-CHASE
write chris@siu.edu or see http://www.inlink.com/~landmb/intro.html