exclusivity rights?

[pdcpic]

I have heard of another photographer (just starting) that she sold exclusivity rights to a company , they told her she is not allowed to show the photos anywhere. To me that sounds a bit weird? I personally think the photographer should always maintain the rights to do and use the photos where ever they want?

She in her case told them to leave watermark on the photo

What are your thoughts?

[Black Pearl]

If she agreed to it via a contract then unless she was somehow duped into signing I don't see any issue. 

Edited June 28, 2015 by Black Pearl

[pdcpic]

I just think it is weird,.. like telling a singer they can only sing to certain people or so... 
Plus would she not be better off getting paid per use? I think the company made a great deal here

[Black Pearl]

I should imagine it's very common. You could be employed to shoot a prototype or a product about to launch and the images would need to be controlled - this is different but the contracts will similar. 

Agdin I don't see any issue or anything wrong. 

[geodar]

if she was happy with the price (if paid) then not a problem, she can always go and get similar shots (unless as black pearl said).

if not paid then she should have agreed a better deal.

geoff

[Guest]

If she sold exclusivity then I hope she got a very good price and preferably set a time limit on that exclusivity or got an even higher price. This is how the Paparazzi togs make a living. you get the shot that every one wants and either sell it at a low price to lots of people and make a lot of money or sell it to one person (or paper) for a very high price with an agreement that no one else can have it  

[pdcpic]

If she sold exclusivity then I hope she got a very good price and preferably set a time limit on that exclusivity or got an even higher price. This is how the Paparazzi togs make a living. you get the shot that every one wants and either sell it at a low price to lots of people and make a lot of money or sell it to one person (or paper) for a very high price with an agreement that no one else can have it  

that was my thought exactly, but doubt if the money was that good. I cant go into detail either way.  I just think she has been short changed (photo was of her own dog)

[geodar]

shame we don't know the full story behind this.

but for something as common as a dog (pet) then I think she has done well to get any money for an image.

if it was that good (novel) then like I said before she could try to photograph a similar photo, nothing lost.

interesting point for anyone who finds themselves in a similar position, do you take a one off payment or a percentage of each print (issue of use).

I suppose it depends on the image and the lengths gone to, to capture it.

geoff

[colinb]

your thoughts?

Nothing unusual, all depends on the contract for example I did a shoot at a school a couple of years ago couldn't really show any without the schools permission and the school would need the parents 'ok' on some shots too. I even deleted the lot after about a year as I saw no point in keeping the originals.

Edited June 29, 2015 by colinb