The Conundrum of Doing Nothing
"The problem with doing nothing, is that you never know when you're finished."Gutherie said:
"The art of doing nothin' is probably one of the most profitable things you can do, because it sets you up to be doing something."This then begs the question - "What should you be doing?
(Continued after the Jump)
Well, the right thing, of course.
What exactly is the right thing?
Well, in the abstract, when you justify taking an assignment for fees that are to low, or an excessive rights grab, with the sentence "well, it's better than doing nothin'", that should be a sign to you that Arlo's thinking should be kicking in.
If your justification for taking an assignment worth $1,000 and doing it for $200 because the client has said "$200, non-negotiable, take it or leave it", and you said to yourself "$200 is better than making nuthin' tomorrow" then you might need to be thinking like Arlo.
If your justification for taking an assignment and being paid $400 but having to transfer copyright is because "$400 for images that have little resale value anyway is better than not making the $400" then you might need to be thinking like Arlo.
Arlo was talking profitability by "doing nothing." At first blush, it seems contradictory.
Yet, upon further reflection, its' not. Instead, free yourself up on that day to seek out a better paying clientele base, and one that does not demand an excessive rights package. These clients are the ones who respect you and your work, and thus, your constitutionally guaranteed right to control the rights to your work.
One of the more unpleasant conversations I had today was with a client for an assignment tommorrow, who, after his subordinate signed my contract with a rights-managed rights package, called saying "I just want to make sure we own all the rights to these photos", to which I had to explain that that wasn't the case, and that, outlined in the contract was a rights package that, for the press conference we were covering, was all the common rights needed and that we grant as a part of our standard package. Further, we weren't granting rights to him which we did not have (i.e. those that require model releases when people attending have not signed model releases, and thus, cannot appear in marketing materials). I noted to him that I couldn't convey to him "all rights", since "all rights" includes the right to use the photos in ads and brochures and so forth, and I'd be charging a fee of him for something I didn't possess.
He then said "we just have a fundamental difference about how to approach this." And I said "well, mine is a perspective based upon copyright law and rights granted under the Constitution. Are you suggesting that if an artist produces a song and earns money off the CD, that they then shouldn't be paid additionally when their music is used in a movie or a commercial?" And he said "well, that's different." I said "no, actually, it's the same copyright principle."
We are doing this assignment tomorrow, not because the client is happy with the terms, but because they signed a contract with a standard rights package and then, after the fact, just a few (business) hours before the event was to start, thought they would try to renegotiate the terms of the agreement - to terms which we cannot convey, and which we principally objected to. Thus, the power of the signed contract.
Today, Arlo didn't play Alice's Restaurant, which is alright by me, since what he did play was amazing in it's own right. At first, I thought I'd be disappointed that he didn't, but afterwards, and upon reflection, I was exceedingly pleased with what he did play. So too, will tomorrow's client be pleased with the work we produce for them, even if they don't get every right under the sun, they will get quality work from a professional photographer, who is "doing something" profitable tomorrow.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
5 comments:
Hi John,
After a spirted discussion wih a good friend/designer of mine, we got to talking about copyright and appropriate compensation for uses other than the original contract.
With the writers strike, we started wondering who should benefit from additional usage of media. As a photographer, we have a crew of stylists, assistants, make-up, producers, etc. working on the initial commissioned project.
And what about the actual models and talent? I know if there is additional usage fee(s) for photo that I take that the model and their agency (if they have one) are due.
Wouldn't or shouldn't be fair to assume the suporting crew of an assignment be elegible for compensation as well? The writers are striking. Are producers next?
I've also wondered why graphic designers who "create" logos for business are not getting "usage: fee(s). The general consensus is that they "just don't".
Keep up the good work.
Jonathan Levin
Hello John,
Great post today...wish I could have been there for Arlo. You bring up excellent points and I applaud you for not only knowing your and your clients rights, but sticking to them!
Sometime doing nothing is just what you need...
Great article,
Sometimes as a beginner it is hard to decide when to do nothing. You want to get more work experience to build you confidence as well as your coffers.
In response to Jonathan's comment, I suppose that when you commission a graphics designer to make you a logo, that is work for hire, in which the client would own the rights unless otherwise stipulated.
Personally I think a logo or a business card is worth more than what it goes for today. You are getting a logo that will attract the attention of potential clients AND the rights to use it as much as you want? That is worth alot.
You're quite right. Doing nothing is sometimes the (morally) right thing to do in protecting your copyright.
That said there is a problem: Our current ethic which is largely about dollars and less about value (for the client and for the artist) indicates that "if I have a free space here, then filling it at half price, or at the cost of my copyright is still bringing in dollars - so I am profitable". As a result we have a large pool of talented (and perhaps less talented) artists devaluing their own and others work. Stock photography is a case in point.
But in the dollar economy thats the way things go. Only by understanding your value and migrating to the value economy will that change.
If anything, this is why the open-source movement is so important to artists. The philosophy is that money is not equal to value automatically. Once the artist rediscovers their intrinsic value (ie develop confidence in themselves and their work) then they are in a good position to negotiate a true price based on that self-value.
Joe
花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,租車公司,花蓮旅行社,花蓮旅遊景點,花蓮旅遊行程,花蓮旅遊地圖,花蓮租車資訊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車旅遊網,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花東旅遊景點,租車,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊行程,花東旅遊地圖,花蓮租車公司,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮賞鯨,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車 ,花蓮 租車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊網,花蓮租車網,花蓮租車公司,租車花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅行社,花東旅遊,花蓮包車,租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮一日遊,租車服務,花蓮租車公司,花蓮包車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,租車服務,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,租車服務,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車網,花蓮租車,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮包車,花蓮溯溪,花蓮泛舟,花蓮溯溪旅遊網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮民宿,花蓮入口網,花蓮民宿黃頁
Post a Comment