Exclusive rights and ethics

nzmacro

Ok, you take a series of shots for a company. They are given exclusive rights to those images to print in publications. Easy, those shots are not let out for similar companies and interests.

3 years later an advertising agency in Thailand approaches you for a similar series of shots. The question is, how close to the original series can you go without upsetting anyone ??. Its macro so it can be changed slightly and so can the setups. Its impossible to take exactly the same shots, but you can get pretty darn close.

Both the same product, hmmm ok its milk. Yeah I know.....moooooo :wink

Thoughts anyone ???

Danny.

luckyrwe

If I smell money I will shoot 2 pictures of everything. Then I can sell each set separately as originals, previously unpublished, which they are.

Some place buy your time, so ALL shots while on the clock are theirs.

Shay Stephens

Only if this is agreed to contractually. Work for hire is never an automatic or assumed situation. It must be entered into contractually for it to be valid.

luckyrwe wrote:

Some place buy your time, so ALL shots while on the clock are theirs.

Shay Stephens

If you were duplicating the work of another photographer, the other photographer could try to get a copyright violation. If you are duplicating something you shot, then I don't think you would try to get anything out of you

One problem with photography is that there are only so many ways to image something. There is, by necessity, going to be similar shots taken for similar subjects for similar uses. So just do your best to make this shot unique in it's own way.

If you are very concerned about it, why not contact the old company and let them know your dilemma. They may give you a green light, in which case you are free from worry. If they raise a huge fuss, then work out what will keep them happy. Then go back to the new company and let them know the situation. You should be able to come up with something that makes everyone happy.

nzmacro wrote:

Ok, you take a series of shots for a company. They are given exclusive rights to those images to print in publications. Easy, those shots are not let out for similar companies and interests.

3 years later an advertising agency in Thailand approaches you for a similar series of shots. The question is, how close to the original series can you go without upsetting anyone ??. Its macro so it can be changed slightly and so can the setups. Its impossible to take exactly the same shots, but you can get pretty darn close.

Both the same product, hmmm ok its milk. Yeah I know.....moooooo

Thoughts anyone ???

Danny.

ian408

I suppose the best answer is to license the images for publication but
preserve your interest in all contractual work. Sort of treating it like
a stock photo.

Ian

Shay Stephens

Yes, ideally, you would have the exclusivity limited in time to a year or two or something like that. Unlimited exclusivity has it's drawbacks, and one of the reasons it tends to be so expensive for a customer to buy.

ian408 wrote:

I suppose the best answer is to license the images for publication but
preserve your interest in all contractual work. Sort of treating it like
a stock photo.

Ian

nzmacro

Thanks folks.

Shay, the other photographer was me . It was a series of milk drops used in a campaign. Another company has asked me to do a similar shoot. The two companies are a world apart, but the last thing I want to do is to upset the first client. Both being in the same area of business means they will probably see it, even though its half way across the world. Our milk department would be one of their trading partners for sure. You are right, first I'll contact the advertising agency here and ask them if they would mind a similar shoot for an overseas client. From there I can find out how close I can get before crossing the line.

Lucky : Its easy to say, hey I own the shots so I'll do what I like with them, but thats not really the way to go about protecting yourself , always tempting though :.

Thanks Shay, Ian and Lucky, I'll approach them.

Danny.