Category: value

Posted on

Timeliness

I recently had a client bring me a lovely case with multiple images infringed. Nice and clean with registered copyrights and everything. An almost perfect case…

…until I looked at the Effective Date of the registration and the source code of the online use. Sadly, the use started mere days before the Effective Date and so the registration was not timely. While the client could still get actual damages (and infringer’s profits if any), that would be a low number based on the client’s provable license fee rate; so it made the case not something I could take on a contingency-fee basis. Bummer!

Registration is wonderful for protecting your work and adding to your recovery for an infringement, but its timeliness is a big, hard line to those benefits. Sadly, lots of people misunderstand timeliness. I hope this post helps clear up some of the misconceptions.

When you register a copyright (or a group), the registration will be issued with an Effective Date[1]. That date is the magic number—the key. For any infringement that actually starts after that date, you can get statutory damages and (maybe) attorney’s fees. These are called “enhanced remedies,” by the way. Statutory damages go from $750 to $30,000 for non-willful infringement, and up to $150,000 for willful. That’s a lot of room to negotiate a decent pre-suit settlement or, if you have to litigate, to get a valuable award. 

But that date is, like I said, a hard line. There is no wiggle room, outside of one exception I’ll explain in a second. So, if your Effective Date is July 1, 2024 and the infringement actually started on July 2, 2024, cool! But if the infringement actually started on June 30, 2024, the registration is not timely and you can’t get those enhanced remedies. 

Why do I keep saying actually, in italics? Because the date at issue is not when you find the infringement but rather the date the infringer began violating your rights—copying, displaying, etc., whether you knew it or not yet. If your Effective Date is July 1, 2024 and you found the infringement on December 1, 2024, that doesn’t make the registration timely; you need to find out when the infringement started to know if your registration is timely.

Now, about that one exception I mentioned earlier, this is something people screw up often so, pay attention. If you register your copyright in a work within three calendar months from the date of that work’s first publication, the law works some magic and you can get enhanced remedies for any infringement that started after that first publication date. Congress did this to try to fix the hole where a work is made and quickly published and quickly ripped off, before you get it registered. It’s a solid fix, IF you register your work in time. 

First publication is a technical, legal thing, for added crazy here. Publication has a nebulous definition in copyright law—it doesn’t always match with what any normal human would think of as publication. If you offer the work for sale or licensing, it is published on the date you do that, even if the work doesn’t get seen by anyone until later! So, for example, if you shoot for a client, the date of first publication will be the date your deliver the work to the client (digitally, hard copies, whatever) even if they don’t run the work until later. If you shoot for yourself, then a month later post the work on your website and offer it for stock licensing, the date you post it will be its first publication. BUT, if you make a work and post it on, say, your blog without explicitly offering it for licensing, then it is (likely) NOT published. 

I know, crazy, right? The easy fix is to always include a line about your work being available for licensing, even on your blog or Instagram or whatever. Then, boom, it’s published and you have a date for that. 

To best protect your work, do a group published[2] photographs registration every year on March 31 (for works first published from Jan 1–Mar 31), June 30 (Apr 1 – June 30), September 30 (Jul 1 – Sept 30), December 31 (Oct 1–Dec 31) of each year. That way, ALL your published photos for the year will be timely registered, no matter what. Any infringement of those photos will be eligible for enhanced remedies. Yay!

Then, when you contact any copyright lawyer (like me) with a potential infringement matter, we will be much more likely to be able to help you on a contingency fee (meaning you pay no fees unless we recover something for you).

[1] This date is usually the date you submit the application online, by the way. Even if you don’t get the certificate until much later, the Effective Date will almost always be the application date.

[2] Group Published Photographs registrations require that the works be first published within the same calendar year—this schedule takes that into consideration. See https://copyright.gov/circs/circ42.pdf.

Posted on

Control

Artists of all stripes are control freaks. That is not an insult—it is a simple statement of fact. Anyone with a desire to create does so because they want to control…something. Their environment. Their past. Their pain. Their joy. Their space. Their right to be who they are. Something.

So I find it super odd that so many creatives don’t take control of their businesses. 

You spend all this effort and take all these risks to create. Why aren’t more of you doing whatever you can to protect what you create and to make a living from your creations? 

An artist will fight for their vision—making something because they simply want to create, must create, and they must do it the way they envision it, and they do without apology for that vision. 

But then they will apologize for asking for money for that creation or for the rights to reproduce that creation. Or buy into the story sold to them by those who do not, cannot create: getting paid to make art is a defilement of, an anathema to Art. 

Until humans get to the Star Trek future where money doesn’t exist, the rich will always try to exploit the poor, especially the artists, by selling them ideas like that, or that an artist is lucky to get exposure.

It is bullshit. 

You have every right (and need) to make money. What you do is of great value—that is why the rich spend millions, if not billions, trying to invent artificial ways to do what you do (think AI). They can’t do it. Not yet and, in my opinion, not ever. Art cannot be created by inorganic things, ever; a thing might “create” something—but it will be soulless, for sure. Art is not art if it has not soul. 

So, you have this amazing and valuable ability—control the business side of that and you can make your life’s necessary money, or even more. So start doing that, please.

Some of the things you can do are: registering your copyrights, having good licensing language, saying “no” to bad deals, pursuing infringers, and protecting your personal assets by creating an entity for your business (LLC, S-corp). Other things are working with someone like me when you need help in those areas (and other legal stuff) and working with a CPA to help get a handle on your taxes and finances. Yes, you may have to spend some money for some of that help, but it is more like a very safe investment than an expense: it has a very strong likelihood to pay off in the long run.

Posted on

Update Your Contracts

A client informed me yesterday that Vox Media had announced a partnership with OpenAI that permitted that leech-of-a-tool to use Vox Media content to train. This is bad and very likely goes beyond agreements it has with many writers and photographers, but it’s going to do it anyway because tech companies have no decency and too many media companies have no spines.

So, first, if you have work that you have licensed to Vox Media, check the language in your agreements and, assuming you didn’t sign away too much already, contact Vox to remind them that your work cannot be used for AI-training purposes. Period. Don’t let them try to talk you into some piddly bump in fees–what they are doing is enabling tech to put you entirely out of your work so just say “No.” You need to think long term here–an extra few bucks here isn’t worth torpedoing your particular creative industry.

Second, look at your own contracts, which you should be using anyway but, yeah, I know, you probably don’t because the bigger companies are bullies about that. Anyway, you should add something to your own contracts that makes it absolutely clear that any use that may result in the training of AI is not permitted under your license. You need this for contracts you use with individuals (like for event/wedding photography) as well as for companies for their marketing or advertising use.

Remember, when you permit your clients to use your work on certain platforms, you are permitting those platforms to use your work to train AI. That is bad. Spectacularly bad. So don’t do it. Make it absolutely unambiguous–if they do that you will sue them for infringement.

Finally, if you aren’t already, start registering your copyrights. Now. It’s the best tool you have to fight these sharks. Don’t think “I can still use the CCB if my work isn’t registered” because (a) you still have to register your work to sue using the CCB; and (b) you won’t get very much from the CCB, especially if your work is not timely registered (no more than $7500, and probably MUCH less).

Posted on

Say Yes to No

I’m a firm believer in saying yes and generally being positive about things; have done for years. For example, if a client has a technically gnarly project, saying “Oh, that looks super hard” and then explaining how much work it is going to be or, worse, even hinting that you might fail, is not a good idea for your business. Instead, saying “Oh, that looks super hard…I love a challenge! I’m sure my team and I will find a solution!” will engender confidence in your client. Later, when you hand them a big estimate, they’ll remember you as the creative who said they could do it, increasing your chances of winning the project even with big numbers. So saying yes is a great thing for your business… except when it isn’t.

How often have you heard a (potential) client send you a contract and say “Everyone agrees to this” or “Oh, sure, the doc says you are assigning us your copyrights and that you can’t use the work, but we’ll let you use it” or “It’s industry standard to have a 90-day payment period,” or “You have to indemnify us against any claim that arises when you’re shooting for us, not just those related to your work or employees–no one ever makes an issue of that” etc. ? A bunch, I’ll bet and I bet you’ve often accepted those terms, trusting your client. Then, later…well, as Marlon Brando in Guys and Dolls says,“Daddy, I got cider in my ear!”

The sad truth is that, whenever someone in a financial transaction with you says one thing but the paperwork says another, they have an ulterior motive and it ain’t good for you. Hearing anything like “oh, don’t worry…” or “You’re the only person who has ever asked…” is your signal that you absolutely must go with what the papers say. Always. Your clients, no matter how nice, are not on your side. They can’t be—they are negotiating for their best deal, not yours. You can like them, but don’t ever trust their word over what is on the page.

The terms they are insisting on are good…good for them, that is, and so they do use them. If they didn’t, the terms would not be there. Always. So, if they are saying “oh, we never do this thing the contract says we can do” and they won’t take it out, then you know they want to do exactly what they claim they never do, and will do exactly that if they can. 

Relatedly, if your client/buyer tells you “my way or the highway,” waste no time in politely taking the second option. As the current writers’ and actors’ strikes confirm, bullying and fear-mongering is pervasive in the creative industries. All of them. Threats about not getting work are just manipulative bullshit. You didn’t have the gig but then lose it by saying “no”; nope, they just wanted to scare you into accepting a bad deal. Walk away. Use the time to get a better client. 

Don’t bother trying to fix them or teach them the errors of their ways. You can’t control what your clients/buyers do and you’ll drive yourself mad if you try. But, you can control what you do. 

The first thing is to know where your boundaries are. You can negotiate lots of things, but you should always know what lines you will not cross and respect those limits. No one will respect them if you don’t. You can and I think MUST set your own limits; and you should do it before any negotiations so that you know what they are. Write them out like a list if that helps: will never sell copyrights; will only indemnify for my own actions; will not lower my price without getting something (besides just getting the gig) in return; etc. 

Once you have your limits defined, then you can respond rationally to whatever demands are made. So, for example, if a client insists on owning your copyrights created for the project, you can say “No” if your line is ownership, or, if you’re willing to sell at the right price, say “Not at this price—if you want full ownership, that will cost $X.”  Don’t explain, don’t rationalize, and don’t be suckered in by them. Stick to your own boundaries. For example, “I hear you, but I won’t sell my copyrights for this price–you need to either pay more or get a license instead.” If they ask “Why?” you can simply say that this is how you run your business. Period.

You can use your boundary list for contract negotiations of all kinds: time to pay, deposits, usage license terms, indemnification clauses, you name it. When you do that, you are taking good care of your business: You set your limits. You have control. 

Saying “no” to bad terms and bad deals does not make you a jerk, it makes you a smart businessperson. And, although standing up for your rights and doing what is best for you and your business is not always easy, it is vital. The other side is surely going to stand up for theirs.

Posted on

Drop Your Ego and Raise Your Usage Fees

I have written before about the importance of separating your fees and costs/expenses on your invoices (actually, on all your paperwork) so I’m not going to go into that again, but I will once again nag you to make your license fees the largest number of your fees, if at all possible. Why? Because there is a new (tentative) ruling in the CCB that shows how low license fees can hurt you.

In this case, a photographer made the work as a part of a large shoot for a client. His original bill was well into the six figures, yay! However, as the Board notes:

During the shoot, Hursey shot approximately forty-two scenes, with a scene consisting of multiple versions of the same setting and activity with minor differences. Hearing Tr. at 39:00 – 39: 57. In the present case, the scene consisted of a family at a picnic with a pastoral background. Evidence Doc B (Dkt. 17). Hursey was paid $185,524.45 in total for the shoot, but most of that amount was reimbursement for costs and payment for his time, while $17,500 was for an unlimited license to use all of the photographs taken over the course of the shoot. 

Proposed Default Determination, at p.3 (bold added)

An unlimited license should definitely be the largest number on your paperwork–it is HUGE usage! Let’s conservatively estimate that in this project, the photographer provided finals of 3 variations of 42 scenes, or a total of 126 images (it was likely much more, of course), $17500 divided by 126 is a whopping $138.89 per photo licensed. That’s insane.

Photographers and other creatives have got to stop billing their Creative Fee as if it is the most important thing. That is just your ego talking–a bigger Creative Fee means YOU are somehow worth more…. **HURL**! It’s short-sighted, at best.

Worse, using time as the basis of your Creative Fee makes you into the equivalent of a wage slave and insults your professionalism. It doesn’t matter if it takes you 30 minutes or 3 days to create your work–it is your TALENT and ABILITIES that count. If you have 30 years of experience and can make the difficult shot in an hour where a newer photographer would take all day, why should you be penalized for that?! So, stop billing as if time and your ego matter. Instead, think long term: you can re-license for more if you bill more for usage from the start! And it will help you if you ever get ripped off. Bill a reasonable Creative Fee, not time-based, and bill a large (but reasonable) Usage License Fee.

On the good side in the case cited above, the photographer has an online calculator for his stock licenses and that provided a number of $1000.70 for the same use as the infringer made of the photograph (still too low, in my opinion, but better). The Board relied on that number and awarded $3000 for the infringement here. Id. at 9. Whew. I mean, I think that is still way too low an award but it’s a hell of a lot better than 3 times $138.89. If the photographer here did not have published rates as he did, the court would very likely have awarded him $750, the minimum statutory damages available.

Respect your work by billing its worth. Your future self will thank you.

Posted on

The CCB Results are in…and Yikes

So, the first photo-related Final Determination is in at the Copyright Claims Board (link to pdf). I wish I could tell you otherwise, but it does not bode well for photographers.

The case was pretty straight-forward: an attorney illicitly used a timely-registered photo on his website, got caught, blamed his daughter for having sourced and posted it as his web “designer” and, despite all the notices that the work was protected, got away with only having to pay $1000. 

Why so little? Because the photographer had never licensed that photo and so provided no proof of his license value and, in the board’s determination, there must be a relationship between actual damages and statutory ones.

It was there that, in my opinion, the board screwed the pooch. Courts have said the direct opposite, like in Thomas-Rasset where the 8th Circuit noted that the Supreme Court stated that there should NOT be any relationship between the actual damages and statutory ones because statutory damages are imposed as a punishment for the violation of a public law. Furthermore, the court noted:

It makes no sense to consider the disparity between “actual harm” and an award of statutory damages when statutory damages are designed precisely for instances where actual harm is difficult or impossible to calculate. See Cass Cnty. Music Co. v. C.H.L.R., Inc., 88 F.3d 635, 643 (8th Cir. 1996). Nor could a reviewing court consider the difference between an award of statutory damages and the “civil penalties authorized,” because statutory damages are the civil penalties authorized.

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas–Rasset, 692 F.3d 899, 907-8 (8th Cir. 2012)(cert. denied).

In that same case, by the way, the court noted:

Congress no doubt was aware of the serious problem posed by online copyright infringement, and the “numberless opportunities for committing the offense,” when it last revisited the Copyright Act in 1999. To provide a deterrent against such infringement, Congress amended § 504(c) to increase the minimum per-work award from $500 to $750, the maximum per-work award from $20,000 to $30,000, and the maximum per-work award for willful infringement from $100,000 to $150,000. 

Id. at 908.

In fact the board noted that the 9th, the law of which is controlling over this matter, has held that courts are not reliant on any formula and can award anything between the minimum and maximum, but then it relies on errant lower court rulings that ignore that to justify its low award.

Worst of all for artists here, according to SCOTUS (Woolworth, etc.), statutory damages are supposed to deter the infringer from doing it again and, arguably more importantly, to deter others from doing the same. Who the hell is going to be deterred by $1000? No one, really. 

Most of all, this is telling photographers (and probably other artists) that their work isn’t worth protecting unless it has already sold/been licensed for a lot of money. Yikes, for sure.

Posted on

A Rant

Business is hard. To paraphrase a favorite movie, anyone who says otherwise is selling something. Business is work and doing the stuff you don’t want to do. Business is hiring accountants and lawyers and making pitches to potential clients and doing research and paperwork and making trips to Costco.

Oh, and making your art, too. More on that in a bit.

It’s sacrifice and frustration. It’s making tough choices like to take what may be a cashflow hit now (like by saying no to a shitty, lowballing client) for the possibility of a long-term gain. It means having to say “no” to a lot more than you ever imagined, like to buying you or your kids stuff because you need to pay your over-priced health insurance.

It means having to smile to clients who are driving you nuts.

But, don’t forget, you chose this path.
Stop and think just how great that is. You are Here, as the sign says.

No matter how tough it gets, no matter how much you struggle in your business and to make your art, you are here and doing it. No matter how psychotic the client demands, how long the hours, how much you miss your life partner because you’ve been locked in post for the past week, or how frustrating the airlines are being about your gear, it beats the hell out of the Alternative, as my father used to say before the Alternative caught up to him at 92.

Take a moment to remember those who have inspired you and then honor them by recognizing that we’re all here temporarily and need to embrace the fantastic opportunity that presents. Play your music a little louder, do the drudge work with a better attitude, and push your art more.

About that last bit… are you playing it safe? Are you making the work you have been told you ought to make, that clients want to see, that won’t scare off potential clients? Then do us all a favor and quit now.

No one will pay more for your art than the next person’s “content” unless you believe in its value and, most of all, you make something original. If you feel like “anyone could have done this” about your work, you are probably right. Moreover, it’s not worth anything. So why are you wasting your time? Worse, why are you wasting everyone else’s? Why are you making the people who love you suffer more because you don’t have a regular job with normal hours and vacation days? Stop pretending to be a creative professional and whining about the state of the industry while doing what not only hurts you, but what directly causes the industry’s downfall.

Harsh? Maybe. In the words of the fabulous Margo Channing: fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night.

Look, if you feel like your work could be made by anyone, then you aren’t working hard enough to make your art. I don’t know what you are doing, but it’s not being an artist. A poseur, an influencer, a faker, maybe, but sure as hell not an artist.

If that’s you, quit now, because that “play it safe” attitude is bullshit, especially today. You are only contributing to the illusion that anyone (or, in the case of AI, anyTHING) can be a creator. You are lowering the perceived value of creativity by flooding the market with even more shit work. Those creative pros who are busting their asses making really creative work are having to fight harder than ever to get seen, not to mention dollars for their efforts, because people like you make artists look like lazy, spoiled children who don’t work hard and simply luck out when they actually make something more. Like artistic nepo-babies.

In case you didn’t know, making art is hard damn work. Art requires more. More effort. More bravery. More of you. You need to put yourself out there to make the work. You should be spent, having given a part of you in the making. If it really is totally easy for you, you aren’t trying hard enough.

But, damn, y’all are sure whining about how no one wants to hire you or pay you enough. Funny how you can’t seem to accept that if you are phoning it in, you are a big part of the problem.

Put the pieces together and the equation is simple: you won’t get work playing it safe because safe work is shit and no one wants to hire someone who makes shit, no matter how nice you are; so, you might as well make the stuff you have in your soul, the stuff you hide from everyone, even quite probably yourself, the stuff that lots of people might actively hate or at least not understand, the stuff that is real.

Here’s your new mantra:
You don’t need everyone’s approval.
You don’t need anyone’s approval.
You don’t need to be liked.
You just need to make the work, your work, your real work; and bill its value rather than some lowball rate or, worse, for the “exposure.”

You make your real art? Then no one can touch you.

Posted on

10 Commandments for Commercial Photographers*

    The 10 items below are written primarily for photographers but, really, the ideas apply to all commercial artists, whatever your speciality.

    1. Understand and accept that you will make mistakes. You are going to forget a battery or mess up a setting or forget to double-dog confirm that one stylist or something. None of this is terminal, even if it is hard now. You’re a creative problem-solver–you’ll find a way through it. 
    2. You are not your images. If you show your work to someone and they don’t like it, don’t take it personally. Art is subjective. Just because your work isn’t right for them doesn’t mean you suck. 
    3. No matter how much you know, someone else will always know more. Always be learning and be willing to learn. Take classes. Listen to clients. Be open to other ideas. 
    4. Don’t get stuck on the final. You may know exactly what image you want to make, but if you stop there or hyper-focus on making only that image, you may miss out on an even better image. Play. 
    5. Treat people who know less than you with respect, kindness, and patience. Your corporate “suit” client, let’s call him “Bob,” may offer up the lamest idea in the universe on a shoot. Be kind to him–he is trying. Be kind to your assistants and crew too while you are at it. You are not a god (read #1 again) but just another human being like those around you, even if you have talent in an area they don’t. Don’t be an egotistical jerk. 
    6. The only constant in the world is change. “While we’re here, can we just shoot…” or “I just found out we need the model to be blonde” and the like are opportunities, not difficulties–if you choose to look at them that way. Same for market changes and technology changes. Be open to change. 
    7. The only true authority stems from knowledge, not from position. You can’t force a client to respect you, but you can earn that respect by demonstrating your professionalism compassionately and openly at every opportunity. 
    8. Advocate for what you believe, but accept defeat graciously. They client may say they want your look, but sometimes the boss of the client’s boss’ boss wants it how they want it and that is just that. Pitch your ideas, advocate for them passionately, then let go when it won’t change a thing. When that happens, just make the best work you can within your client’s parameters and, when it’s done, move on and cash the check in peace. 
    9. Reach out. You can’t expect people to know about you and your work just because you have a social media presence. You need to get out there and meet people. The more you put yourself out there to the world, the greater the chance you’ll connect with someone who really wants to work with you. 
    10. It’s art–not a tumor. If your work feels like, well, work, I mean like drudgery/work, then you might want to think about another career. You need to love what it is you are doing–making images needs to be a joy, a release, a passion–it needs to be the fun part. The rest of business is generally not fun (bookkeeping, insurance, taxes, etc.); making the work should be joyful. If you don’t absolutely love it, you need to try to re-find that fun/passion/joy. Otherwise, you might as well do something that has a regular paycheck and benefits like health insurance. 

    (* I originally wrote the first version of this in 2008–I’ve updated it here but the original has held up very well, almost 15 years later)

    Posted on

    Answering Questions

    I’ve just started writing for the Architectural Photography Almanac, to answer general legal questions and discuss issues that their readers face. Many of these issues and answers will be applicable to all photographers and all creatives, generally. The posts should be monthly, and comments are welcome!

    Check out my first post, here.

    Posted on

    On Being Reasonable

    Whenever I take an infringement matter on contingency, I ask my client to think about what settlement amount would make them content, that is, what amount they could live with, not the amount they really would love to get. This is the bottom-line number. More is good, but every client should have an idea of their floor for settlement.

    This number should be reasonable, of course, not greedy. For example, saying “I won’t take less than $20K!” for a photo used in a tweet by a regular ol’ individual is not reasonable. Nor, however, should it be a too small number (unless, for some reason, the circumstances really warrant that). Nope, the lowest reasonable settlement amount number should be something that, if you ended up with that amount, you’d say to yourself something like “I can live with this, without seething.” Besides, the other side isn’t going to get that number–it’s an internal one so we all know what we are working to achieve, at a minimum.

    Once we have that number, the first offer will be significantly more–to give us room to negotiate. I won’t, however, suggest that we start at $30K or $150K, the maximum statutory damages amounts (speaking of an infringement only, here). Why? Because it’s not a sign of willingness to compromise if you start by asking for the maximum available. Yes, the law says you are entitled to something between $750 and $30K/$150K (assuming a timely registration), but the maximum damages are not often awarded and you’ll just appear greedy if you start there.

    Starting off appearing greedy is not conducive to working with the other side to a settlement. If the starting number is irrationally high, it won’t increase the end number but it likely will impede settlement negotiations. Instead, starting off with a high-ish but rational number will let the other side know we’re serious and yet also willing to compromise. It opens the door to working together to a settlement.

    If, despite this, the negotiations don’t work out and litigation is required, being reasonable pre-litigation will also help you in litigation. Courts do not like plaintiffs who simply demand the maximum damages, particularly when the facts don’t reasonably support that kind of award. In fact, in a recent case, the court refused to award attorneys’ fees to a winning plaintiff for that reason (pdf of the opinion, here).

    While infringements are a pain and take up far too much of an artist’s time and effort, one shouldn’t look at them as a windfall. A court will suss that motivation out and it will not end well. But, if you are reasonable about your demands and your expectations, and rational in your negotiations, you can end up with enough money to make up for all the hassle.

    Terms of Service Proudly powered by WordPress