A lawyer's perspective

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



The following post is a quote from another mailing list in response to
issues being discussed about copyrights.


BEGIN QUOTE:

     1.  Last night our associate Erica Galinski and I attended a
discussion group principally composed of attorneys who represent large media
and entertainment corporations.  They brainstormed in all manners and ways
to
avoid paying people like you.  They analyzed pragmatically and waxed quite
elite on depriving people like you of their copyrights.  They suggested that
every step be taken in negotiations for photos and music in particular, to
first denigrate and then obtain copyrights for little or no money.

         They opined that given the obvious disparity in the finances of
artists vs. corporations, it is often better to use the image and then "see
if you get caught" by the artist.  The editor for the Ken Burns films Jazz
and Baseball, stated that when they can't trace the creator and they really
want to use the image, they use it and wait for a lawyer's letter which
rarely comes.  There were suggestions of broadening the concept of fair use
to further insulate such activities.  One of the leading attorneys in the
field argued that creators "should not have the right to say no"
to the unconsented reproduction of their works by others.\

       Well financed lawyers and executives spend copious amounts of time
and
money seeking to grab your copyrights without paying you.  Ignore such
reality at your own risk.  There are may highly paid corporate lawyers, few
competant attorneys who represent artists.  Corporations can afford lots of
litigation.  Can you?

       2.  It would be in MY financial interest to encourage deals which
involved copyright transfer or assignment.  More details means more
negotiations means higher legal fees.   My advice is given to serve the
survival needs of photographers who make up approximately  50% of our
practice.  I have spent a considerable amount of non-billable time urging
everyone to simply shut up.

       3.   Our clients have turned down seven figure offers for copyright
assignment(s).  Our clients routinely turn down $25 - 50,000 offers.  I
simply cannot account as to why you would be surprised at that.  We have
concurred with such positions.  In 25 years of practice we have assigned or
transferred a copyright on less than ten occasions and on each occasion a
truly mega fee was involved.

       4.    Respectfully, when was the last time you met with attorneys,
art
buyers or executives when they discussed business and legal methods to be
employed in screwing photographers out of their rights?  We deal with these
tactics daily.  There are no art buyers, media lawyers or executives on EP
who are "anti-photographer" who make contributions.  They simply read and
plot against you.  Photographers rarely get into social or business
situations where all the executives and lawyers relate their business
strategies on how best to screw their contributors.

       Your belief that the "rights grab issue" is in essence overblown,
would disappear if you only listened to the guys on the other side.  Their
tactics are no secret.  They are instructed by corporate counsel and the IP
departments to try to get all rights all the time.  They make every effort
to
get copyright on the negotiating table.  If you believe otherwise then they
have already succeeded in getting you to speak their language on their
terms.
 They believe photographers are docile, stupid and will do almost anything
for a buck.  Ask them over a beer or two and they will admit it.

       Bottom line, the independent photographer is rapidly become extinct.
The more you entertain discussions of copyright assignment the sooner that
day will come.  The discussion was and is self-defeating.  Those who
represent photographers or are otherwise in the negotiating trenches know
that this issue was better left alone.

       Since we have responded either off list or to EP (only) we will
continue that practice we note you copied ASMP and APA.  We will confine our
response so as not to add more fuel to a fire which ought never have been
started.


       Very truly yours,

       Edward Greenberg
       Greenberg & Reicher, LLP


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]"

END QUOTE


Take care,
Gregory david Stempel
FIREFRAMEi m a g i n g
www.americanphotojournalist.com



[Index of Archives] [Share Photos] [Epson Inkjet] [Scanner List] [Gimp Users] [Gimp for Windows]

  Powered by Linux