Author Topic: Another company tries to get around paying extended license. (Read 5026 times)

Graffoto · « **on:** December 16, 2010, 01:05 »

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/After-Flouting-Print-1163.shtml

Microbius · « **Reply #1 on:** December 16, 2010, 04:26 »

".....lost it's way and veered off on a bad path of cheating the people who contribute to its existence, without whose contributions it wouldn't exist."

Sounds familiar

Microbius · « **Reply #2 on:** December 16, 2010, 04:48 »

Reading through the article has really brought home how important it is to get copyright registered with the US government.
I haven't bothered before as I kinda resent paying out to please the Bureaucrats of one particular country that I don't even live in.
I mean I can prove copyright easily enough as all my stock work is uploaded by me to multiple sites on creation, so no one else could argue they created it/ possessed it before I made it.
Anyway, the behaviour of this publishing company makes me think that the above will be small comfort when a case I bring gets slung out of court.
So....... anyone have any experience of using the online US copyright office forms? Can you still combine lots of image into one jpeg and upload it or does it have to be one image per file?
Are there any guides to this online?

cathyslife · « **Reply #3 on:** December 16, 2010, 08:15 »

Quote

Houghton Mifflin acknowledged that they had exceeded the licenses granted by Maisel "and wanted to make it right," Seidman says, but in subsequent cases "they have decided to deny that any copyright infringement has occurred, and to deny that any license has been violated."

That sounds familiar too. OK, Jay Maisel is a big name, we acknowledge we did wrong by him and will fix it. But the little guys...screw them.

Wonder if they buy from Getty/IS?

cthoman · « **Reply #4 on:** December 16, 2010, 10:45 »

Wow! It makes it look like they are trying to cheat the artists on purpose because they enjoy it. Why not write the contract the way you actually want to use it and find artists that will agree to that? I guess that would be too obvious.

gostwyck · « **Reply #5 on:** December 16, 2010, 10:48 »

Quote from: Microbius on December 16, 2010, 04:26

".....lost it's way and veered off on a bad path of cheating the people who contribute to its existence, without whose contributions it wouldn't exist."

Sounds familiar

It does doesn't it! Very.

Thanks for posting the article. Interesting read.

helix7 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 16, 2010, 11:14 »

I was drawn to two particularly insane parts of this story worth pointing out:

Quote

"In a deposition taken in response to Wood's infringement claim, HMH senior vice-president of product development Donald Lankiewicz said that the 40,000 copy limit of licenses "became a sort of boilerplate number" and "just an industry convention" that didn't really limit publishers to print runs of 40,000 copies."

What??

And:

Quote

"According to Seidman, HMH hasn't changed its licensing practices so much as it has changed the fine print in its contracts to prevent future lawsuits from contributors. "They're doing it by saying that if you sign [the license] agreement, any use in excess of the permission that you are granting will be extended, and that you automatically are granting us an extension of rights if we need it."

In other words, HMH can print as many copies as it wants to, and contributors automatically agree to that when they sign license agreements for their works."

Unfortunately I think they'll get away with this going forward, by including this language in their contracts. Photographers will faced with the choice to either sign it and grant a perpetual license, or don't sign it and likely end up not working with HMH anymore.

What a disgusting company.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #7 on:** December 16, 2010, 11:23 »

Quote from: helix7 on December 16, 2010, 11:14

... What a disgusting company.

+1

To have a company policy of cheating your suppliers and using your lawyers as a way to fend off any claims is repugnant.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #8 on:** December 16, 2010, 13:22 »

Quote from: Microbius on December 16, 2010, 04:48

Reading through the article has really brought home how important it is to get copyright registered with the US government.
I haven't bothered before as I kinda resent paying out to please the Bureaucrats of one particular country that I don't even live in.
I mean I can prove copyright easily enough as all my stock work is uploaded by me to multiple sites on creation, so no one else could argue they created it/ possessed it before I made it.
Anyway, the behaviour of this publishing company makes me think that the above will be small comfort when a case I bring gets slung out of court.
So....... anyone have any experience of using the online US copyright office forms? Can you still combine lots of image into one jpeg and upload it or does it have to be one image per file?
Are there any guides to this online?

Maybe there should be a box on the sites to block these people from buying our images, because the new contract says, they will print as many copies as they want, and the 40,000 is just a number. These people stink! "Block sales to HMH" click YES!

Did you read the article? The copyrights were registered. The defense lawyers had them disallowed, in a few cases, because the registration form was not completed properly.

The difference is that you automatically have your copyright when you publish. What's missing without the registration is you can't collect damages unless they are properly registered. Two separate issues.

Fred · « **Reply #9 on:** December 16, 2010, 16:32 »

[quoye]"According to Seidman, HMH hasn't changed its licensing practices so much as it has changed the fine print in its contracts to prevent future lawsuits from contributors. "They're doing it by saying that if you sign [the license] agreement, any use in excess of the permission that you are granting will be extended, and that you automatically are granting us an extension of rights if we need it."[/quote]

How would this work? The contributor is licensing the image to HMH based on the terms provided by the copyright holder or his/her agent. I don't see where the copyright holder has anything to sign. HMH just buys a standard license - that would not provide for "excess of the permission" - or they do not use the image.

fred

cathyslife · « **Reply #10 on:** December 16, 2010, 16:57 »

Quote from: Fred on December 16, 2010, 16:32

Quote
"According to Seidman, HMH hasn't changed its licensing practices so much as it has changed the fine print in its contracts to prevent future lawsuits from contributors. "They're doing it by saying that if you sign [the license] agreement, any use in excess of the permission that you are granting will be extended, and that you automatically are granting us an extension of rights if we need it."

How would this work? The contributor is licensing the image to HMH based on the terms provided by the copyright holder or his/her agent. I don't see where the copyright holder has anything to sign. HMH just buys a standard license - that would not provide for "excess of the permission" - or they do not use the image.

fred

Maybe HMH signs direct license agreements with the big guys, like Jay Maisel, and that's what they're talking about?

edit: fixed quote tags

Blufish · « **Reply #11 on:** December 16, 2010, 18:09 »

And maybe those big guys will tell them they can put their pretty revamped contract where the sun don't shine.

lisafx · « **Reply #12 on:** December 16, 2010, 18:52 »

Quote from: Blufish on December 16, 2010, 18:09

And maybe those big guys will tell them they can put their pretty revamped contract where the sun don't shine.

Seriously! Unbelievable!

Microbius · « **Reply #13 on:** December 17, 2010, 10:45 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 16, 2010, 13:22

Did you read the article? The copyrights were registered. The defense lawyers had them disallowed, in a few cases, because the registration form was not completed properly.

The difference is that you automatically have your copyright when you publish. What's missing without the registration is you can't collect damages unless they are properly registered. Two separate issues.

Sorry yes I did (do) get that. But it demonstrates how important it is to register your work (properly).
I'm not sure how they justify only rewarding damages to those who have registered copyright (properly) with the US government. Surely it's whether you have and can prove copyright that should be the important thing? I'm just as much the owner of the work registered or not, so my rights have been equally trampled on either way?
That's why I haven't bothered in the past, but seeing the cases dismissed just because of incorrect registration (the equivalent of not being registered) made it clear to me that had I been one of the photographers involved resenting the unnecessary bureaucracy wouldn't have made me feel much better.

LSD72 · « **Reply #14 on:** December 17, 2010, 15:30 »

Maybe someone who has registered their Photos the "Legal and Proper" way can write something up and Leaf can make it a sticky around here. If other companies see this... I wounder if they would do the same and you really need to be able to protect your images.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Another company tries to get around paying extended license. (Read 5026 times)

Graffoto

Microbius

Microbius

cathyslife

cthoman

gostwyck

helix7

Jo Ann Snover

RacePhoto

Fred

cathyslife

Blufish

lisafx

Microbius

LSD72

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors