Copy right

[cliveh]

If someone offered you a large sum of money for the copyright on all your images, would you accept?

 

[480sparky]

Depends on the image and the number of zeros in the check.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I would have to think of future licensing rights. If I don't think I'll get much in the future sales, I'd sell the rights.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

If someone offered you a large sum of money for the copy right on all your images, would you accept?

Copyright is one word, not two (very different meanings for either).

To answer the intended question, no. A number of photographers who have left the profession here in Australia have re-assigned copyright of their work (either part or life) for a sum, but once the work has gone, the new owner can put his or her own name to the work additional to claiming it as his own. This is what I have seen and which I cannot reasonably agree to on ethical, moral, professional or financial grounds. How morally or ethically sound is it if you sell your daughter or son for a fee, and somebody else takes full control of naming, paternity, future outlook etc.?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Depends on how much and for what. Everybody's situation is different.

George Lucas sold Lucasfilm Ltd. to Walt Disney for US$4 billion to fund his quietly modest retirement. So he's happy. And the way it's looking right now, Disney may damn near recoup that on its first follow-up Star Wars release. So they're happy.

How much did they offer?

Ken

 

[BrianShaw]

At this point in life.... For not too much money they could have both the old stuff AND a anything in the future of mine!

 

[removed account4]

If someone offered you a large sum of money for the copyright on all your images, would you accept?

do you mean everything i have done, or plan to do ( or haven't thought of doing )?
maybe or maybe not ... depending on what you mean ...

 

[MattKing]

Sure, if you are referring to past images, I could use them for things like portfolios of my work and I could limit what they do with my name when they deal with my photos.

They aren't currently generating $ for me.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

If charity from a well-intending relative or friend... no, I would not accept. If from someone I have no acquaintance with... yes... probably. But to be fully open with you... I have little useful time left, if any, and am alone now so long-term money means nothing now.

 

[eddie]

I'm sure I have a price. I'm not sure what it is but, if their pockets are deep enough... If the offer was lucrative enough that I could spend the rest of my days traveling, making new images, with the equipment I want, and a money-no-object darkroom, I'd have to think seriously about it. I'd also make damn sure my new images are better than the ones I sold!

 

[Sirius Glass]

If someone offered you a large sum of money for the copyright on all your images, would you accept?

Make a bona fide offer to me and then we can talk about the copyright. Put your money where your keyboard is.

 

[markbarendt]

If someone offered you a large sum of money for the copyright on all your images, would you accept?

Sure if the price was right compared to what I would get otherwise.

 

[gone]

Sorta like the old joke where the guy walks into a bar, talks to a beautiful woman, and says "Would you go to bed with me for $1,000,000?" The gal thinks about it for a bit and says "Yes". Guy throws a $20 bill on the bar, grabs her arm and heads for the door. Gal says "Hey, what kind of woman do you think I am?" Guy says "We've already established that. Now we're just haggling over the price". For the PC crowd, feel free to change it to a woman walks into a bar and asks a guy, a guy walks into a bar and asks another guy, etc.

We all have our price.

 

[Ian Grant]

If someone offered you a large sum of money for the copyright on all your images, would you accept?

If the moment was right why not.

Ian

 

[benjiboy]

There is statistically more chance I will win The National Lottery, be murdered, or run over by a bus than the situation you describe arising, so in either case I wouldn't need the money.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Copyright is a sticky problem since the rights vary so much from country to country.

 

[bdial]

Like others have said, much depends on the specifics. I'd be quite honored if someone wanted it all, and I probably would sell it if it were the right deal.

OTH, last I heard, Kim Weston is still selling prints of Edward's images. Any of us should be so lucky that our grandkids can make income from our images, you might not want to make it an impossibility.

 

[BrianShaw]

There is statistically more chance I will win The National Lottery, be murdered, or run over by a bus than the situation you describe arising, so in either case I wouldn't need the money.

If you stop playing the lottery you can save yourself from the possibility of that horrible fate!

 

[blansky]

Copyright is one word, not two (very different meanings for either).

To answer the intended question, no. A number of photographers who have left the profession here in Australia have re-assigned copyright of their work (either part or life) for a sum, but once the work has gone, the new owner can put his or her own name to the work additional to claiming it as his own. This is what I have seen and which I cannot reasonably agree to on ethical, moral, professional or financial grounds. How morally or ethically sound is it if you sell your daughter or son for a fee, and somebody else takes full control of naming, paternity, future outlook etc.?

Yes but obviously it would be a complicated legal contract and there could be lots of stipulations, like your name stays with the work etc. And with any contract you'd have to hammer it all out.

If someone gave an enormous amount of money for total control I guess you'd have to live with the consequences.

Lots of people have sold their music libraries, like the Beatles. And as mentioned Lucas, with Star Wars. I'm sure there is sometimes sellers remorse but it's like selling your 57 Chevy Nomad or watching your old girlfriend on someone else's arm.

Sometimes it's a blessing and other times it sucks.

 

[Ian Leake]

Yes, for a reasonable sum (although I'm not sure how much is "reasonable"). More problematic would be a deal for the copyright of future work. Didn't Annie Liebovitz do something like this?

 

[Peltigera]

Copyright is one word, not two (very different meanings for either).

To answer the intended question, no. A number of photographers who have left the profession here in Australia have re-assigned copyright of their work (either part or life) for a sum, but once the work has gone, the new owner can put his or her own name to the work additional to claiming it as his own. This is what I have seen and which I cannot reasonably agree to on ethical, moral, professional or financial grounds. How morally or ethically sound is it if you sell your daughter or son for a fee, and somebody else takes full control of naming, paternity, future outlook etc.?

In the UK, copyright and moral rights are separate things. Selling copyright does not impart moral rights so the purchaser is required to acknowledge my authorship.

Yes, I would sell the copyright in all my images for an appropriate fee - which might not be that high. I am open to offers!


www.johns-old-cameras.blogspot.co.uk

 

[removed account4]

Yes, for a reasonable sum (although I'm not sure how much is "reasonable"). More problematic would be a deal for the copyright of future work. Didn't Annie Liebovitz do something like this?

yes i too believe she did

 

[MattKing]

Yes, for a reasonable sum (although I'm not sure how much is "reasonable"). More problematic would be a deal for the copyright of future work. Didn't Annie Liebovitz do something like this?

yes i too believe she did

More accurately, she assigned the benefit of (a portion of) future royalties in order to avoid bankruptcy.

Sort of like agreeing to have your future wages garnisheed.

 

[Maris]

I'd settle in most part for COPY-LEFT rather than copyright. The principle behind copy-left is that anyone can use my pictures for anything anytime all at no fee. The proviso is that I always get a name credit as the creator of the original material. My suspicion is that many more worthy images die unseen from neglect rather than be stolen and splashed everywhere.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

More accurately, she assigned the benefit of (a portion of) future royalties in order to avoid bankruptcy.

Sort of like agreeing to have your future wages garnisheed.

Copyright royalities aside, she also offloaded a swag of swanky properties, if only as a stopper for those circling her debts and commercial strife.