Devil in the Details

[ennuipoet]

I received a Flickrgram asking me to upload my images from Monday’s Occupy Wall Street’s May Day protest to a website called OneNews (http://www.onenews.com/). I was intrigued, I knew it would be uncompensated but the message alluded to rewards and the site purports to be a clearing house for editorial images. I was in the process of signing up but I wanted to read the ToS to see what rights I was surrendering, because you know they aren’t doing out of the kindness of their hearts.

http://www.onenews.com/docs/Terms_And_Conditions.pdf

A. Limited Exclusive License. By submitting User Submissions and/or audio or textual descriptions of the User Submissions to OneNews you hereby grant OneNews, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which you hereby acknowledge, a worldwide, exclusive, sublicenseable and transferable license for the term of FIVE (5) YEARS (the “Exclusive License Term”), to edit, use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions and/or audio or textual descriptions of the User Submissions in connection with the OneNews Site and OneNews’ (and its successors’ and affiliates’) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the User Submissions (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats, whether now known or hereafter devised, and through any media channels. User Submissions will be subject to license to third
parties pursuant to a OneNews License Agreement. At the end of the Exclusive License Term, if the rights to your User Submission have not been purchased, the Exclusive License Term shall automatically end.

The way I read that is if I upload an image to this website, I cannot offer that image to any other publisher. So, if I capture this amazing image and upload it and the New York Times comes along and says “Wow! We want to buy that image to publish” I have to say no, go through the company. In short, I am surrendering my rights to this image for 5 years all in exchange for the POTENTIAL of it being published. Yes, the image is still “mine” but it cannot garner or generate any revenue or exposure outside this website.

I decided NOT to join. Thus we learn the value of reading the ToS.

[Yugoboy]

They DID approach YOU. You negotiated a few bucks for that other picture, any thoughts on seeing if they’ll at least be open to haggling so your deal would allow you to sell if someone comes to you rather than them?

Just a thought. Exposure’s good, even if there’s *some* limitation. Good on you for reading the ToS, though. At least you wouldn’t be negotiating from a position of weakness if they will talk.

[sleeping]

Exposure’s good

I’m going to be cynical for a minute here, but I think that “exposure” in and of itself is pretty much worthless most of the time. It’s pretty rare for people to pay any attention to image credits, let alone act on them. I mean, if someone’s going to actively promote your work, that’s a different story, but a random image somewhere with a link back to your site? You’ll be lucky if it generates anything more than a handful of clickthroughs…

[orionid]

Exposure’s good

I’m going to be cynical for a minute here, but I think that “exposure” in and of itself is pretty much worthless most of the time. It’s pretty rare for people to pay any attention to image credits, let alone act on them. I mean, if someone’s going to actively promote your work, that’s a different story, but a random image somewhere with a link back to your site? You’ll be lucky if it generates anything more than a handful of clickthroughs…

Exposure might be near worthless, but tearsheets are gold in the fashion and modeling industry.

[ennuipoet]

In the end, the Exposure is worth jack and shit, and Jack left town. I get a few click throughs from Gothamist.com using my work, but what I really get is the right to say my work appears regularly in the media. I am done with “exposure”

What bothered me the most is the Exclusive Rights, no one other than an organization like the AP or Reuters, or an equally respected large media organization is getting exclusive rights to my work, and if those organizations get those rights, they are going to pay and pay well. Giving away exclusive rights for exposure is just plain stupid.

[Uranus]

In the end, the Exposure is worth jack and shit, and Jack left town. I get a few click throughs from Gothamist.com using my work, but what I really get is the right to say my work appears regularly in the media. I am done with “exposure”

What bothered me the most is the Exclusive Rights, no one other than an organization like the AP or Reuters, or an equally respected large media organization is getting exclusive rights to my work, and if those organizations get those rights, they are going to pay and pay well. Giving away exclusive rights for exposure is just plain stupid.

True. Exposure in an interview on national media – that’s worth something. For the rest, just hand over handsome amounts of cash. For exclusivity, hand over an amount that reflects future loss of earning potential on the shot, otherwise, sod off you sneaky sodding cheapskate.

I have yet to see Mercedes or BMW give away cars just so that we know about them….why should anyone expect photographers do the same with their product?

[Curious]

when i shipped promotional items for Glastron Boat Co folks would constantly want freebies. believe me your wearing a jacket with the company logo around town isn’t worth the cost of the jacket. stop being a cheapskate and just buy the jacket if you want it.

[Author]

Posts