Toronto Photography Meetup Group

A couple of days ago I was approached via flickr by a representative of quittinghollywood.com, a UK-based greeting/postcard company interested in purchasing one of my photos to use in their materials. They were offering 100 pounds via PayPal. I asked to see the agreement they were suggesting and this is what I received (see below)


tl:dr - if you don't want to read all that, they are asking for assignment of copyright meaning all rights, forever, worldwide. It becomes their photo, period. For 100 pounds, what is that, $150 now? Anyway it's pretty obvious that this is not a sweetheart deal and I said no.

I'm posting this here for reference as I noticed there was very little information out there on the net about these guys even though they say they've been in business since 1985 (I have no doubt they have, as a conventional greeting card company, but their online presence is likely very recent).

---- snip ----


Assignment of copyright in photographs
THIS ASSIGNMENT is made the date

I had similar offers in the past but naturally I turned them down. Unfortunately, they're a lot of people out there willing to sell their photos for even less that 100 quids ...

I can honestly say that $150 is more than I will get for 95% of my photos, and in a world a microstock might not be that bad (though, I'm not in microstock, so I don't know for sure.)

In microstock, afaik, you do NOT give up ALL rights to an image, as the OP is requested here. In microstock you license usage of an image.

That is correct. If you assign your copyright, you no longer retain rights to it yourself, meaning the new copyright holder can license your image to others and use it however they want without your approval or without compensation or even attribution.

that is correct except for the issue of moral rights. Retaining moral rights still limits the assignee's uses of the image or artwork.

The above extract includes assigning moral rights, a big mistake.

Yeah, you can't trade away moral rights in Canada. I guess it might be different in the UK.

how would that work, then - if the photographer is Canadian, and in Canada where the moral right is never assigned, but the contract is with a UK company? Would it be enforceable in Canada?

5 Moral rights
5.1 Waiver of moral right of integrity
The Assignor irrevocably and unconditionally waives all moral rights in respect of the Photographs to which he may now or at any time in the future be entitled under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 Section 80 and under any similar laws in force from time to time during the Term in any part of the Territory and the Assignor declares that this waiver shall operate in favour of the Assignee its licensees assigns and successors in title

I am not sure why you guys are worried - the contract asks for waiver and Canadian law states that a waiver is allowed. Doesn't look like a mistake to me...

See section 14.1 of the copyright act:
"Moral rights

14.1 (1) The author of a work has, subject to section 28.2, the right to the integrity of the work and, in connection with an act mentioned in section 3, the right, where reasonable in the circumstances, to be associated with the work as its author by name or under a pseudonym and the right to remain anonymous.

No assignment of moral rights

(2) Moral rights may not be assigned but may be waived in whole or in part.

No waiver by assignment

(3) An assignment of copyright in a work does not by that act alone constitute a waiver of any moral rights.

Effect of waiver

(4) Where a waiver of any moral right is made in favour of an owner or a licensee of copyright, it may be invoked by any person authorized by the owner or licensee to use the work, unless there is an indication to the contrary in the waiver.

R.S., 1985, c. 10 (4th Supp.), s. 4."

This topic brings up an interesting question:

How much is your photo worth?

Is it how much you can sell it for or how much someone else can sell it for?

If a company is willing to offer you $150 for your photo - it is more than likely that they think they can incorporate it into their product or sell it themselves for more but they doesn't automatically mean you can do the same thing.

What you can sell a photo for is different than what someone else can sell the same photo for - they may have more contacts - better selling techniques - better distribution, etc.

So really - the question to ask is not really what are the buyers going to do with your photo but what were you going to do with the photo.

Do you think you can earn more than $150 for that photo on microstock or licensing it yourself? If so, turn the offer down, and put it on microstock or create that licensing website for your images.

Were you going to make a poster from the image and sell it out of your basement and do you think you could earn more than $150? If so, turn the offer down, and make that poster.

I think you get the thinking process you must go through in your head to determine if selling the full copyright is for you.

I believe you are correct. You can waiver moral rights but not assign them under Canadian copyright law. The contract above only requires a waiver of moral rights and therefore is probably enforceable in Canadian courts.

For me it's not about the money - I just don't believe in signing away my copyright unless the work was commissioned in the first place. Which is why I wouldn't go for this deal. I do tend to sell my photos now and then via various methods, either randomly through flickr or specifically through Getty... I've done shows, and people send referrals my way too. So yes, there is the potential to make money from this photo - perhaps not this one specifically, but as part of my body of work.

+1 I don't believe in signing away your copyright either. I would only do so under dire circumstances .. like I was completely broke and my daughter needed an expensive surgery. If the work was commissioned then I wouldn't consider them my photos in the first place.