On Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:57:46 EST, David E. Haberstich <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Sometimes their whole objective in doing so is to save money by getting
>around or eliminating your usual photographic fees.
David brings up some very good points here and I agree...in our case we don't allow outsiders to photograph items in the
collection. The few exceptions to this have been in regards to a couple of PBS documentaries and a couple for the History
Channel as well, where they have brought in a small crew and arranged it through the Collections people far, far in advance.
About the only other time in regards to still photography that I can recall was with the National Geographic several years ago...but
these are all good circumsatnces I feel for the use of the collection.
But for us, we have a full in-house photo studio, staff and an in-house lab (we do b&w, and E6 processesing in-house), so when a
patron requests an item to be shot, even if it's to a specification for a layout from a publisher, AD etc., we try to do this as best we
can. They don't need to send someone in here to do this, we provide the service and charge them cost. It is possible for a patron
to try to shoot an artifact on exhibit by available light only (no flash), but frankly the results will be poor and no serious
commercial usage would even use something like this....
There has been maybe one case many years ago, when a freelancer was hired to document an artifact for a postcard. In this case,
he retained the rights to that image (since it was not a work-for-hire). Now this is where you get into the finer points of allowing
people to photograph your collection. Even if they're hired by your institution. In commercial photography, copyright and
ownership of images plays a huge role, probably the number one issue today in fact. It will be hard to find a photographer willing
to relinquish the ownership of their images by way of work-for-hire agreements. It's true that the subject matter will be your
artifacts, but the actual ownership of the image is theirs unless you work it out through a work-for-hire contract. I'm not a copyright
lawyer (or a registrar) but from your standpoint, I think because they are on your property (this may get tricky with public
property??), and the objects belong to the institution, that you may be able to protect the usage by way of requiring property
release forms that stipulate any usage restrictions and such....so, that's something to pursue with a good lawyer....
For instance, suppose we're not talking about museums & objects here...say I want to photograph you for an ad. I would need a
model release from you saying rather explicitly just what I intended to do with your image....ottherwise if i were to us it without
your permission in a money-making venture, then I would open myelf up to a potential lawsuit....the same holds true for private
property, etc.....property releases, model releases etc. are all SOP for professional photography.....in certain circles of professional
organizations the term "work-for-hire" is seriously frowned upon, because there is money to be earned by licensing images for
future use....it all comes down to ownership of the images and future usage or else if a work-for-hire agreement takes place, you'd
have to gauge the future income off the image, figure out what it's worth to you (the photographer), and turn over the rights to the
client for that amount or some inflated amount....of course, it could be that there are no future uses for you, and that the
photographer has no problem with an agreement of this nature....
But just because someone comes in to shoot your items doesn't mean you own those images.....
>> Outside photographers who walk away with negatives,
>transparencies, or digital files of your collection are less subject to your
>oversight than if they purchased (or rented) your copies of your material.
Yes...and even if an infringement occurs of your material (assuming you've established some sort of ownership and clearly marked
it as copyright as well...) you still have to find out about it, and pursue it. You may find that to take it all the way to court would
cost too much in the end...
>to the user, who would have no way of knowing the original source.
> While the slide might have been made from an authorized, museum-supplied
>copy, it seems to me that by allowing an outside photographer to make his own
>copy, the likelihood of losing data is increased substantially. If you sell
>copies for study purposes, but mark them with a statement that reproduction
>requires your permission, at least you have some hope of controlling or
>monitoring usage by responsible parties.
>
Well, you need to use the same mentality that a commercial stock house uses as well....if the items are yours, if the images are
yours, then copyright them....or at the very least mark them as copywitten to your institution. The little copyright symbol is where
it's at.....if the slide or print is clearly marked properly, then nobody will copy it. Or if they do, and you catch them, they're open to
the same legal recourse that an outsider might pursue against your museum for infringing their copyright for a commercial
purpose. Everything that we produce in-house is ours, we stamp them, or use stickers stating our copyright, and what the
restrictions for use are. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten calls from labs wanting to know if it's okay to make a print off a
slide dupe that came from us....this is good, this shows that the lab is being responsible and saying to the customer "we can't print
this because it's copywritten and you are not the NCMOH." In these cases, what tends to happen is we say no. You can't reproduce
it. Tell the person to contact us. Most times what has happened is a patron wants a repro of something....they call us and we give
them our prices...they think "$7 for a 5x7?? That's too much. 90 cents for a slide dupe? I'll get that!"...then they take the dupe
around & find nobody will touch it and then they get mad....but the thing is, we charge cost! They're getting the same deal they'd
get at a lab. Inevitably when they call us back, they are still upset and will say things like "I'm a taxpayer, I should be able to do
whatever I want to with a slide from your collection..."
It's amazing how few people actually know or understand a thing about copyright law. But by the same token that institutions want
to be able to have fair-use laws etc., you should honor the existing copyright laws used in the commercial world as well...and use
them when they apply as well to your own images.
(off the soapbox)
>before an outside photographer gets access to collection material, and an
>"access" fee may be imposed on commercial entities. This fee offsets savings
>gained by not paying for museum-produced copies.
I find most usage fees to be very small when I see price lists....less than $100. You find some ASMP photographer and get a
quote for some job, and you'd find a one-time usage fee to be out of here compared to that 100. And even if you had an in-house
staff, $100 most likely wouldn't even cover the cost of producing a shot professionally.....I could crunch numbers for you, but
running a studio and a lab isn't cheap....granted it's cheaper than *hiring* one, but there is still a basic cost for everyday.....we've
been toying with usage fees off & on, and I don't see how we'd even come close to breaking even without following an
ASMP/APA type pricing schedule. In comaprison, a box of fujichrome 4x5 film costs about $75.00. E6 costs about $2.00 a sheet
on average. Polaroid proofing material is $3.00 a sheet on average. Then you have overhead like insurance, salaries, utilities,
studio gear, lab gear etc...we have a "small" studio and we probably have around $50K worth in it easily...excluding personnel
and materials.
>> Allowing him to walk away with very inexpensive
>copies of large quantities of material would have been like a gold mine for
>him, and would have been fundamentally unfair to those who must pay for
>copies through normal channels and aren't in a position to hire a
>photographer or do their own work.
I don't see why some sort of property release form can't be designed to cover against this....but I'm not a lawyer....
>We usually reject requests from people who want to bring in their own
>scanners to scan flat materials in our collection. We'll do it for you,
>thank you. And we'll do our best to track how our scans are used.
I agree completely...I wouldn't even let people bring in a camera but that's just me....a flatbed scanner puts out a heck of alot of
light and heat probably ....it seems like there might be some damage issues to the artifact as well, with repeated scans...not to
mention the handling of the paper and the pressure of the lid etc.
I think the bottom line is, that you have to provide them with a means of access...either you do it in-house or have a local studio
on contract for the purpose or whatever....but I think the public and commercial patrons have every right to access materials in a
public institution...I think that's what we're here for....but I'll also say that I don't know how many times a publisher has told us how
much they appreciate a professional quality studio shot of an item (on 4x5 transp) from a museum....they often think they'll be
getting some lousy shot from a disposable camera or a low-res digital file.....
These are definitely MY OPINIONS ONLY.
Kent Thompson, Photographer
North Carolina Museum of History
Email: [log in to unmask]
Opinions expressed in this message may not represent the policy of my agency.
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
