In a message dated 1/12/2005 9:56:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< This is not a typical arrangement in still photography, and the 
 photographer may insist on some other arrangement, such as granting 
 your organization permission to use/reproduce all or some of the images 
 for some period of time (or in perpetuity) for certain specific 
 purposes, but reserving (any/all) other uses for him/herself (as 
 author). >>

I strongly suggest avoiding that scenario whenever possible.  "Work for hire" 
may not be a "typical" arrangement, but I would suggest that it should be the 
rule when museums hire outside photographers to photograph their holdings.  
What has been left out of the discussion is the fact that a photographer may 
well demand a higher price to do "work for hire" in lieu of holding copyright, 
and I suspect that many museums acquiesce to photographers retaining copyright 
in order to lower the cost of the transaction.  This is penny-wise and 
pound-foolish, in my opinion.  A museum should hold all rights to photographs of its 
collections, especially when you consider the additional investment which the 
museum makes (or should make) in having a staff member supervise the handling 
of objects while they are being photographed.  It just doesn't make sense to 
allow an outside photographer to control photographs of your artifacts.  It's 
true that nowadays photographers are very copyright-conscious and are reluctant 
to relinquish copyright to the client, but even if you have to offer more 
money to negotiate a work for hire agreement, it will save headaches in the long 
run and avoid the need for repeat photography in the future.  It seems to me 
that a work for hire agreement could include a clause ensuring the perpetuation 
of the photographer's name in publication credit lines.  Such an agreement, 
combined with higher pay, might well persuade many photographers to sign work 
for hire contracts. 

Many museums find it more economical to have staff photographers, thereby 
avoiding the work for hire problem.  This gets into the whole outsourcing issue, 
of course.  Which arrangement is more cost-effective for your institution?  If 
hiring an outside photographer periodically is adequate for the workload and 
doesn't exceed the total cost of having photographers on staff with 
appropriate facilities, fine, but you'd be well advised to ensure that the museum gets 
copyright via work for hire contracts.  

David Haberstich 

=========================================================
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).