Licensing Advice

[jennyb]

I am hoping someone here can advise me on this. It is not actually about a photograph but a scan of a historical document, which I guess theoretically is a photograph.

I have been approached by a TV company making a documentary who want to use this scanned document in their programme. I agreed but asked for a donation to charity in return.

I have now received a document which I have to sign agreeing to the terms and conditions and I am not happy with the wording.

I quote ".....and to use and authorize others to use the Property as so incorporated in the Production in the distribution, sale, licensing, marketing, advertising, promotion, exhibition and other exploitation of the Production in all markets and media (whether now known or hereafter developed), throughout the universe, in perpetuity."

They have offered a derisory donation to charity and it would seem that I am signing away some fairly outrageous rights.

Does anyone agree or can anyone advise me? I really don't know a lot about Broadcast rights. However, I did sell an image once to ITV and it's use was limited to 3 broadcasts of the programme and for a much more substantial sum!

Any advice would be welcome.

Thanks,

Jenny

[nightshade]

I would write to the people in charge, tell them that the terms are not acceptable,it may be that you are being fobbed off with a standard terms contract.Stand your ground, if they really want it...........

[eeyore]

also be sure that you actually own the copyright to the document - if it is a simple scan then it is legally a copy of the document rather than a photo in its own right. Depending on what the document is you might well find that copyright actually rests with the government, the crown, the local parish, the permutations are endless.

[jennyb]

Originally Posted by eeyore

also be sure that you actually own the copyright to the document - if it is a simple scan then it is legally a copy of the document rather than a photo in its own right. Depending on what the document is you might well find that copyright actually rests with the government, the crown, the local parish, the permutations are endless.

Interesting point. It is a letter sent by the government to my Grandfather, which I inherited.

Who owns the copyright on a letter - the person who wrote it or the person receiving it? I guess the person who wrote it.

Jenny

[eeyore]

Generally it is the author of any document that owns the copyright- however it could be argued (and has been in some cases) that by sending the letter you then transfer ownership of the document (but not necessarily the copyright) to the reciever.

I think that the position is that you could legitimately sell the original letter , or hire it for a fixed period of time , but that the copyright would remain with the govt. There is no problem with you making a single copy to send to someone else (such as a film company) as such copys are generally exempt but you probably cant sell or licence the copy right to another party.

However copyright law is neither simple or straight forward and i would advise propper legal advice.

A simpler answer is to ask the film company to make a donation to charity for your time and then simply send them a single copy (or scan) - the copyright issues attaching to filming it and distributing it are then their problem.

[jennyb]

I won't be going to the trouble of taking legal advice, but I think I will need to change the wording on the release about ownership.

However, I am still concerned about the amounts of rights that I will be giving them. I don't think I should give them unlimited rights with such a small charitable donation.

Jenny

[eeyore]

the sailent point is that if you dont own the copyright assigning them any rights in return for payment would technically be fraud - if you dont want to go to the expense of clarifying the legal position the best thing is to forget the payment angle.

leaving this aside, where you do own or have right to assign the copyright, the normal formula is to assign non exclusive use in return for a modest fee , or exclusive use for a higher one, but only to assign the right to pass on these rights to other third parties for a much higher fee.

therefore i would suggest that if you are going ahead with this (and i would urge you to think twice if copyright is in doubt) then you write back to the film company saying that for the fee suggested they can have non exclusive rights but without the right to pass this on to third parties - If they want fuller rights or exclusivity it will cost them xxxx (normally at least 5 times the ammount for non exc use) however be aware that doing this carries the risk of them telling you where your document/image will best fit and going elsewhere (tho clearly this depends on how unique your document/image is)

[gfilmsuk]

Write your own release terms Jenny.
(Looks like we may actually agree on something here eeore).
You don't have to agree to anything in a standard release form Jenny.
They want your picture so they have to agree to your terms. Write your own release form and you specify how the scan can be used.
Sometimes film companies will actually use a lesser reason to get a signed release, and then use it for something totally different later on, which of course they are legally entitled to do once you've put your sig to the form.
Also make very sure you have the payment offer tied up in writing with a firm payment date, or that could drag on for years.

[jennyb]

Thanks for your advice guys. I will definitely write my own release. If they want it in all markets and media throughout the universe and in perpetuity, it will cost them a very sizeable donation to charity.

They approached me about the document and not vice versa, so I don' t actually care if they use it or not.

Jenny

[Words]

Copyright resides with the author of the letter + 70 years (ie 70 years after death of the author). Crown copyrights may be slightly different but I'm no expert but certain documents are subject to public release after n years. It may depend on what it is.

I dont know what you regard as derisory but a few seconds on screen won't command a high fee unless it's something exceptional (and a mainstream production). Basically they are saying they can re-use the production (which they are making) including your contribution in any way they want. They are protecting themselves from you asking them to remove it when they re-publish in a different format. It's a bit extreme and silly to include the 'in perpetuity' and 'universe' clauses because they will lose their own copyright after a certain number of years anyway.

By all means restrict the usage a bit, and see if they'll pay more but this kind of usage of archive material never pays very much.