Assigning copyright - what would you do?

[PetethePrimate]

Most charities are nothing more than businesses making money (some of which goes towards their charitable activity) and paying the salary of a number of well paid individuals. My experience is that if you give them an inch with your goodwill they'll take a mile. Will they reimburse or make a contribution towards your insurance & other costs if your camera is damaged or stolen whilst taking photos for them? I've yet to find a charity that won't try and get something for nothing even when they have a very healthy balance sheet.

 

[munch]

Most charities are nothing more than businesses making money (some of which goes towards their charitable activity) and paying the salary of a number of well paid individuals. My experience is that if you give them an inch with your goodwill they'll take a mile. Will they reimburse or make a contribution towards your insurance & other costs if your camera is damaged or stolen whilst taking photos for them? I've yet to find a charity that won't try and get something for nothing even when they have a very healthy balance sheet.

Is that not a good thing for charity? (my bold) I donate both in time and money to several "well funded" charities. I am aware that their CEO's get £100'000+ salaries and have lots of paid staff. I am also aware that without us volunteers the charities would struggle.

You may have a dim view of charities, but many of us are willing to "do our bit" how much anybody is willing to do is entirely up to them.

If you really want to open a can of worms you could argue that many charities should not exist as their work should really be done by the state.

 

[KIPAX]

Is that not a good thing for charity? (my bold) I donate both in time and money to several "well funded" charities. I am aware that their CEO's get £100'000+ salaries and have lots of paid staff. I am also aware that without us volunteers the charities would struggle.
.

I have a fine view of charities that are not business..

Why would they struggle.. If there paying staff thousands and thousands.. why would they struggle if a photogrpaher wanted paying..

If it makes someone feel good to do things for a charity then thats fine.. more power to you... But lets not pretend a multi million pound company would struggle to pay a few quid for a photogrpaher...

local charities doing local things with the money they raise and every single person doing it for free.. they are the ones i help... but i am not giving my free time or money to help someone pay to run a mansion with 4 cars and a swimming pool... i just find it disgusting that people wiht next to nothing are helping rich people live a life of luxury.... But hey oh thats just me

 

[DG Phototraining]

I have a fine view of charities that are not business..

Why would they struggle.. If there paying staff thousands and thousands.. why would they struggle if a photogrpaher wanted paying..

If it makes someone feel good to do things for a charity then thats fine.. more power to you... But lets not pretend a multi million pound company would struggle to pay a few quid for a photogrpaher...

local charities doing local things with the money they raise and every single person doing it for free.. they are the ones i help... but i am not giving my free time or money to help someone pay to run a mansion with 4 cars and a swimming pool... i just find it disgusting that people wiht next to nothing are helping rich people live a life of luxury.... But hey oh thats just me

I agree with all of that - I had assumed it to be a local, volunteers only, charity - if its like the Sally Army etc. then fk em

Dave

 

[Musicman]

@Withers I think this has got a bit overcomplicated.

If you really want to carry on working for the charity but want to reserve the right to use your images for other things, you need to have a grown up chat explaining how licensing works.

If the images are of no use to you whatsoever (highly likely) then just sign the copyright over.

I tend to agree, thought 'no use to you whatsoever' does mean that you would need to obtain a licence from the charity just to keep copies of your own.

Strictly speaking, you should delete them and not even include them in your backups without obtaining a licence from the charity, for photographs which you have taken. I realise this is a technicality, but it's the same technicality that is covered in Terms of Use agreements for services like Flickr and Facebook which we all may use every day.

IMO taking ownership of the copyright is rather lazy overkill by the charity - their aims should be achievable by a reasonable standard licensing contract.

 

[Jelster]

The "grown up chat" is the way to go. When I took a job working for a software house their terms of employment stated "anything" I created, while I was employed by them, including in my own time, was theirs. I fully understood that they meant "code", but I asked them to reword it, so it specifically didn't cover photography, and they were fine.

All you need to do is say "No, but I'm happy to licence anything that I do for you so you can use it at any time" and explain that you may want to use some of your images for your own web space (Flickr come to mind), and social media. They shouldn't have a problem with it, and if they do, I wouldn't bother taking photos for them going forward.

 

[PetethePrimate]

Is that not a good thing for charity? (my bold) I donate both in time and money to several "well funded" charities. I am aware that their CEO's get £100'000+ salaries and have lots of paid staff. I am also aware that without us volunteers the charities would struggle.

You may have a dim view of charities, but many of us are willing to "do our bit" how much anybody is willing to do is entirely up to them.

If you really want to open a can of worms you could argue that many charities should not exist as their work should really be done by the state.

I support local charities and volunteer for a small national one (which doesn't have massive resources or pays a lot of people a lot of money). My point was that the charity sector has grown massively, needs tighter regulation and more accountability for the percentage of it's income that actually goes directly to the cause it is set up for. I think there are charities where their work could/should be done by the state but that's a topic for another day given that this isn't the purpose of this thread. The audited accounts of most charities are available online - they make interesting reading (in particular the cash & assets held - why are they hoarding so much cash and not using it? - and salaries paid).

 

[munch]

I support local charities and volunteer for a small national one (which doesn't have massive resources or pays a lot of people a lot of money). My point was that the charity sector has grown massively, needs tighter regulation and more accountability for the percentage of it's income that actually goes directly to the cause it is set up for. I think there are charities where their work could/should be done by the state but that's a topic for another day given that this isn't the purpose of this thread. The audited accounts of most charities are available online - they make interesting reading (in particular the cash & assets held - why are they hoarding so much cash and not using it? - and salaries paid).

Yep, well aware that I (and others) can access most charities audited accounts and as I have already stated it doesn't stop me "doing my bit"

Regarding salaried staff, all charities have to apply "due diligence." Unfortunately Mrs Goggin's (please use any other well meaning person who does her best for her charity, unpaid in between everything else she does) doing the accounts on a bit of paper doesn't really cut it when you are talking about donated money running into millions. Most larger charities are now "service providers" and have to negotiate with companies/government departments, again something Mrs Goggin's is unlikely to have the time to do.

 

[jerry12953]

I still don't see the point of arguing to retain copyright on images you can't use or sell ???

Oh, and where you're taking them for free anyway. If its really an issue, don't take them

Dave

It's not about the value that the images have to the photographer, its about the value they have to the client. The OP is a volunteer, out of the goodness of his heart he has taken some photos FoC for the charity. IF he handed over copyright to the charity it could then go ahead and hand them on to third parties or even sell them on.

I see this has come up in later posts which I hadn't read when i began typing.

But for me, that is the problem.

It could all be solved by having a sensible discussion about terms which could result in an understanding of each other's position and finally a licence agreement.

It could be as simple as "No Third Party Use Allowed".

 

[DG Phototraining]

IF he handed over copyright to the charity it could then go ahead and hand them on to third parties or even sell them on.

Yep I can see that, I just can't see why it'd be a problem when the photographer shot them for free in the first place as a volunteer and is happy to hand them over freely for their use

Maybe that's just me then cos if I was the tog I wouldn't give a toss; but if it was a worry I'd not bother with trying to word a license, I'd just not shoot it

Dave