Say Yes to No

I’m a firm believer in saying yes and generally being positive about things; have done for years. For example, if a client has a technically gnarly project, saying “Oh, that looks super hard” and then explaining how much work it is going to be or, worse, even hinting that you might fail, is not a good idea for your business. Instead, saying “Oh, that looks super hard…I love a challenge! I’m sure my team and I will find a solution!” will engender confidence in your client. Later, when you hand them a big estimate, they’ll remember you as the creative who said they could do it, increasing your chances of winning the project even with big numbers. So saying yes is a great thing for your business… except when it isn’t.

How often have you heard a (potential) client send you a contract and say “Everyone agrees to this” or “Oh, sure, the doc says you are assigning us your copyrights and that you can’t use the work, but we’ll let you use it” or “It’s industry standard to have a 90-day payment period,” or “You have to indemnify us against any claim that arises when you’re shooting for us, not just those related to your work or employees–no one ever makes an issue of that” etc. ? A bunch, I’ll bet and I bet you’ve often accepted those terms, trusting your client. Then, later…well, as Marlon Brando in Guys and Dolls says,“Daddy, I got cider in my ear!”

The sad truth is that, whenever someone in a financial transaction with you says one thing but the paperwork says another, they have an ulterior motive and it ain’t good for you. Hearing anything like “oh, don’t worry…” or “You’re the only person who has ever asked…” is your signal that you absolutely must go with what the papers say. Always. Your clients, no matter how nice, are not on your side. They can’t be—they are negotiating for their best deal, not yours. You can like them, but don’t ever trust their word over what is on the page.

The terms they are insisting on are good…good for them, that is, and so they do use them. If they didn’t, the terms would not be there. Always. So, if they are saying “oh, we never do this thing the contract says we can do” and they won’t take it out, then you know they want to do exactly what they claim they never do, and will do exactly that if they can. 

Relatedly, if your client/buyer tells you “my way or the highway,” waste no time in politely taking the second option. As the current writers’ and actors’ strikes confirm, bullying and fear-mongering is pervasive in the creative industries. All of them. Threats about not getting work are just manipulative bullshit. You didn’t have the gig but then lose it by saying “no”; nope, they just wanted to scare you into accepting a bad deal. Walk away. Use the time to get a better client. 

Don’t bother trying to fix them or teach them the errors of their ways. You can’t control what your clients/buyers do and you’ll drive yourself mad if you try. But, you can control what you do. 

The first thing is to know where your boundaries are. You can negotiate lots of things, but you should always know what lines you will not cross and respect those limits. No one will respect them if you don’t. You can and I think MUST set your own limits; and you should do it before any negotiations so that you know what they are. Write them out like a list if that helps: will never sell copyrights; will only indemnify for my own actions; will not lower my price without getting something (besides just getting the gig) in return; etc. 

Once you have your limits defined, then you can respond rationally to whatever demands are made. So, for example, if a client insists on owning your copyrights created for the project, you can say “No” if your line is ownership, or, if you’re willing to sell at the right price, say “Not at this price—if you want full ownership, that will cost $X.”  Don’t explain, don’t rationalize, and don’t be suckered in by them. Stick to your own boundaries. For example, “I hear you, but I won’t sell my copyrights for this price–you need to either pay more or get a license instead.” If they ask “Why?” you can simply say that this is how you run your business. Period.

You can use your boundary list for contract negotiations of all kinds: time to pay, deposits, usage license terms, indemnification clauses, you name it. When you do that, you are taking good care of your business: You set your limits. You have control. 

Saying “no” to bad terms and bad deals does not make you a jerk, it makes you a smart businessperson. And, although standing up for your rights and doing what is best for you and your business is not always easy, it is vital. The other side is surely going to stand up for theirs.

Answering Questions

I’ve just started writing for the Architectural Photography Almanac, to answer general legal questions and discuss issues that their readers face. Many of these issues and answers will be applicable to all photographers and all creatives, generally. The posts should be monthly, and comments are welcome!

Check out my first post, here.

New Ruling Says Public Instagram Means No Infringement

A federal court (SDNY) has just ruled that a case must be dismissed because the photographer-plaintiff had posted the work on Instagram, with the account “public,” so the photographer granted a license to Instagram that included permitting Instagram to re-license it, including to the defendant (THR article about the ruling, here). So, the defendant (Mashable) had a license to display the photograph at issue via the Instagram API, and thus the case was dead. 

In other words, there was no infringement by the defendant since the photographer posted the work publicly on Instagram. YIKES! 

Now, this ruling does NOT say that it would be okay for a defendant to copy or download a photo it saw on Instagram and use it on its website for any purpose, but the door is open to defendants to try that, even if it might not be a winner. Here, Mashable used Instagram’s API to embed the work into its story; those facts may be the key points, but the terms of service for Instagram are very broad and, frankly, I’m surprised there hasn’t already been this result. Defendants will lock on this ruling and argue it, even in cases where the facts do not include API use.

While this is just one court, the implications are profound and, frankly, something I have predicted for some time. Also, remember that Facebook is as bad.

I know many of you would argue that you won’t be seen unless you use these platforms. I have to tell you that is simply not true and rather are stories told by the platforms and by clients/users, neither of whom have your best interests in mind. While sure, you don’t want to make things hard on your clients, you must balance that with what risks are reasonable (or not) for your business.

In my opinion, best practices for visual artists, especially photographers, is not to use Instagram or Facebook to display work. Keep your work on your own servers or use a reputable tool/host like PhotoShelter. If you have Instagram or FB accounts, I suggest deleting them asap and leaving a post directing your followers to your own website, instead. If they ask why, tell them you value your work and can’t afford to give away your rights.

Exclusive Versus Sole

Earlier this year I wrote about exclusive licenses and how they can make a big difference in your legal rights, when it comes to infringements. Today, I was reminded of a related issue: how to grant a client the rights to use a work only for that client’s materials, and not get caught in an exclusive license trap.

Here’s what I suggest: only use the word “exclusive” (or non-) for actual, legal rights–specifically the ones covered by the statute (17 USC §106) and stick with “sole” for other limiting factors in a license, like media or geography.

For example, let’s say IlloBob wants to license an illustration of a squid to SurferSam for use on his surfboards and newsletters. He wants to make sure SurferSam doesn’t use the illustration on t-shirts or to be able to re- or sub-license to third parties for their use. He also wants to be able to license the same illustration to others including for their use in their newsletters. His license might read like this:

Conditioned upon full and timely payment received, IlloBob grants to SurferSam the non-exclusive right to reproduce the Squid Illustration solely on SurferSam surfboards and in SurferSam newsletters for one year, starting January 1, 2019. SurferSam may not license these rights or any other rights to any third party, except as required to produce the surfboards and newsletters permitted by this license.

By using the word exclusive (or non-exclusive) only with the rights (as opposed to the media), a licensor is protected from accidentally granting exclusive rights. To see the difference, look at this variation of the license above:

IlloBob grants to SurferSam the right to reproduce the Squid Illustration exclusively on SurferSam surfboards and in SurferSam newsletters for one year, starting January 1, 2019.

Is that an exclusive license? Can IlloBob license the work to anyone else to use in a newsletter? Can SurferSam use the work on t-shirts but without exclusivity? Maybe yes to all of the above. Well informed lawyers could debate all that and more, just because of how the word “exclusively” is used.

If you don’t fully grasp the differences here, that is what I (like other lawyers) am here for. I can help you draft licenses that will provide your client what it needs while making sure you aren’t accidentally giving away more, and it won’t cost you an arm and a leg. A little professional hand-holding now can save you lots of money and frustration in the future.