OK... For the third time now something has happened to me that I need to share with every artist here. It kind of angers and saddens me at the same time.
I just had an opportunity to work with a fairly large music merchandising company but because of their requirement for me to sign a "Work For Hire" contract I was forced to turn them down. What really bothers me is that I was told I was the first artist to decline signing their contract. This says to me that there are either a lot of artists that just don't know what 'Work For Hire' actually means, just don't care, or are willing to sign them anyway. Unfortunately this is hurting it for every single artist out there.
For those of you who don't know what 'Work For Hire' contracts are; they are contracts automatically stripping an artist of every right and authorship to any work they created for that client. Legally, it is as if the client created the art. They become the legal author of all the work done for them, and they automatically own the copyright. They can take the art and do whatever they want with it...put it on whatever they want...change it... sell it to whomever they want...and the artist will never see another dime. For instance, let's say you get paid $500.00 to do a tour shirt for a band though some big merch company (which would be a sad fee in and by itself). But since you signed a "work for hire" contract...now they are free to also sell the shirt in Spencer Gifts or in Target ...or put it on lunch boxes...or sell it to the band for their album cover...or make stickers of it...or whatever. They could make thousands and thousands of dollars for art they only paid $500.00 for. And legally, you couldn't even show it in your portfolio, much less sign the work without their permission, or use a portion in something else you create (you could even be sued for copyright infringement yourself if you did.)
This completely goes against the principal of copyright law that you, as the creator of the work, are entitled to be fairly compensated for how the art is used.
This is not the same as selling "all rights" to a work (although similar). Legally, with an "all rights" buyout, you are still the legal author of the work, even though you sold to the client the rights to use the art however and whenever they want. Just make sure that if you sell "all rights" you get paid enough to cover all the possible uses (And put a self-promotion clause into the agreement).
A written contract must specifically use the words "work for hire" or "work made for hire", to be a work for hire contract.
About the only time I feel a "work for hire" agreement is ethical, and in the best interest of both the artist and client. is when an artist is actually employed by an employer...and they are paying you a regular salary and you are receiving all the perks and benefits of employment...such as sick pay, holidays, social security, etc.
Even a logo job would be better served with an 'all-rights buy-out' rather than a 'Work For Hire' contract.
But unfortunately, there are a large number of cheap companies, especially in the music and publishing world, that are abusing "Work for Hire" contracts, and saying you must sign one to be able to work with them. That's simply unethical...and geared at taking advantage of the artist and giving ALL the rewards to the commissioning party. There is no reason with those types of company's that jobs couldn't be negotiated per usage, and agreed to on a case-by-case basis. Artists should get paid for the various usages that the art is being used for. And if you do sign a 'work for hire' agreement, it had better be in the best interest and fair to BOTH parties and be on a case-by-case project basis, AND the money had better be REALLY, REALLY GOOD! Because the damage to your career far outweighs the advantages, and as long as artists keep signing these abusive blanket 'work for hire' contracts, we are ALL being royally screwed!!!! Seriously!





LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
