Hi Bob

-> Please take the following to be a general discussion, only, not legal
-> advice!    

Always.  I'm just here to ask questions so you folks will have something to
talk about :)
-> 
-> > That's how I did newspaper work.  They gave me the film, and I only ever
-> > saw what they printed in the paper.
-> 
-> Don't throw a snow ball at me, but that's what we used to call a reporter
-> with a camera!
-> We discouraged the practice at every opportunity!  

Why? 
Actually, I was more of a columnist with a camera at that point.  The paper
had a photographer, but he was not always available. On one occasion, when
some big event was happening here, three of us were issued film by mistake.
The publisher was not thrilled, but I was as I was thrilled to discover
they printed more of my pictures than they did of those taken by the other
two...official photographer included.  It was only after that that I became
more interested in photography than writing.
-> 
-> > Hmmmm....selling someone a negative doesn't mean they would necessarily
-> > come up with what I'd consider the ideal print either, so I suppose
-> selling
-> > a digital file is a lot like that.
-> 
-> There are similarities but the bottom line is: Sell all rights, sell
-> decisions about use of the image.  You either have the rights and a say so,
-> or you don't.  In between there are many stages dealing with use of the
-> image you own which are under your control, provided you so specify same as
-> a condition of said use.

I can't think of any reason why I would ever sell all rights.  I never did
with my writing either.  I sold first rights.  I know you will come up with
a million instances when YOU would sell all rights, but we're talking about
me, and the sort of thing I do.  I doubt anyone would ever want all right
from me anyway.  Well..... maybe I'll take that back as that's seems to be
what the local arts guild was after years ago, when their president
insisted I sell him my negatives so he could have control.  I didn't do it
then, and I doubt I'd do it today.  
-> 
-> If you work through an ad agency you might be able to get a percentage of
-> use deal.
-> Both you and the agency would be paid in relation to cost of that use.  The
-> same image in a community publication might be dirt cheap but used in a high
-> profile publication like Esquire, for example, it could be worth thousands
-> to you because the space cost in that quality magazine is quite high.  Like
-> most everything else, this has advantages and it's disadvantages, too.  The
-> main thing is that photogs seldom know all the space rates but advertising
-> agencies must keep up with them because they place the ads.

Oh well, I have heard no more on this particular deal, so maybe it's gone
out the window already.

The last offer I told you folks about....playing assistant to a
photographer who was supposed to shoot some particular business around 
here, also seems to have vanished.  I asked her about that recently and she
says she doesn't  know what happened.  She says the guy was satisfied with
the quote she gave him but last time she saw him he was running around with
a camera himself. 

-> > Any hobby that suddenly becomes a job ceases to be fun.  I wish people
-> > would just let me play in peace!
-> 
-> I've always enjoyed photography so much that the 'jobs' are mostly fun, too!
-> The few that aren't sorely try my soul..  O:-)

Shooting what other people want has never been my idea of fun.

Karen
-> 
-> 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5