# unlimited rights- what does this mean?



## 5beatles

[FONT=&quot]Hello,
I shot a holiday event this past year and now the PR company for the event wants to give the photos to a freelance  writer who is selling an article to a magazine.
I said there would be an additional charge to her or the writer and she isn't happy.  I gave them unlimited rights, but retained copyright.  Here's the exact wording of the contract:

 "The Photographer retains copyright in the photographs, and hereby grants the Client unlimited but non-exclusive rights to use or reproduce any and all photographs."

I tried to explain that this is third party use but she says they wanted the pictures for PR use and that's what this is. Just need to reassured that we are right.  I'm also concerned with the magazine's policies and said I would need to see their policies so that they couldn't [/FONT]take liberties with the photos.  Again, she's not happy.

I am right, aren't I?
Thanks!


----------



## SCraig

5beatles said:


> [FONT=&amp]...[/FONT]I am right, aren't I?
> Thanks!


I'm no attorney but I don't think so.  Once you gave them "Unlimited" rights then you gave up any right to then "Limit" those rights at a later date.  You didn't exclude providing copies to third parties or anyone else so my take would be that you're out of luck.

Again, just my non-legal interpretation though.


----------



## Overread

Again no attorney but I'd agree with SCraig - you've kept the copyright, but you've given them an unrestricted license. No restrictions mentioned at all, they can pretty much do whatever they want with them. Copy them, distribute, profit of them, sell them to 3rd parties etc... 

Now there might be some specific things they can't do under the term "unlimited rights" however you'd have to consult a lawyer in copyright and licencing. 

I'd chalk this one up and learn to negotiate a better contract that actively protects you more strongly as well as consulting a lawyer to help you draft up contracts and to understand them more fully so that you don't repeat this mistake in the future.


----------



## 5beatles

It's my understanding that giving unlimited use rights is vastly different from giving copyright and one would need a copyright to sell/give away a photograph.  I'm the one with the copyright, so I'm the only one who can do this.  Anyone who IS a lawyer, or who is familiar with such things?  (No disrespect to Overread and SCraig)


----------



## Trever1t

Try the yellow pages? Really though it doesn't sound like your contract was worded to protect against these things.


----------



## KmH

Are you in the USA? The following applies in the USA.

Unlimited but non-exclusive rights, pretty much means - unlimited but non-exclusive rights.

Like Overead said, you gave them the same rights you have as the copyright owner, to do whatever they want with the images you provided them.

They don't own the copyright, but the language in your contract essentially gives them all the rights you have as the copyright owner.

The magazine can do whatever they want to your photos, at least within the terms the PR company and the magazine work out.

Unfortunately you gave up your right to have any say in the matter when you used the term - unlimited.

The wording "non-exclusive" allows *you* the right to use the images for any other purposes. The wording 'unlimited" gives *them* the right to use the images for any other purposes.

http://www.useplus.com/index.asp?

Visit - http://asmp.org/ - and on the left click on Business Resources, and look at their use licensing information. In particular find and use their online Use License generator, and look at the definitions of use licensing terms.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto




----------



## vfotog

5beatles said:


> [FONT=&amp]Hello,
> 
> "The Photographer retains copyright in the photographs, and hereby grants the Client unlimited but non-exclusive rights to use or reproduce any and all photographs."
> 
> [/FONT]



sorry, if you want to limit their usage, you don't give them UNLIMITED use in the contract. You might want to make nice with them now before they decide to pursue the issue of YOU not honoring the terms of the contract.


----------



## rokvi

vfotog said:


> 5beatles said:
> 
> 
> 
> [FONT=&amp]Hello,
> 
> "The Photographer retains copyright in the photographs, and hereby grants the Client unlimited but non-exclusive rights to use or reproduce any and all photographs."
> 
> [/FONT]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry, if you want to limit their usage, you don't give them UNLIMITED use in the contract. You might want to make nice with them now before they decide to pursue the issue of YOU not honoring the terms of the contract.
Click to expand...


+1   Unlimited use is unlimited use, you need to specify "their" use in the contract. There are a few things you can put in there such as a time limit, types of use, or profits generated. However you need to be specific on the signed contract.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Pro Tip #952: Have a lawyer review your contract before it is signed, not after!


----------



## rokvi

5beatles said:


> It's my understanding that giving unlimited use rights is vastly different from giving copyright and one would need a copyright to sell/give away a photograph.  I'm the one with the copyright, so I'm the only one who can do this.  Anyone who IS a lawyer, or who is familiar with such things?  (No disrespect to Overread and SCraig)



Giving "unlimited" rights to photos is giving them equal rights. Selling the "copyright" is handing everything over to the buyer, relinquishing your rights to those photos.


----------



## rokvi

rokvi said:


> 5beatles said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's my understanding that giving unlimited use rights is vastly different from giving copyright and one would need a copyright to sell/give away a photograph.  I'm the one with the copyright, so I'm the only one who can do this.  Anyone who IS a lawyer, or who is familiar with such things?  (No disrespect to Overread and SCraig)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Giving "unlimited" rights to photos is giving them equal rights. Selling the "copyright" is handing everything over to the buyer, relinquishing your rights to those photos.
Click to expand...



However I need to add that these can vary in different countries, but this is the basic outline throughout.


----------



## GothamTommy

My understanding (I'm not a lawyer, just someone who has been around rights contracts for ~7 years):

By giving them "unlimited non-exclusive rights", you've essentially given them a royalty-free license to use the photos as they see fit. They can print them, give them to a magazine or anything else they'd like.

By holding copyright (and them having "non-exclusive rights"), you can use them however you like and even re-sell them to others. You can essentially license them out to anyone else.

In that case, everyone (you and the PR firm) can use the photos however you'd like. The difference you have, as a copyright holder, is you have the ability to stop anyone from using the photos who shouldn't be.

The simple answer: They can give the photos to a magazine or anyone else. You sold them unlimited non-exclusive rights. If you want to allow your clients to use the photos themselves (in the future), you'd want to specify you're giving them a "limited" license or rights, and then you'd need to explain those rights (duplicating for personal use, for example).


----------



## jamesbjenkins

Hate to break it to you, but unlimited means unlimited.

Why wouldn't you specify the rights in the contract if you specifically didn't want people to provide the images to a third party?

If you don't have legal counsel consult on your contract(s), you're asking for trouble. Looks to me (I'm no lawyer) that according to the wording you chose they can do whatever they want.

Write a more detailed (and properly worded) contract next time and you can avoid all this hassle...


----------



## orljustin

5beatles said:


> [FONT=&amp]"The Photographer retains copyright in the photographs, and hereby grants the Client unlimited but non-exclusive rights to use or reproduce any and all photographs."[/FONT]Thanks!



I'll disagree with the others.  The "unlimited ... rights" are for them to "use or reproduce" the content.  That does not include the right to redistribute/relicense them to a third party who will use them freely.  If the PR department of the company wrote an article accompanied by the images and sent that as a release to a magazine, that would be one thing, but to give them to another party who will then create something with them for sale to others, sounds a bit dodgy.


----------



## pixmedic

Maybe next time you should word it as "for personal and private use only". or something to that effect. 
OR throw in "photographer retains all distributing and third party rights" Maybe you can give them a print release without giving them actual copyright. I think it has already been suggested, but  I would try looking up generic photographer contract templets online. im sure there must be a few floating around
the interwebs.


----------



## manaheim

Holy lawbooks, Batman.


----------

