Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ScottinPollock" data-source="post: 481644" data-attributes="member: 40111">Oh believe me I understand. It was more of a metaphor than an analogy. Something to relate to what might be inferred given no contract (or evidence of such) in place.It is entirely possible the client's understanding was &quot;I'm paying you to deliver these photos for my use, and at my sole discretion&quot;. In which case, a verbal contract is void as there was no meeting of the minds. Then the only room for a ruling is what the ruling party feels is reasonable. That judgement is based on experience and precedent. In general most 'for hire' photographers (or artists, even engineers and architects) don't give up unlimited use of their work, especially when a client may be profiting by sharing it with others.For me, the keeping of the negs (or the printing plates so to speak) was an apt metaphor for a hard line in the sand that most folks would relate to... ergo, what is reasonable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ScottinPollock, post: 481644, member: 40111"] Oh believe me I understand. It was more of a metaphor than an analogy. Something to relate to what might be inferred given no contract (or evidence of such) in place. It is entirely possible the client's understanding was "I'm paying you to deliver these photos for my use, and at my sole discretion". In which case, a verbal contract is void as there was no meeting of the minds. Then the only room for a ruling is what the ruling party feels is reasonable. That judgement is based on experience and precedent. In general most 'for hire' photographers (or artists, even engineers and architects) don't give up unlimited use of their work, especially when a client may be profiting by sharing it with others. For me, the keeping of the negs (or the printing plates so to speak) was an apt metaphor for a hard line in the sand that most folks would relate to... ergo, what is reasonable. [/QUOTE]

Verification