|
Argument
Pro-Action wrote to the Publisher of TV Times, Gareth Beesley, as well as the Editor and ECS Manager in May 2010 requesting that they explain their Standard IPC Terms and Conditions document, which is heavily weighted against the illustrator. As a prominent publisher and commissioner of illustration Pro-Action finds it regrettable that IPC puts itself in the forefront of those who seek to use exploitative contracts.
The Standard IPC Terms and Conditions are an assignment of copyright and all other rights, and include an ownership of artwork clause.
This contract remove any potential future income for the illustrator when the works are repackaged for sale or published in other territories. We asked IPC to respond to the points and questions raised about their Terms:
- Why does IPC demand an assignment of copyright and all other proprietary rights in artwork commissioned for their publications when the fees offered do not reflect such an assignment? Agreements such as these are exploitative and undermine the industry wide pricing structure for commissioning freelance illustration.
- Why does IPC demand a waiver of moral rights? We accept that a publisher will need some editing rights – possibly to crop the image (but not to distort it) but it should not interfere with the work itself without the illustrator’s express permission. Moral rights protect the integrity of the creator's work, and ensure it is not treated in a derogatory manner. It does not prohibit normal cropping and/or overprinting. A contributor's livelihood is built and maintained by the quality and integrity of their published work and we believe that in fairness to the illustrator, the Standard IPC Terms and Conditions should allow them to assert all their moral rights.
- What does IPC do, or intend to do, with the extra rights that will be received from this contract beyond the rights the actual commission requires? Pro-Action maintains that it would be fairer to commission based on the widely accepted fee structure of a mutually agreed licence consisting of terms and fees priced on usage, territory and duration.
|
|
- The Terms demand ‘ownership of material’ which includes ‘artwork’. Artwork has value and the illustrator should not be required to relinquish ownership of artwork without remuneration. One of the reasons the AOI was set up in 1973 was to ensure the return of artwork to the creator, and it is unacceptable that the practice of retaining artwork is still applied by IPC.
- The Terms demand ‘ownership of material’ which includes ‘artwork’. Artwork has value and the illustrator should not be required to relinquish ownership of artwork without remuneration. One of the reasons the AOI was set up in 1973 was to ensure the return of artwork to the creator, and it is unacceptable that the practice of retaining artwork is still applied by IPC.
Response
IPC have yet to respond to Pro-Action’s letter.
Recommendation
Pro-Action advise all illustrators not to accept commissions under terms such as those requested in the Standard IPC Terms and Conditions. See Argument section for points raised by Pro-Action over IPC’s contract.
Pro-Action recommend that all illustrators offered a copyright assignment, or an agreement which contains a moral rights waiver should not sign it. (Remember that moral rights do not apply to newspapers or magazines, however they can still be included in an editorial agreement it the client wishes.) Instead negotiate a licence consisting of terms and fees priced on usage, territory and duration, i.e. so that the fee offered is sufficient to cover the rights requested. Copyright, if assigned, should attract a fee that would cover all the potential uses your artwork could be utilised for.
AOI members, including 1+ affiliates, may contact the association for further advice. Illustrators represented by an SAA member agent should contact their agent for additional advice.
|
