Thanks for quoting that portion, also. That was the part that I had the SECOND MOST problem with (I didn't re-read it today, before posting the attachment).RRFan4Ever wrote:Thank you, RRP- the words on this document (their meaning and the implications) indeed support my theory that someone had intentions outside and beyond the scope of the documentary.
For good and valuable consideration, the undersigned hereby irrevocably grants to DP the right to distribute, exhibit or otherwise exploit the Property in the Show, any related advertising, marketing and promotion of the Show, and in any related or derivative versions or uses of the Show, in all media now known or hereafter developed throughout the universe in perpetuity.Is that standard for a license? Again, I'm not familiar with copyright law and its consequences.DP may transfer and assign this agreement or all or any of its rights or privileges hereunder to any entity or individual without restriction.
Usually any licensing agreement is for a SPECIFIC USE - or selling the rights over completely (such as to a "stock photography" company).
I've only ever submitted photos (through an intermediary) for publishing (once to a US publication - once to a Brazilian publication), twice. They chose to use others photos, instead, in the two instances - so there was never any licensing agreement presented to me. Therefore, I'm not familiar with what IS and what HAS BEEN "standard."
I DO, however, know VAGUE contract wording when I read it - and when it's VAGUE enough to allow for interpretation, it's NOT anything I'm going to be interested in participating in, whatsoever (personally).
Anyone else who wants to risk losing control of the rights to their work with such shady worded legalese, good luck.