Speaker 1: Earners.
Speaker 2: What's up.
Speaker 3: You ever walk into a small business and everything just
Speaker 3: works like The checkout is fast, the receipts are digital,
Speaker 3: tipping is a breeze, and you're out the door before
Speaker 3: the line even builds. Odds are they're using Square. We
Speaker 3: love supporting businesses that run on Square because it just
Speaker 3: feels seamless. Whether it's a local coffee shop, a vendor
Speaker 3: at a pop up market, or even one of our
Speaker 3: merch partners, Square makes it easy for them to take payments,
Speaker 3: manage inventory, and run their business with confidence, all from
Speaker 3: one simple system. If you're a business owner or even
Speaker 3: just thinking about launching something soon, Square is hands down
Speaker 3: one of the best tools out there to help you start, run,
Speaker 3: and grow. It's not just about payments, it's about giving
Speaker 3: you time back so you can focus on what matters
Speaker 3: most Ready. To see how Square can transform your business,
Speaker 3: visit Square dot com backslash go backslash eyl to learn
Speaker 3: more that Square dot com backslash, go backslash eyl. Don't wait,
Speaker 3: don't hesitate. Let's Square handle the back end so you
Speaker 3: can keep pushing your vision forward. This episode is brought
Speaker 3: to you by P and C Bank, a lot of
Speaker 3: people think podcasts about work are boring, and sure they
Speaker 3: definitely can be, but understanding of professionals routine shows us
Speaker 3: how they achieve their success little by little, day after day.
Speaker 3: It's like banking with P and C Bank. It might
Speaker 3: seem boring to save, plan and make calculated decisions with
Speaker 3: your bank, but keeping your money boring is what helps
Speaker 3: you live or more happily fulfilled life. P and C
Speaker 3: Bank Brilliantly Boring since eighteen sixty five. Brilliantly Boring since
Speaker 3: eighteen sixty five is a service mark of the PNC
Speaker 3: Financial Service Group, Inc. P and C Bank National Association
Speaker 3: Member FDIC.
Speaker 1: You know what I'd tell a lot of photographers, just
Speaker 1: look out for that word work for hire. Work for
Speaker 1: hire means literally you don't own anything that you took.
Speaker 1: So if you sign any contract and say work for
Speaker 1: hiring you're a photographer that they own that photo. They
Speaker 1: can do whatever they want with it, t shirts, product,
Speaker 1: sell it, flip it, whatever they want to do with it.
Speaker 1: You don't own it anymore. So you look out for
Speaker 1: those terms. But then you when you went into contracts.
Speaker 1: Most of the Nike and Nadidas unless it's something like major,
Speaker 1: they don't really need it longer than like a year
Speaker 1: or two, and they'll buy like global rights to use
Speaker 1: it what they call above the line or below the
Speaker 1: line above the line, meaning they can use it like
Speaker 1: for anything in terms of like on a product or
Speaker 1: on a billboard or a lot of stuff. Then some
Speaker 1: of the below the liwn might be social media or
Speaker 1: Instagram things like. It may have different tiers to what
Speaker 1: they can use it for, but that's where the money
Speaker 1: is at, because that's when you own your content. Then
Speaker 1: you can start to charge for like licensing and rights
Speaker 1: and things of that nature.
Speaker 2: So been a can right well cam. But then speaking
Speaker 2: of Nike, is the iconic situation with Jordan's. Remember this
Speaker 2: situation years ago with the photo of him like when
Speaker 2: you think his rookie season, and the photographer sued Nike.
Speaker 2: It was like a twenty year lawsuit and I think
Speaker 2: he actually ended up losing, but it was a very
Speaker 2: public situation where he the iconic. The thing the Jordan's
Speaker 2: actually that I'm thinking about as the jumpman, the Jumpman symbol.
Speaker 2: The photographer that took the photo of the Jumpman symbol
Speaker 2: was trying to sue Nike because he was saying that
Speaker 2: it was his intellectual.
Speaker 1: Property that made them choose the logo exactly.
Speaker 2: And like I said, I don't think that he actually
Speaker 2: won that lawsuit, but it was like a twenty year,
Speaker 2: extensive fight, eight millions of dollars and da da da.
Speaker 2: But here's my thing. I respect the photographer, but if
Speaker 2: I'm paying somebody take a photo, then I don't. I
Speaker 2: just don't understand. Why is it not my photo? Right?
Speaker 1: That's fair. I'm not saying that it's right, it's just
Speaker 1: the way the laws are written that if you don't
Speaker 1: make me sign a paperwork to grant you those rights,
Speaker 1: just the way the laws are.
Speaker 2: So technically, anybody that takes a photo. If you take
Speaker 2: a photo of me, right, and I use that photo
Speaker 2: for set album cover, and that album sells ten million records, right,
Speaker 2: and then you come back five years later and say, Okay,
Speaker 2: I want twenty percent of these record sales. You can't
Speaker 2: do that, though, But what can you do? You can't
Speaker 2: do that per se. So in a situation like that,
Speaker 2: if I take a photo of.
Speaker 1: Either one of you all and we didn't do no paperwork,
Speaker 1: and then you exploited the photo and work, I could
Speaker 1: be subject to certain rights. Right, So the first thing
Speaker 1: that's gonna happen. My best friend's a lawyer, so he
Speaker 1: done already gain me his game because I thought the
Speaker 1: same way, like a million dollars, somebody play with me. Well,
Speaker 1: the first thing that's the first thing that happens is
Speaker 1: really like that. They're going to say, what are your
Speaker 1: true damages? Right? So, like, how did this did you
Speaker 1: doing that impact my ability to monetize that photograph? So
Speaker 1: then they're gonna go into my records and say, well,
Speaker 1: right now, if you take a dope photo, how much
Speaker 1: money do you make off that photo? So if I
Speaker 1: have no proof of like every time I take a photo,
Speaker 1: I'm making a million dollars. If I don't have that,
Speaker 1: if it's like, well, you've never sold your work and art,
Speaker 1: you've never put out an album cover yourself that went
Speaker 1: and made money off of, then they'll go to the
Speaker 1: precedent of what you have and then they'll say, all right,
Speaker 1: you might be old standard rights, what photo album cover
Speaker 1: thousand dollars fifty hundred whatever, They're gonna go down to
Speaker 1: what my damages are. And now I can prove that
Speaker 1: by you doing that, you stop my ability and I
Speaker 1: had a clean ability to make money off that image,
Speaker 1: and you exploited that and stole that from me. I
Speaker 1: would have to kind of prove how that impacted me
Speaker 1: in terms of what my numbers would be. But there's
Speaker 1: nobody in the history, as far as I know, a
Speaker 1: music industry that's ever gotten percentage of an album sell
Speaker 1: for an album cover. And then I got to prove
Speaker 1: that those sales were are all based off of my photo,
Speaker 1: not that you're a dope rapper and you did thirty
Speaker 1: other things.
Speaker 2: Let's use a better example. Let's use a photo that's
Speaker 2: put on merch. That happens a lot. You see iconic
Speaker 2: photos of like Supreme with yep dip set right, or
Speaker 2: you see Mike Tyson, somebody that's used a lot in
Speaker 2: photos for merch, did Biggie Yep did the Biggie image.
Speaker 2: That's a lot on photos. So a lot of a lot,
Speaker 2: a lot of merch has been sold with for iconic
Speaker 2: photos that were photo shoots that got turned into actual merch.
Speaker 2: How does that work?
Speaker 1: So you you have a better chance of winning that
Speaker 1: one because the person bought that photo based off the
Speaker 1: visual I mean, bought that T shirt or merch based
Speaker 1: off the visual of what's on it. So it's harder
Speaker 1: for a brand or somebody to say they didn't buy
Speaker 1: it because of this photo. It's like this on the
Speaker 1: damn you know what I mean, it's there. It's not
Speaker 1: like music where I bought it to hear the song.
Speaker 1: I bought it for that. So you have a better
Speaker 1: chance of winning those. So like people have sue, like
Speaker 1: Urban Outfitters and I want to say, H and M.
Speaker 1: Someone have gotten sued off for that. I know it's
Speaker 1: a big TUPAC case where it's on his photos in
Speaker 1: the Urban Outfitters shirt and they sued and he won
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands of dollars. Photographer photographer did.
Speaker 4: The photographer who took Cam's iconic pink f pink cell
Speaker 4: phone he put that on a T shirt. Yeah, the
Speaker 4: dude who actually took the picture sued yep, and he won.
Speaker 1: Yeah he will win.
Speaker 4: Yeah, he had to. So Cam actually well I don't
Speaker 4: know if he's paid it yet, but he deal was
Speaker 4: actually a judgment where he has to pay the photographer
Speaker 4: using a picture of himself. That's crazy, which is like
Speaker 4: when you think about it's like.
Speaker 1: It's wild, but it's an art form. See that's the
Speaker 1: part that people have to respect. It's like if I
Speaker 1: painted you or if I did like I literally had
Speaker 1: to do something to make that image. It is a
Speaker 1: true I think it's a true collaboration. In my opinion,
Speaker 1: I think it should be fifty to fifty my opinion,
Speaker 1: that's how I think it should work, because that photo
Speaker 1: of cam is nothing. If that was Joe Blow on
Speaker 1: the street in the same outfit with the same phone
Speaker 1: to his ear, cam Ron made that photo what it is.
Speaker 1: So I definitely think that there has to be some
Speaker 1: type of synergy between a respect between both sides. But
Speaker 1: it has to be both sides because some artists take
Speaker 1: advantage of it on this side and they take a
Speaker 1: photo and they just do whatever they want with it,
Speaker 1: don't even talk to you about it. It's like it's got
Speaker 1: to go both ways. I know Jonathan Manon was in
Speaker 1: a big suit against jay Z over that, and they
Speaker 1: had a really big lawsuit where jay was suing Jonathan
Speaker 1: because he kept selling his artwork, like selling photos of
Speaker 1: jay Z for tens thousands of dollars. But Jonathan's like,
Speaker 1: I own it to who own it? I want to say.
Speaker 1: They settled out of court. I'm not sure who won
Speaker 1: or what they what the resolution, But you're talking about
Speaker 1: Jonathan Mayon, who's whole career he shot every single jay
Speaker 1: Z album. Girl, Like their connection is crazy. To ever
Speaker 1: see them have to go to litigation just proves that
Speaker 1: there's something wrong with the waiter the laws set up
Speaker 1: honestly for both parties, like something needs to be done
Speaker 1: with it. Butareness to like the subject matter subjects that's
Speaker 1: being shot, you don't own it until you it works.
Speaker 2: So what's this thing I've been seeing on social media
Speaker 2: about people that shoot videos that like, let's say like
Speaker 2: this video that we're shooting out right, we don't own
Speaker 2: the video. I've seen like this thing like similar to that, you.
Speaker 1: Don't own it. That guy that turned that camera owns it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what's that about.
Speaker 1: It's the same concept.
Speaker 2: Explain that it's the same.
Speaker 4: So it's like I pressed, I left the cameras on,
Speaker 4: I turned it on.
Speaker 2: Don't do that.
Speaker 1: To be like that like that.
Speaker 2: So yeah, so explain that because for content creators to
Speaker 2: understan nobody ever thinks about that, right, Like you're shooting
Speaker 2: a podcast, you're shooting an episode, you're shooting even a
Speaker 2: rap video, right, and you know you got a videographer,
Speaker 2: You're gonna pay the videographer. So I'm paying you for
Speaker 2: your services. You set the camera up, but I'm the
Speaker 2: one that's actual doing it. It's the work.
Speaker 1: Yep. It's the same way with photography. Whoever is behind
Speaker 1: that camera that pushed the button in that composition the
Speaker 1: photo and created the layout and the set, that person
Speaker 1: technically owns it. Now, I do think it gets a
Speaker 1: little tricky. I'm not a lawyer by any means, but
Speaker 1: I do think it gets a little tricky if you
Speaker 1: guys own the camera that they're using. So these cameras
Speaker 1: come with copyright information built into the camera. So when
Speaker 1: I buy my camera, the first thing I do out
Speaker 1: of my camera is I set my copyright information within
Speaker 1: the camera that automatically is imprinted on anything captured with
Speaker 1: this camera. You do that, it's setting for your camera.
Speaker 1: You going there and you just put your name copyright this.
Speaker 1: So that is one way. So now if it's y'all's
Speaker 1: cameras and I just hand you my cameras to take
Speaker 1: a photo of me, it gets it can get kind
Speaker 1: of tricky to say that. Now I gotta say you
Speaker 1: did that it's because I bought it. Now, if I'm
Speaker 1: bringing my own camera, my own lighting, my own to
Speaker 1: y'all's thing and I shoot it, and if that payment
Speaker 1: and spell out that this is a work for hire
Speaker 1: or this is in exchange for that, I technically could
Speaker 1: say I own it. Now, will I win in long like?
Speaker 1: Because some things are still gonna be about like what
Speaker 1: you know, Like did you know that or were you
Speaker 1: whether you up front that you owned it, and did
Speaker 1: you do certain things on your end to ensure that
Speaker 1: there's clarity there? Because if I go along with the
Speaker 1: idea of letting you all do what y'all want to
Speaker 1: do with it, I don't believe I can just like
Speaker 1: undercut you later like, oh, they don't know that they
Speaker 1: didn't sign a paper where I'm gonna wait TOI this
Speaker 1: blow up, Like I don't think you can do that
Speaker 1: in good faith and still be doing business and then
Speaker 1: I'm gonna catch them ten years later. I don't. I
Speaker 1: don't think you can do that, And I think you're
Speaker 1: gonna have a harder time winning that one if in
Speaker 1: good faith you let them, you let them to believe
Speaker 1: they owned it and could do whatever they want with it.
Speaker 1: But it's it's a real thing, and it's it's becoming
Speaker 1: more real now with more content being created and these
Speaker 1: these things coming out, like you gotta know what it is.
Speaker 5: An illegal alien from charged with raping a child in Massachusetts.
Speaker 5: An MS thirteen gang member from Al Salvador accused of
Speaker 5: murdering a Texas man of Venezuelan charged with filming and
Speaker 5: selling child pornography in Michigan. These are just some of
Speaker 5: the heinous migrant criminals caught because of President Donald J.
Speaker 5: Trump's leadership. I'm Christy Noman, the United States Secretary of
Speaker 5: Homeland Security. Under President Trump, attempted illegal border crossings are
Speaker 5: at the lowest levels ever recorded, and over one hundred
Speaker 5: thousand illegal aliens have been arrested. If you are here illegally,
Speaker 5: your next you will be fined nearly one thousand dollars
Speaker 5: a day, imprisoned, and deported. You will never return. But
Speaker 5: if you register using our CBP home app and leave now,
Speaker 5: you could be allowed to return legally. Do what's right.
Speaker 5: Leave now. Under President Trump, America's laws, border and families
Speaker 5: will be protected.
Speaker 4: Sponsored by the United States Department of Homeland Security,