You paid me to write this copy…

A painter and decorator who painted my office a lovely grey matte, wants to license his work to me.

Bear in mind I paid them to do the work.

But they say what they created belongs to them, even though I paid them for their time and the space they painted is mine.

So now, when you pay a photographer to take pictures for you, and those pictures legally belong to them and not you, even though you paid them to take the photos which are of you or your work, it doesn’t sound quite so unfathomably unreasonable does it?

Except of course the painter did no such thing. Nor do any other creative people in the industry. Just photographers.

Now, if my painter (or photographer) worked for free in the HOPE that they could then license that work to me, then fair enough. But to pay them to do work, and then the work is instantly, legally theirs?!

Maybe you’d argue my analogy is weak: that unlike photography, slapping paint on walls isn’t ‘art’. So what about Make-Up Artists? Hairstylists? Designers? Copywriters? Can’t they claim that their work is art, and so should retain the license in case, god forbid, you used their output THAT YOU PAID FOR for commercial gain?

So I reckon that from now on, when a client asks my agency to create brand identities, artwork or even a PowerPoint deck, I’m going to charge them my usual rate and then license them for the use of my work while retaining the rights to license it elsewhere too. Only fair no?

I jest of course, but amazingly I’ve heard of agencies trying that on. Call me old-fashioned but I say that if you paid for it, it’s yours.