As a freelance photographer this is the way I work:

If you commission me to do photographic work for you and we agree on a price for the job and a specific level of output, whatever images I take for you belong to you. That means you essentially own the copyright and can do with them as you please (unless otherwise agreed on).

If I do a job where I am not being paid by somebody but they would like to use my images then we would agree on usage and I would either retain the copyright or sell it to the buyer.

At the end of the day it is all about negotiation over intellectual property. Make sure you are dealing with reasonable photographers who actually know a thing or two about how business works.

Unfortunately there are literally hundreds of wannabe pro's out there who may be able to take a shot but they have no idea how to act in a professional manner or negotiate usage with their clients. This drags the industry down.

In my opinion if you are commissioning them to do a job they wouldn't ordinarily have done then you must insist on them releasing the copyright to you PRIOR to commencing with the shoot.

Are there any rights for the person that a photo was taken of and used for advertisements??

It's up to the photographer to say what the images may be used for.

Most are happy with a once off payment.

Otherwise they should say, for usuage in such and such media.

www.metatron1618.blogspot.com

It's very simple; it depends what the contractual agreement is. I'm not a photographer but any journalist or photographer who just sells himself for a flat rate is not a professional.

A cover shoot will obviously be more expensive than a couple of background pics. If you go to the SAFREA web site, you will find out exactly how ethics and journalism are combined professionally.

...each time I use the pictures. We asked a photographer to take specific photographs for our marketing collateral so that we have a library of pictures to use whenever required. This was made very clear to him. At the end of the shoot I was given a CD of all the photographs taken. I then gave this to my designer to use in some new marketing collateral, and I've been told that I have to pay for them to be used for each new marketing piece I create. When we commissioned the photographer it was clearly mentioned that we want a library for usage whenever required and that was the bases for budget outlay of R50k for the whole exercise. So I clearly feel that this is unfair practice, but no contract was signed.

I am hearing a number of conflicting understandings here, even from the so called 'professionals' in the business. Is there no clear mandate set down by the photographic industry, or is it a case of 'every man for himself'. Winner takes all?

Yes, it is. There is no cohesion and each GWC (Guy With Camera) makes up his own rules. There is no formal Photographic body to speak of. The PPSA (Professional Photographers of SA) has to all intents and purposes disappeared. As a previous poster said, SAFREA is about all there is. SAFREA is very good but is not devoted exclusively to the photographers (and their clients) cause.
Digital photography has opened the "I'm a photographer" flood gates and without getting into a discussion about this, suffice it to say there are many wannabe's out there who are selling themselves as photographers. Buyer beware.
Buyer beware when you commission a photographer, and as with anything, if you pay peanuts... you know the rest.
In South Africa image copyright is by default not on the photographers side (an apartheid legacy, apparently) So those in the know have taken steps to retain the copyright of their own work by including a terms and conditions on quotes or invoices. This is where a client can come unstuck, or not depending on what they've negotiated and recorded.
Why we try to hold onto our copyright is because there's usually a latent value in an image and a lot of revenue can be generated passively far into the future, subject dependent of course (think Getty image library).
But in a nutsack, there is no standard and it makes things difficult for clients and photographers alike. Photographers generally are a motley crew of individual "artists" who don't want to belong to the herd. When you want to hire one to shoot your corporate brochure or your dog, you are going to have to weed out the GWC's from the true pros and read the fine print. That means actually looking at portfolios to see that the persons style is what you're after. Many people simply hire a guy because he's a photographer, but it's a many faceted quagmire of styles attitudes and skills!
A clients other option is to book a photographer through an agent, that way you'll get professional work, but expect to pay top dollar for it. That said, you'll still go through a rights and usage wrangle and if you want to own the copyright (ie. do what you want with them) you'll pay more.
It's a free for all, it can end up costing you big.

It's all about communication. Usage must be agreed upon upfront. If photographs are taken from my image library, I charge for one-time usage. If the image is used again, I expect the publisher to have the good manners, decency and professionalism to contact me. I am happy to negotiate a reuse fee, or even waive the fee, but I do expect to have a say over it. If, on the other hand, I am asked to take specific photographs, according to a brief, and am paid for it, I am not going to sell those pics on to another client. For the sake of good customer relations, and for the sake of ongoing business, I do not require a reuse fee on those pics, although many photographers do (and they are not wrong in insisting on further payment). But it's all about respect for each other as professionals, fair negotiations, and coming to an agreement before the job is done.

Go see www.c21.org.za

then join South Africa's Freelancers Association www.safrea.co.za

Protective over my images? I most certainly am, and you know why? Because of the pinching and underhand dealings I have experienced in 8 years as a pro. As a freelancer you are tested daily by people who want everything for nothing, and who have very little understanding for expecting fair renumeration for images used on an ongoing basis. Look at this from a marketing managers point of view. If I paid a photographer to click for me than I would expect to pay once off and be done, and certainly not have the inconvenience of having to pay each time I whip out the CD and plug a few shots THAT I PAID FOR into a marketing campaign. But then again books and stock libraries for example are on another pricing page - paid for each usage.

The big problem in my view is the countless 'Photographers' who got a camera for christmas and jumps on the bandwagon with a microphone, who may know how to take a descent shot but doesn't have a clue how to do business, so does it for practically nothing - it brings the standard down to the point where the same job can be quoted on and differ by some incredible margin...the result is a client scratching his head and more than likely taking the opinion that one is over charging, only that it really means they are getting the real deal!!

I personaly don't give away copyright as I liken this to painting an painting, selling it and painting the new owners name as the artist. What I do do is negotiate SUBSIDUARY USAGE RIGHTS that range from client to client. Images commissioned also have a limited time value in many cases, so I most often negotiate an exclusive usage rights agreement for a 12 month period, after which I can use the images again. But I also add in that I am in my rights to use the images to gain new business, i.e. in a portfolio to prospective clients.
The crux of this issue, in my opinion, is that photographers are largely on the defensive when it comes to 'protecting' images and squeezing every cent out of a good image which is fair enough. However, this attutude needs to be conbined with an understanding that clients don't often understand why we are so protective and need to be educated and guided to an understanding and most importantly a descision. Each case needs to judged on its own merits, but understanding your client and being open and transparent in your business is crucial to staying credible. If copyright is not brought up then it is the photographers responsibility to broach the cubject to avoid conflict down the line. Otherwise most clients expect to pay once and be done - I know I would!