All Vice and no virtue in unfair contract
IT IS BAD enough when a publisher wants all rights to use your work through technologies yet to be discovered in all universes yet to be invented for less than they should pay for one use. Photo District News reports a response to its appeal for examples of unfair contracts, from a website in the Vice group. In 2103 Rupert Murdoch paid $70m for a 5% stake in the Vice group, valuing the company at more than $1bn back then (and maybe $4 billion now).
The contract includes: "Photographer grants, transfers and assigns to Vice, its agents, assigns, licensees and successors, in perpetuity..." and so distressingly familiar on. But then:
"Photographer hereby expressly releases and indemnifies Vice, its agents, assigns, employees, licensees and successors from and against any and all claims, liabilities, demands, actions, causes of action, cost and expenses, whether at law or in equity, which a third party may have or may in the future have for invasion of privacy, commercial exploitation, false light, copyright or trademark infringement, libel, defamation, or any other cause of action arising out of the exploitation of the Photographs or any part thereof or by reason of Photographer's breach of any representations, warranties or agreements contained herein. Photographer acknowledges that Vice is relying upon the rights granted to it hereunder in entering into this Agreement."
The company did not answer the photographer's questions about the contract, so they declined.
It appears to the Freelance that the contract would make the photographer liable for any damage done to Vice's reputation by abuse of their images... and worse: see "Leave.EU stole Vice pix".