Crouser & Associates Performance Group program helps printers prosper through
on-site assistance and twice yearly group meetings. For more information by
Email or call (304) 342-5100. Crouser Report OnLine is the
Copyright Thomas P. Crouser. Material may not be reproduced in whole or in part without written
consent. Current reports are on the WWW at http://www.printusa.com.
More: Who Owns The Plates?
Copyright January 10, 1996
Here s more discussion on the issue of who owns the plate.
First, Cy
Stapleton writes:
From: Hotline Cy
To: TomCrouser
In a message dated 96-01-02 17:00:42 EST, you write:
Now, personally, I do not recommend you extend the ownership of the tools
of production (plates, negatives, computer files) to the customer simply
because of the potential liability being incurred should something happen to
the customer s work while it is in your possession. You may, of course,
modify your terms and conditions of sale to whatever you wish.
This is a topic I covered some time back in one of my columns. One of my
customers, Scarborough Faire, had a Dallas area DTP shop create a brochure
for them using clip art elements and text that they provided the DTP
(typesetter?). They normally use the same brochure for two to three years,
changing only dates and occasionally prices. In the past the typographer had
given them boards and they simply ordered a few lines of galley type and
pasted that over the old type for the next year s brochure. In 1994, however,
the typesetter had converted to DTP and provided Scarborough the film only.
The brochure was designed with screen tints and ghost images with type
overprinted - making cut and past impossible.
When Scarborough went back for the changes for the 1994 brochure (only about
a half dozen lines of type) the DTP house quoted them $2,200 for those
changes - approximately the same as they charged for the original layout.
When Scarborough requested the boards so they could make their own
corrections, they were told that there were no boards and that the electronic
media Scarborough had paid over $2,000 for was their property and not
Scarborough s. Because of the time frame Scarborough had no choice but to
have them produce the new output, but that is the last bit of work that shop
will ever get from this customer.
I had attempted to get Scarborough to include in their contract that the
boards and/or any electronic media was their property and must be returned as
a file that could be read or modified by commonly available software (the job
was produced using Corel Draw and PageMaker 5.0.) Needless to say, they
didn t heed this warning and ended up paying over $2,000 for a job that
should have cost them less than $100 - including film.
My policy whether working with artists, writers, photographers, design
studios, or typographers that the work they get from me is done on a work
for hire basis and that I own the hard copy, electronic media, negatives, or
whatever. There are many who will not go along with my requirements but I
never have any trouble finding one who will. Photographers are the hardest to
deal with. Perhaps that s why there are so many starving photographers. cy.
Thanks for your letter Cy.
I think a customer who specifies, as you
indicated, that they want the files, boards, etc. can usually obtain them
from the printer. My problem is that when it is defined by some sort of trade
customs that the customer owns these tools, and where it is common for the
printer to maintain them between printings, then the printer is liable for
their safekeeping and therefore is exposed to a humongous liability. I don t
feel the typical printer would want to take on such a risk.
By the way, this is the same legal issue (in my printer s opinion) as parking
lots face. Parking lots have signs saying Park at your own risk. We don t
take liability for your car, belongings, life, etc. Otherwise, if they had a
fire and cars were destroyed (I actually know of one case of a parking lot
burning), the parking lot would be liable for the cars- - - far exceeding
their compensation in parking fees.
Again, thanks for the letter. Here s another letter on the same topic.
Subj: Re: Who Owns The Plates?
From: RayANDREWS
To: TomCrouser
According to a legal-beagle friend of mine, if you itemize the plates on
your invoice, he owns them. If you don t, you own them. The problem, from a
sales point is, can you justify the cost of making the plates, without
itemizing them? And how do you justify the lower cost of a reorder? So, I
guess, most of us just wishy-washy along -- or claim we did the job with
disposable megalith plates-- doing metal on the come for reorders.
Comments?
Well, Ray, if you include language in a Terms and Conditions of Sale clearly
spelling out who owns the plate, I think you would overcome this deficiency,
if it is one. Another attack is simply use an non-itemized invoice if
necessary.
And another reader writes:
Subj: Re: Who Owns The Plates?
From: webber@ix.netcom.com (Paul)
To: TomCrouser@aol.com
I have been in the printing trade for 20 years and have worked in many shops
around the country. Every shop that I worked in has held the policies that
all art negs and plates are the customers property IF they requested them.
This only seems to happen when someone is not happy and we all know the
customer is always Right!
Just my 2 cents. Paul Cashman http://www.lookup.com/Homepages/37499/home.html
Thanks, Paul. I think most of us would allow the customer to take the plate
as you indicate, as a practical matter. However, I d see a real problem if
the policy doesn t spell out by when the customer has to request them. For
instance, if the customer requests them at the time the job was done is one
thing. However, if the customer waited seven years and then requested them,
it would be something else. If the terms and conditions of sale are silent on
the issue and it is a policy, then it could be argued that we would be
liable for remaking plates, art work, etc. for a job several years old that
the customer will take to another printer once you furnish them.
I think the following message from Dave Fellman, hits the nail on the head.
Subj: Re: Who Owns The Plates?
From: DFallT
To: TomCrouser
Tom:
I agree with your recommendation that a printer not extend blanket ownership
of plates and other production materials to customers...for all of the
reasons you stated.
But I would add this caveat from a sales/marketing standpoint: If a customer
ever asks you for film or plates related to a job you ve previously run - -
with the intention of sending a reorder of that job to another printer - - I
recommend that the printer cheerfully turn those materials over to the
customer. At that point, the printer has lost the job. A good attitude about
these materials might save the customer. As I see it, the printer would have
little to lose and lots to gain. (I wouldn t see anything wrong with a
disclaimer to the effect of these materials worked fine on our equipment,
but we extend no warrantee that they will produce the same results on another
printer s equipment.)
What do you think?.... Dave Fellman
Again, I think it s a fine approach to a sticky problem and I would
wholeheartedly endorse Dave s approach. To summarize, I would spell out the
ownership of the tools of production rest solely with the printer within the
terms and conditions of sale. Then, should the printer wish, give the
negatives to the customer as a customer accomodation.
Until next time, Happy Trails To You. . . . . .Tom Crouser
Crouser & Associates Performance Group program includes two on-site evaluations
by Tom Crouser each year along with two group meetings. Management training is held during the group
meetings along with participation in a meeting with non-competing printers. Join others who have decided
to run their business instead of the business running them. Reply to by Email to
Tom Crouser for more detailed information or call Clark Workman
at (304) 342-5100. Or fax (304) 342-5187 or contact crouser@ibm.net.
Return to Crouser Index
Date inserted: Thursday, February 01, 1996 3:48:39 PM
Return to PrintUSA home page WWW at http://www.printusa.com.