HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Photography Forums > General Photography


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2012, 8:15 PM
diskojoe's Avatar
diskojoe diskojoe is offline
3rd Coast King
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,671
Photo licensing questions?!?!?!?!!?

I was presented with an offer to license one of my photos by a financial investment start up. The agreement goes as follows:

This agreement between licensor and licensee is exclusive. The Licensor agrees to not enter into
separate license agreements with third parties interested in using the same image(s) listed in
Attachment A.

By this agreement, the licensor allows the licensee to use, display, and publish the image(s) listed in
Attachment A in any commercial, personal, non-profit or editorial projects involving advertising, print
media, web site publication, or broadcast as chosen by the licensee.

The usage will be perpetual. Licensor represents that he is the sole owner of the copyright of the
image(s) listed in Schedule A, and upon execution of this agreement licensor remains the sole owner of
the copyright of the image(s) listed in Attachment A. No transfer of intellectual property is made by this
agreement.

As good and valuable consideration for this agreement, the licensee agrees to pay the licensor a lump
sum of $250.


Just wanting to get peoples opinions of this arrangement. Personally I think it is a bit low for what they are asking.

This is the photo in question:

Sam Houston Statue by DiskoJoe, on Flickr
__________________
Photo Threads
Flickr
Facebook

My Book
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2012, 10:44 PM
Okayyou's Avatar
Okayyou Okayyou is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 1,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by diskojoe View Post
I was presented with an offer to license one of my photos by a financial investment start up. The agreement goes as follows:

This agreement between licensor and licensee is exclusive. The Licensor agrees to not enter into
separate license agreements with third parties interested in using the same image(s) listed in
Attachment A.

By this agreement, the licensor allows the licensee to use, display, and publish the image(s) listed in
Attachment A in any commercial, personal, non-profit or editorial projects involving advertising, print
media, web site publication, or broadcast as chosen by the licensee.

The usage will be perpetual. Licensor represents that he is the sole owner of the copyright of the
image(s) listed in Schedule A, and upon execution of this agreement licensor remains the sole owner of
the copyright of the image(s) listed in Attachment A. No transfer of intellectual property is made by this
agreement.

As good and valuable consideration for this agreement, the licensee agrees to pay the licensor a lump
sum of $250.


Just wanting to get peoples opinions of this arrangement. Personally I think it is a bit low for what they are asking.

This is the photo in question:

Sam Houston Statue by DiskoJoe, on Flickr
I'd find out what they plan on doing with the image. If they are using it for a nation wide print campaign then 250 is way low. If they are going to use it for a single print brochure then 250 might be about right. Has anyone tried fotquote or blinbid estimating software?

On a side note, I was contacted by a company for use of one of my Denver skyline shots. They offered around 300. So 250 might be in the range depending on how they use it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2012, 12:32 AM
diskojoe's Avatar
diskojoe diskojoe is offline
3rd Coast King
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,671
I already know that it would not be a one time use. It is a financial company and they want to use this for the web, pamphlets, business cards, signs.

They are going to slap a logo on this and use the crap out of it.

But your insight is helpful none the less. Thanks
__________________
Photo Threads
Flickr
Facebook

My Book
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2012, 11:15 AM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is online now
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 13,837
they're asking for perpetual exclusive rights and unlimited use. i would be looking at multiplying their offer by a factor of at least ten. You're basically giving up the photo. They're trying to take advantage of you, no professional photog would ever enter an agreement like that.

You'd be better off negotiating shorter term agreement with an option to renew.
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2012, 4:52 PM
mr.John mr.John is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by flar View Post
they're asking for perpetual exclusive rights and unlimited use. i would be looking at multiplying their offer by a factor of at least ten. You're basically giving up the photo. They're trying to take advantage of you, no professional photog would ever enter an agreement like that.

You'd be better off negotiating shorter term agreement with an option to renew.
Yeah but ask yourself one question..does he have another potential customer for the photograph? a customer willin to pay much more than $250, if the answer is no ,than he should make the deal. There's an old Italian saying "he who wants too much ends up with nothing" or something along that line

Last edited by mr.John; Aug 30, 2012 at 7:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2012, 5:59 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 30,023
i'd take it. you take so many great pictures that if an oppurtunity comes up for more money, you'll have plenty of other pictures to choose from.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2012, 6:03 PM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is online now
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 13,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.John View Post
Yeah but ask yourself one question..does he have another potentional customer for the the photograph? a customer willin to pay much more than $250, if the answer is no ,than he should make the deal. There's an old Italian saying "he who wants too much ends up with nothing" or something along that line
They could easily walk away. I guess it depends on how badly he wants $250 and how badly they want the photo. My point is that $250 is not a fair price. At least change the terms of the license to be more favourable to the seller.
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2012, 8:32 PM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,794
On a certain microstock photo website, an unlimited license for a photo costs at least $700, and that's without exclusivity. Why license for any less than that?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2012, 1:13 AM
bulliver's Avatar
bulliver bulliver is offline
So very tired...
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Nanaimo
Posts: 3,734
Dude, tell them to pound sand. For exclusive/perpetual rights for $250 you are getting raped. Don't undervalue your work for a few bucks. These pricks are getting away with paying so little because so many photogs see a cheque and sign their work away for peanuts.

$250 should get them non-exclusive rights for a year or two.
__________________
Support the mob or mysteriously disappear...
Ipernity | Recent SSP Photo threads:
Two Days in Winnipeg | Stuff I've seen so far this year in Edmonton | Rural Alberta Advantage | Edmonton AB - Third Quarter 2011
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2012, 1:23 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 40,997
My grandpa is always telling me to submit photos to the Weather Network and every time I explain to him, "they just want to own all the rights to my photo for free". I know local photographers who have done that and while it might be a way to get your name out there, they're referring to it as "amateur photographers"; do you want to be put under that title if you're trying to offer professional skills?

The only time I gave the rights to a photo that actually went to a successful project was an Environment Canada workbook for municipalities on how to deal with climate change, published two years ago. Every municipality in the country got multiple copies and my photo was put on the cover. I didn't want to pass that up. In retrospect I probably should have asked for money, but looking at the photos in side (few are as good as the one I took; likely the reason they choose it for the cover) I think they just got whatever they could get for free to illustrate their points. It's a nice publication, high quality paper and pretty interesting read. I've also given photos to a friend to use on a website as stock photos when he was starting up his site but there was no exclusivity about that. I just wanted to see him be a little more successful with the project.

If it is a private corporation with money, gouge them. If they don't pay up, they don't deserve the photo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2012, 1:50 AM
diskojoe's Avatar
diskojoe diskojoe is offline
3rd Coast King
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,671
Well I can tell you guys that Im not taking this deal as presented. I dont want to give them perpetual usage for anything they want. Thats not fair. I have seen what stock photo site offer and its not as good as mine.

BUt what I do know is that they want to use my image. So its all a question of approaching them with a counter offer.

And for the record this is one of my best photos. It is ranked 3rd on my flickr for interestingness. It made it into the Group Texas top 20 and also was published by Houston Press. So not a slouch photo at all. They want the cream of the crop for shit pricing.
__________________
Photo Threads
Flickr
Facebook

My Book
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2012, 3:28 AM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is online now
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 13,837
I think the main problem is the terms: exclusive, perpetual, unlimited.
I suggest licensing the photo for a year. If the firm is successful and the photo is part of their branding, they'll have to pay you more to renew it.
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2012, 6:48 PM
diskojoe's Avatar
diskojoe diskojoe is offline
3rd Coast King
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by flar View Post
I think the main problem is the terms: exclusive, perpetual, unlimited.
I suggest licensing the photo for a year. If the firm is successful and the photo is part of their branding, they'll have to pay you more to renew it.
Those were the key words that bothered me too. I thought it was stupid of them to advise I could keep the copyright but they would have an exclusive unlimted deal.

I think that a one year licensing deal would be a good way to start. I need to ask them more specifics on the types of media they want to use it for.
__________________
Photo Threads
Flickr
Facebook

My Book
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2012, 7:52 PM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,794
I could be wrong, but I think exclusive license just means you can't license to other people. You could still sell prints for example. You don't need a license to print your own photos.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2012, 9:18 PM
diskojoe's Avatar
diskojoe diskojoe is offline
3rd Coast King
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady View Post
I could be wrong, but I think exclusive license just means you can't license to other people. You could still sell prints for example. You don't need a license to print your own photos.
Correct. But with the wording of this agreement they could sell copies of my work or have their own personal prints also made and I would receive no profit from a direct reproduction of my own work.
__________________
Photo Threads
Flickr
Facebook

My Book
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2012, 10:15 PM
diskojoe's Avatar
diskojoe diskojoe is offline
3rd Coast King
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,671
UPDATE

So they contacted me back regarding the agreement. I advised that it was not acceptable and that for unlimited usage the cost would be $2500 or they could set up an annual usage agreement but cost would vary depending on the types of media that the image would be used for.

Let's see if they respond back.

Thank you everyone for your feedback. All of the feedback I have received has been pretty consistent in regards to everyone thinks I was about to get screwed. This really helped me to make an informed response to the agreement presented to me.
__________________
Photo Threads
Flickr
Facebook

My Book
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Photography Forums > General Photography
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:14 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.