Photo licensing questions?!?!?!?!!?

[diskojoe]

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

[Okayyou]

Originally Posted by diskojoe

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.

[diskojoe]

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

[flar]

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.

[mr.John]

Originally Posted by flar

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

[JManc]

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.

[flar]

Originally Posted by mr.John

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.

[Doady]

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?

[bulliver]

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.

[vid]

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.

[diskojoe]

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.

[flar]

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.

[diskojoe]

Originally Posted by flar

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.

[Doady]

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.

[diskojoe]

Originally Posted by Doady

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.

[diskojoe]

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.