Licence for Images

[rub]

I have just started doing a bit of real estate photography. I am working with a new home builder and we did a test shoot last week (as I have no portfolio, and they wanted to see a sample).

So, they like the shots, had a few critiques (they really just liked the images with a heavier processing style the best), and we have come up with mutually agreeable terms and costs.

The only kicker is the licence for the images. In an email from their office: "also the kicker is, he does not agree with the one year license. In the past I guess he paid the photographer to take the pictures and he has all rights forever on all the pictures, this is what he would like with your pictures as well."

Is this common?

Any comments appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[photographyfanatic]

I would imagine you should be able to charge more for lifetime use and you should retain official copyrights so you could resell that image again if so inclined.

 

[rub]

Any idea how much more I would charge? Maybe a % more?

 

[Dwig]

Another approach would be to license the images restricting the use and not the time. License them for an unlimited time but only allow the current company to use them (non-transferable rights) and limit the useage to advertising and promotion of their company and services. You would then specify that you retain all other rights and use.

 

[KmH]

...... and we have come up with mutually agreeable terms and costs.

The only kicker is the licence for the images. In an email from their office: "also the kicker is, he does not agree with the one year license. In the past I guess he paid the photographer to take the pictures and he has all rights forever on all the pictures, this is what he would like with your pictures as well."

Is this common?

Any comments appreciated.

Thanks.

Right now! Log onto www.asmp.org and start studying about licenses and copyrights.

 

[musicaleCA]

Agreed. ASMP is an amazing resource for photography legaleaze.

 

[manaheim]

I agree with everyone and the options presented, but I would stick to my guns to some degree. You need to come away with something fair to you and to them. Unlimited forever licenses just aren't reasonable IMO... unless they pay a lot more. Like I'd think 3x or better.

WARNING! These are totally from-the-hip statements as I haven't started tightening up my licensing yet and don't plan to until the economy notably turns around. I know some of my competitors do this... in fact, one of them requires that they be called before their image is used for any further purposes, even within the term of the licensed usage.

 

[musicaleCA]

Getting the client to call you before they use a photo within the terms of the license seems like a little bit too much pressure on the client to me, but I'm a laid-back individual. Requiring that they inform you of such use within an alloted time and reserving the right to revoke their right to use the photo in whatever way they're intending to use it might be more reasonable. If you don't have the right to revoke their rights, then why have them contact you about it?

And thanks for the "3x" there, manaheim. A good number to consider in my own photography if I'm ever asked to give up all rights.