Licensing an Image

Gavjenks · Feb 28, 2014

Reav, I think those are good decisions. You could always offer an option, too.

Like "You can buy these negs and no restrictions for $X.00, or you can have just my edited versions for specific purposes (still way toned down from the original wording and page count) for $Y.00" etc. X being larger than Y, obviously. Especially pleasant if you have like maybe 3 easy to understand "packages." Benefits no matter what he chooses:
1) If he chooses the restricted version, you get what you originally envisioned, but almost no chance he feels like he was taken advantage of, because he made that choice.
2) If he chooses the less restricted, then you get more money, but you don't come across as greedy or inconsistent at all like you might if you just randomly tried to start negotiating up after having a history of lower costs. Again, he CHOSE that option.

Steve5D · Feb 28, 2014

Gavjenks said:
Going out of your way to help people is called good customer service. I was simply suggesting it as an optional thing that would very much be appreciated by most people and make you look honest and like you have yourself together. Also, only relevant for private individuals, corporations obviously won't care.

And when they ask for help, they get it to the Nth degree. I ask my clients, before they sign, if they understand everything in the contract or have any questions. If they say "NO", but they really do, well, they'd better not sign. If they do, it's on them. I've done my due diligence...

Yes. You do. Because if you don't offer a discount to make up for liabilities you cause me, then your services are effectively overpriced, and I will go to a competitor. Which affects YOUR business. This is not complicated stuff.

And my competitor is going to do the same thing I do. If you expect to license a photo once, and be able to use it forever, he's going to tell you to walk.

Make no mistake: No one client is so important to my business that I'll move Heaven and Earth to keep him. I do what's reasonable, and I do what's fair. If a client isn't interested in being fair, as well, I don't want him as a client.

Period.

Now, discounts for continued licensing? Sure, I've done that many times. But your original point was that you believe you should only have to pay the photographer once. Unless we're talking a major-league style payday for a very unique image particular to that one client, it's just not something that any reasonable pro will do...

Someone who allows emotion to dominate how their business is run is someone who shouldn't be in business...

No they shouldn't be. Of course.
BUT THEY ARE.[/quote]

And they won't be for long.

I don't worry about those people, nor do I worry about people, not unlike yourself, who believe that a one-time payment should satisfy your desire to have rights to an image forever. As I said earlier: That's insane...

And I help my friends try to filter out those people to avoid working with them. Delusional contract terms that demand things out of sync with competition without offering anything in exchange have proven to be an excellent measure of whether somebody is this sort of "business" person. In fact, the most effective measure I am aware of.

Please give us some examples of "delusional contract terms"...

Because it's not just ONE photographer. As I said, it's over half a dozen consistently where it turned out the prediction was correct. Doing other crazy stuff later on. Slandering the client in town who dared question their contract, things like that. I told you one story because I had time for one story.

If half a dozen photographers are reacting the same way to the same person, it really is time to allow for the very real possibility that the problem isn't the photographers...

It happens over and over. So if you're a photographer, it is probably good to keep in mind that how rational and fair and sane you appear on your contract can be a more accurate advertisement of how you do business than anything you put out in ads or anything you say in correspondence. That's all I'm saying here.

You're talking about both sides of your mouth. You've stated that you shouldn't have to pay to re-license an image. You believe you should be able to continue using it.

That's not fair.

And how about that question about the CD? Are you going to try to tackle that one?

Gavjenks · Feb 28, 2014

As per TiredIron's request I'm not going to dwell on this stuff.

The answer to pretty much all your questions at once though is that it's contextual. It depends on your local environment of competitors, and what they're charging. In Iowa City for wedding photography, trying to charge an average rate, but saying that you're going to artistically choose which photos you send to the client without them getting to see proofs would be an example of a delusional contract term. You are overcharging, and will lose clients. In North Carolina, or in a different photography niche, maybe that's normal and you won't lose clients for it. Etc.

If half a dozen photographers are reacting the same way to the same person, it really is time to allow for the very real possibility that the problem isn't the photographers...

Also briefly: Not the same person. Various friends, various shoots. I am only seeing the contracts, and usually accurately predicting how crazy or not the photogs are from that, based on what I hear back about how it went. The type of contract is the common relevant factor.

Steve5D · Feb 28, 2014

I've been keeping John's request in mind, believe me.

But you're saying things which no rational businessman would adhere to, so I think the continued discussion, so long as we keep it on topic, is valuable.

Then again, perhaps I've presumed too much.

How long have you been operating your photography business?

Steve5D · Feb 28, 2014

Gavjenks said:
As per TiredIron's request I'm not going to dwell on this stuff.

The answer to pretty much all your questions at once though is that it's contextual. It depends on your local environment of competitors, and what they're charging. In Iowa City for wedding photography, trying to charge an average rate, but saying that you're going to artistically choose which photos you send to the client without them getting to see proofs would be an example of a delusional contract term. You are overcharging, and will lose clients. In North Carolina, or in a different photography niche, maybe that's normal and you won't lose clients for it. Etc.

If half a dozen photographers are reacting the same way to the same person, it really is time to allow for the very real possibility that the problem isn't the photographers...

Click to expand...

Also briefly: Not the same person. Various friends, various shoots. I am only seeing the contracts, and usually accurately predicting how crazy or not the photogs are from that, based on what I hear back about how it went. The type of contract is the common relevant factor.

You continue to dodge the CD question...

Gavjenks · Feb 28, 2014

But you're saying things which no rational businessman would adhere to

Um, "No rational businessman" would pay attention to their competition and avoid terms that are more restrictive than what their competitors offer for the same price?
Lolwut?

How long have you been operating your photography business?

I have done supplemental income work for a couple of years now. But like I made clear earlier, my experience here is much more heavily in the client side of the equation. Due to a reputation as a person who is pretty good at evaluating contracts amongst my social circle of starving university types who can't afford lawyers (actually, I have LAWYER friends who ask for advice on contracts). Both client and photographer are equally important halves to a discussion of contract expectations, since they both need to be getting a good deal out of it and both have to sign it.

You continue to dodge the CD question...

It has nothing to do with the conversation. You need to pay the royalty if your album EULA says you do. This is a thread about designing contracts, not deciding whether you can get away with illegally breaching them or not...

Steve5D · Feb 28, 2014

Gavjenks said:
But you're saying things which no rational businessman would adhere to

Click to expand...

Um, "No rational businessman" would pay attention to their competition and avoid terms that are more restrictive than what their competitors offer for the same price?
Lolwut?

No rational businessman is going to allow you to pay for indefinitely licensing for one payment...

How long have you been operating your photography business?

I have done supplemental income work for a couple of years now.[/quote]

I'm sorry, are you a pro? I don't view "supplemental income work" as something a professional would do, but I'll allow for that possibility, I suppose. I don't know how many others here would, though...

But like I made clear earlier, my experience here is much more heavily in the client side of the equation. Due to a reputation as a person who is pretty good at evaluating contracts amongst my social circle of starving university types who can't afford lawyers. Both client and photographer are equally important halves to a discussion of contract expectations, since they both need to be getting a good deal out of it and both have to sign it.

So, it's probably no surprise that you're coming down on the client side of things. You're biased towards them and, as a result, view any contract with a critical eye only towards the photographer and not the client. Unfortunately, what you want as a client is largely unfair to the photographer...