Licensing an Image

[tirediron]

Tirediron, that's a simple solution without a time limit. Just write in "For every commercial where these photographs are aired, I get ___. For every print ad, I get ___. For every online click through I get ___." etc.

What you're describing makes sense I suppose if the project is minor enough to not warrant the effort haggling over properly weighted numbers in royalties. But on the other hand, if it's a minor project/business/whatever, there's also fewer numbers to agree on (my dentist doesn't run TV ads and online ads and blah blah) and lower stakes for either of us if they're slightly suboptimal, so you don't NEED as much time haggling over royalties.

I can see a utility there, though. Still one I would demand a lower up front rate for of course.

How are you going to track that? Especially 'Pay per click' use... IMO, it's much simpler to say, "For the next year, you can do this, this, and this with the image for a price of $...."

 

[Gavjenks]

How are you going to track that?

How are YOU going to track it? This is not a relative advantage or disadvantage either way. Both our methods require an awareness of the state of their ad campaign. I need to know the general magnitude in order to estimate if they're honest and giving me the right amount of royalties. You need to know in order to decide whether to ask for a higher fee if the campaign has gone up in popularity. Or offer a lower fee if it's weakened (you should rather get fewer dollars and zero dollars). Failing to keep track potentially loses either of us money.

Still seems like the expiring license might be quick and easy and the right choice maybe for the local dentist, whereas I would want to put in the time to do proper royalties and not gamble on years of activity at a time, if it's a national car ad campaign that might dictate my salary for quite awhile.

But whatever, chocolate and strawberry ice cream. It's certainly a logical usage of time limits.

 

[tirediron]

At the end of the day, both will work. One has become more commonplace in the industry, simply I suspect because it requires less follow-up. The moral of the story is, however: Don't give it away if you can license it!

 

[Gavjenks]

Also, a good way to avoid problems with any of these things--if you're working with private individuals who don't know the standards--is to explain what you mean in the contract. Especially examples. Examples are perfectly fine in a contract and make it way less of a headache to understand, negotiate, or deal with in court if it comes to that (the phrase "including but not limited to" is your friend, though).

Or offer a legal contract along with a plain English description alongside of what it practically means. You can see things like this on many website ToS for instance. Sometimes even in two parallel columns.

You can offer probably the wackiest terms you want, and if you explain why, it's unlikely for people to be pissed off at you for it at the very least, and you can have a civil and productive negotiation if necessary.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I skipped on ahead but John (Tirediron) knows the business. To me the initial cost reflects the time and talent of the photographer in going out and taking the pictures and providing the photos; after that the payment would be for extending the use of the photo(s).

Seems like it would be underpricing if it's below the going rate, which seems to usually be a range so you could price at the lower end and not be underpriced. I would think if you need to underprice to get referrals there might be a need to think about how you're getting referrals and how beneficial it will be in the long run to be stuck at having to price low (because why will future clients pay a higher or even mid-range cost if their buddy got photos from you really cheap?).

Having to continue to work with/for this client besides taking photos for him seems to be the problem; from what's been described I wouldn't necessarily expect just because your cost was low end that this guy will go out of his way to refer you to other potential clients (if he will then maybe this will be worth it but the impression I'm getting is that it might turn out to have been more trouble than it was worth).

You might want to look up ASMP or PPA or websites for other professional photographers organizations and get some professional advice and info. on doing retail/commercial work. Or start reading PDN (Photo District News). I think getting informed can be a good way to be able to make good decisions.

 

[Steve5D]

I own a bar. I buy the latest Foo Fighters album and play it in my bar.
Should I have to pay someone every time I play that CD in my bar?

If you adhere to the terms and conditions printed on the packaging/EULA of most music albums, then yes, you should.

Oh, I'm well aware. ASCAP is a pit bull, too.

I was interested in Gavin's take on it, though. After all, if I bought the CD, it's mine, isn't it?

 

[Steve5D]

No. I'm not being dramatic. An incomprehensible rage. I told my brother to question and suggest changes to a number of questionable terms on a photographer's contract for his wedding (for instance she wanted to be able to sell his wedding photos later to anybody, even if it's like him smiling in a hemorrhoid ad). When he tried to negotiate, she immediately screamed at him at the top of her lungs "THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU DO." and sort of threw the contract at him and went on a garbled tirade about this is a small town, and you trust people here [unless you're a photographer apparently and give your clients 10 page super paranoid contracts like her], you don't question things, etc. and stormed out. Then refused contact.

So because one photographer goes off the reservation, all do?

Nice stereotype. Can we talk about blacks, rednecks, gays and Jews next?

But you know what? I'm gonna' say your story is just that; a story. It's BS. I don't know of any photographer who would act that way. I think you're making up a story in a failed attempt to prove a point regarding something you simply know nothing about.

It makes you look silly...

Individuals and small businesses are run by people with emotions that often dominate, or bizarre personality issues, they may or may not actually be making money, they may have all kinds of weird agendas, lawyers usually have NOT looked over their contract at all, etc. Especially in photography with a ton of quasi-businesses around.

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

And why do you deserve or require control over being able to deny me in the future (even if I want to keep paying)?

Because it's mine, that's why. If you lease a car, you don't just get to keep it at the end of the lease. You have to give it back or give the dealer more money if you want to keep it.

Think of licensing as leasing, not as buying...

The reason why not to do it is the potential of, for example, me needing to scramble to get new images from somebody and pay some graphic designer to redo ALL my stuff if for some reason you say "nope" after the time limit.

Um... Tough.

Here's a news flash for you, Chief: I care about my business more than I care about your business. It's always gonna' be that way. I don't care if you have to rehire some graphic designer to redo all your stuff, I really don't. I hope you find someone who'll give you a good deal on that. But you're outta' your mind if you think I'm going to want to see your business improve at the expense of mine.

That's nuts...

That risk is a liability. I have no reason to agree to a liability unless I'm getting reimbursed for it (appropriate discounts off of people with no time limits) or a good reason why it's necessary/logical.

And if I am getting enough discount for it, then I don't really care, I'll agree regardless. But I'm still curious, why would the photographer even particularly want this in the first place? I'm sure there are reasons in commercial photography! Just curious what they are.

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

I would still be interested in your response to my question about playing a CD in my bar. Should I have to pay someone every single time I play that CD in my bar?

 

[Steve5D]

Also, a good way to avoid problems with any of these things--if you're working with private individuals who don't know the standards--is to explain what you mean in the contract. Especially examples. Examples are perfectly fine in a contract and make it way less of a headache to understand, negotiate, or deal with in court if it comes to that (the phrase "including but not limited to" is your friend, though).

If someone doesn't understand something in my contract, they need to as me about it. I will happily explain it to them.

But I'm not Kreskin here. If they don't ask, it's perfectly fair for me to conclude that they understand it, as opposed to assuming they're afraid to ask about something. And, if they sign without asking, it's fair for me to conclude that they not only understand it, but that they agree with it, as well...

 

[robbins.photo]

Also, a good way to avoid problems with any of these things--if you're working with private individuals who don't know the standards--is to explain what you mean in the contract. Especially examples. Examples are perfectly fine in a contract and make it way less of a headache to understand, negotiate, or deal with in court if it comes to that (the phrase "including but not limited to" is your friend, though).

If someone doesn't understand something in my contract, they need to as me about it. I will happily explain it to them.

But I'm not Kreskin here. If they don't ask, it's perfectly fair for me to conclude that they understand it, as opposed to assuming they're afraid to ask about something. And, if they sign without asking, it's fair for me to conclude that they not only understand it, but that they agree with it, as well...

But kreskin5d does have a really nice ring to it...

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

 

[Steve5D]

Also, a good way to avoid problems with any of these things--if you're working with private individuals who don't know the standards--is to explain what you mean in the contract. Especially examples. Examples are perfectly fine in a contract and make it way less of a headache to understand, negotiate, or deal with in court if it comes to that (the phrase "including but not limited to" is your friend, though).

If someone doesn't understand something in my contract, they need to as me about it. I will happily explain it to them.

But I'm not Kreskin here. If they don't ask, it's perfectly fair for me to conclude that they understand it, as opposed to assuming they're afraid to ask about something. And, if they sign without asking, it's fair for me to conclude that they not only understand it, but that they agree with it, as well...

But kreskin5d does have a really nice ring to it...

Ya' think? I wasn't sure...

 

[robbins.photo]

Ya' think? I wasn't sure...

Oh ya.. great ring to it. Of couse you would have to do one of those flourish thingies everytime you hit the shutter button.. lol

 

[Gavjenks]

But I'm not Kreskin here. If they don't ask, it's perfectly fair for me to conclude that they understand it, as opposed to assuming they're afraid to ask about something. And, if they sign without asking, it's fair for me to conclude that they not only understand it, but that they agree with it, as well...

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.

I don't care if you have to rehire some graphic designer to redo all your stuff, I really don't.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.




"I crammed in all the terms I could to help me and didn't consider you much in this contract."
"Why would you question this? Clearly it's purpose is to help me out. I wrote it, after all"
"I don't understand why I would ever give you any concessions in writing."
"ME! Me me me"
^
If that's the vibe you get from a contract, run.

 

[tirediron]

I think we're wandering off track here folks... this isn't terribly helpful to the OP.

 

[lennon33x]

I think we're wandering off track here folks... this isn't terribly helpful to the OP.

^This.

Truthfully, I don't feel like licensing is a deal breaker anymore. This is for a small business, with seven employees. The licensing opportunities would be through veterinary journals and local business promotion. I don't feel like I would be losing out on thousands and thousands of dollars by not licensing the images. Plus the benefit is that I get to use them in a portfolio.

I considered selling in the raw digital negatives as part of the agreement, with compensation for them. I don't know if he has any interest, but if he does it something that I'll approach him with. In order to use the contract from its gigantic size, and restructuring it so that I basically get rights to use them in a portfolio, he has exclusive rights to use them for all of his promotion, and I removing all of the licensing disclosures. The disclosures and exclusions make the contract extremely convoluted and can make him feel like he's at a disadvantage.

The veterinary industry has such a high turnover rate, but hopefully by producing high-quality images for him and his business, in the event he get some more or other personnel, he would come back to me to repeat any business.

 

[lennon33x]

I skipped on ahead but John (Tirediron) knows the business. To me the initial cost reflects the time and talent of the photographer in going out and taking the pictures and providing the photos; after that the payment would be for extending the use of the photo(s).

Seems like it would be underpricing if it's below the going rate, which seems to usually be a range so you could price at the lower end and not be underpriced. I would think if you need to underprice to get referrals there might be a need to think about how you're getting referrals and how beneficial it will be in the long run to be stuck at having to price low (because why will future clients pay a higher or even mid-range cost if their buddy got photos from you really cheap?).

Having to continue to work with/for this client besides taking photos for him seems to be the problem; from what's been described I wouldn't necessarily expect just because your cost was low end that this guy will go out of his way to refer you to other potential clients (if he will then maybe this will be worth it but the impression I'm getting is that it might turn out to have been more trouble than it was worth).

You might want to look up ASMP or PPA or websites for other professional photographers organizations and get some professional advice and info. on doing retail/commercial work. Or start reading PDN (Photo District News). I think getting informed can be a good way to be able to make good decisions.

Just because he can be a smarmy guy doesn't mean that I don't want referrals, or return business. The potential cost of licensing an image to a veterinary journal or magazine (in these instances, somewhere in the couple of hundreds at best) is far less than the cost of the shoot and return client. Plus, if I limit the license, he already has a good headshot. No reason he couldn't do that (because I don't know the ownership/license rules of that image).

The point is, I want to keep a good relationship between us, both on working terms (veterinary) and professional (photography). I don't want to create any sort of weird vibe with him. For me, it's worth it to let him use the images (not alter) in almost an unrestricted way.