Selling Image rights

[Evertking]

So a New bank branch in town emailed me , asking me to sell my image rights to a few of my images of the town they are opening up in. Thats not something I normally do, so I have no idea on even where to start or to say to them. The marketing director is wanting to have them blown up to a 30x30 and framed. how much does one normally charge on selling rights over? any input would be appreciated greatly. They sent over a contract and asking for an amount.

 

[Designer]

How many reproductions? Exclusive or not? For how long? You get the photo credit? You could ask the marketing director what he usually pays.

 

[Evertking]

How many reproductions? Exclusive or not? For how long? You get the photo credit? You could ask the marketing director what he usually pays.

2 images, permanently in this new bank, yes I get photo credit. this is what they sent,

 

[tirediron]

With that wording? Min $5000/image.

 

[Designer]

How many reproductions? Exclusive or not? For how long? You get the photo credit? You could ask the marketing director what he usually pays.

2 images, permanently in this new bank, yes I get photo credit. this is what they sent,

Well, it's unlimited.

No limit on the number of times it is to be reproduced, and no limit on the time.

Just so you know.

Personally, I think paying a lawyer to look it over would be money well spent.

 

[vintagesnaps]

The first sentence had me going 'no, no, no...'. Usually a photographer is going to license usage, not sell rights to their photographic work. That happens more in commercial work (business) when a photographer's hired/contracted to take photos of a client's products etc. specifically for that client. (For example when I took photos for marketing purposes for a local team I didn't have any other use for photos of sponsors' signage, etc.).

These photos could potentially be licensed by you in the future for other uses, or you could have fine art prints done to sell, etc. If you sell rights to a client, they are no longer yours. That is usually done at a high price.

Usage in a contract should be specific and in a certain time frame (such as for use as prints, in ads, on social media, etc. for one year). Then usage could be extended, usually at a lesser rate than the initial usage (since it's the same images already licensed).

I would not agree to the first sentence in the second paragraph (use anytime and doesn't expire? no). And they want copyright? no, not unless for commercial work like this you're being paid at an appropriate going rate for business use. If for example you had been contracted to take photos of their building(s) and their signage, then for that a photographer might sell rights/copyright. (Because what else would you do with pictures of their bank and their signage? I can't think of any other use and it's their logo/trademark.)

Get on websites for pro photographers organizations like American Society of Media Photographers - Homepage or PPA to learn about contracts, licensing usage, etc. ASMP has a 'paperwork' share where working pros share contracts for jobs actually done. The pricing is in the thousands because a company could make thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars by using your photos to promote/market their business. You're being paid for not just the photos, but for your creative talent, time spent learning and developing skills, equipment upgrades over time, etc. etc.

 

[webestang64]

You would have to pay me 100k for one of my negatives.

 

[Bollygum]

You would have to pay me 100k for one of my negatives.

Really? You wouldn't accept 50k (or even less)? I could sell a handful at 50k each and live off the proceeds for quite a while, and I wouldn't really miss them.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I'd want an armored truck full of cash to pull in my driveway...

 

[Bollygum]

Hands up all those who have ever sold a photo for 100k.

 

[Braineack]

Hands up all those who have ever sold a photo for 100k.

there's a huge difference between licencing out a photo and completely selling all rights/privileges to it.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Exactly.

You know, there's a certain amount of sarcasm or joking around going on too... (although maybe the saying over my dead body could apply! lol).

Once/if the negatives are gone, they're gone. No more making prints or licensing further usage of these or of any other images on the same strip of film. It's keeping the original, unless maybe they're of something you're absolutely sure you'd have no further use for. Ever.

With other art depending on what it is, or I'm thinking with other craft I've done, I keep my original copies of my original designs. Those have more potential use and value to me than the work I created from the designs.

 

[webestang64]

Hands up all those who have ever sold a photo for 100k.

there's a huge difference between licencing out a photo and completely selling all rights/privileges to it.

ding ding ding.....What do we have for him Johnny?!!

 

[Bollygum]

Hands up all those who have ever sold a photo for 100k.

there's a huge difference between licencing out a photo and completely selling all rights/privileges to it.

Yes, there is, but 100k is a lot of money for 1 picture. I sell time lapse and I have a scale that charges more for a clip if it is exclusive. If someone wanted to buy the clip outright, I would charge extra again. Everything has a price, even a pic of a town with a bank in it. I'd suggest to the bank that they really just want to buy a print, or perhaps unlimited rights to the photo (for advertising etc), but not resale or copyright. I'd also suggest that they are not thinking of paying 100k or even 1k, though you might persuade them. You have to consider how easy it would be for them to hire a photographer to take a similar picture, Hell, for 100k I could fly over and stay a month, and I'd probably get a half reasonable photo of said town.