Selling Rights.......

[OnTheFly7]

This is a first for me.

I have someone who was a spectator at an event I shot. They contacted me expressing interest in the images, while also requesting that I not public post any of the images (reasons I will not get into). I sent the proofs over, along with pricing.

It was apparent that they thought my pricing was too high. I'm pretty certain they will go take them to the local grocer, Costco or whatever and have them printed. They asked if I would sell the digital files (4 in total I). I gave them the price for the digital files, along with the stipulations to them purchasing the files. They then responded, requesting a "package" price for all rights.

If I do this, they are going to spend more than if they were to purchase prints. Part of me says there is no way I will do this. Then, there is a side that says, why not get what I can for the images (since I will not be able to utilize them in the future any way per there request).

What are your thoughts to this?

 

[tirediron]

Are you under any obligation to honour their request should you choose not to? That is, do they have any legal authority to compel you to not release them? I would send them a price synopsis as follows:

1. Price for regular prints with exclusivity for a fixed period (double regular print price);

2. price (and conditions) for non-exclusive use of the files (at least 2-3x print price above); and

3. price for exclusive use of the digital files (say, 10x print price above) .

Unless I'm mis-reading this, you're under no obligation, and the worst that can happen is they don't buy anything and you're free to do what you want with the images. The best is you get a shed-load of cash for images that you probably wouldn't have done much with anyway....

 

[table1349]

I don't sell files I sell user rights based on what their planned use is. If they want the files that bad then they would pay incredibly big money. When they complain I explain that I am the owner of the files and if I sell them then I am out any potential future revenue.

It's like housing, you can rent at one rate or pay full price to own the house but I'm not selling the house for the price of short term rent.

 

[Gary A.]

Why would you honor a spectators request not to publish an image(s). Was this a public event? Were/are you under any contract/obligation to the event organizer or the venue?

 

[vintagesnaps]

I don't get why a spectator at an event would want exclusive rights to photos. Were the photos of them?? or of the event? If it was an event attended by the general public and the venue/organizers of the event allowed spectators to bring cameras, then I think you should have been fine taking pictures of anyone in attendance.

This just seems, well, weird. My radar went off reading this, I'd be careful what you do with this situation.

Usually photographers charge a lot for original files, but these people seem to want cheap, or at least to talk you down on cost. I don't think I would've even given them proofs yet. If they want exclusive rights to your original photos of a publicly held event then they can pay for that (which isn't going to be cheap), or they don't have to buy them at all...

 

[OnTheFly7]

You all are on my line of thinking. I appreciate the replies.

The images are of spectators (a mother and a child). I have a really cute one of the child, which would be the only one I would consider using. As for the situation, she went on about it to me (which I thought was weird in the first contact we had) and I understand her side. It is a bad situation and for my own ethical reasons, I will not publicly use the images.

However, I do not know what I am going to do yet for the images. They are in a different state than I am, so there is no way to meet, to go over actual prints or to show the difference that a high quality lab produces, as opposed to the Walgreens down the street. Again, part of me says to get what I can, since I will not use them. Part of me says forget the whole thing.

 

[table1349]

All of me says it's your images do what you want with them. Spectators, even mothers of children, have no special privileges under the law when in the public eye. A good photo is a good photo and her reasons would have to be extremely unique for me to even listen to her not wanting a photo published. All you did was record what you saw, if she had concerns perhaps she and her child should not have been were they were. As far as ethics go, I am responsible for me, not anyone else. They made a choice, if they now regret it that is their issue to deal with not mine.

As for the images again, I sell prints, and usage rights, I wouldn't sell my photos and rights away unless I was extremely well compensated. Undoubtedly far more than some parent is willing to pay.

 

[john.margetts]

There are a number of very good reasons why a woman might not want her picture published - not wanting to be traced by a violent spouse springs to mind. Ethics suggest you are responsible for a great deal apart from yourself. The woman has clearly given the OP a good reason which I wouldn't gainsay without knowing a lot more.

 

[pixmedic]

You all are on my line of thinking. I appreciate the replies.

The images are of spectators (a mother and a child). I have a really cute one of the child, which would be the only one I would consider using. As for the situation, she went on about it to me (which I thought was weird in the first contact we had) and I understand her side. It is a bad situation and for my own ethical reasons, I will not publicly use the images.

However, I do not know what I am going to do yet for the images. They are in a different state than I am, so there is no way to meet, to go over actual prints or to show the difference that a high quality lab produces, as opposed to the Walgreens down the street. Again, part of me says to get what I can, since I will not use them. Part of me says forget the whole thing.

if you have already decided that the woman has a legitimate reason for not wanting her pictures posted, and already made the decision to post them...you have a few options.
1: keep the photos just in case you change your mind about using them.
2: sell the woman the files and delete your copy.
3: delete the photos and be done with the whole thing.

personally, I would sell her the photos at your regular rate, giver her the digital files if thats what she wants, then delete your copy.
you get to take the moral high ground while still making a little money, and the woman gets her pictures, and knowledge that they wont be posted. win/win

 

[vintagesnaps]

My background is working with babies/kids and families and I know where I live there are circumstances like custody status, adoption, etc. where there often was no publicity release signed. We had to check those if for example the PR person for the agency was coming to take photos for a brochure to see which kids could or could not be in the pictures.

Of course she was attending an event that apparently was open to the public. Maybe it would help to find info. related to that to share with her because anyone else could have been there taking pictures too - like local newspapers or TV. Or anyone with a camera or phone taking a crowd shot could have a picture with her and this child in it.

I'm thinking she may not want the photos posted online which is a valid concern because you don't know with all the photo sharing and photo stealing that happens where a picture may end up.

I think I'd lean toward informing her about policies of the venue and event, etc., and offer to sell prints. Of course she has no way to control what you do with the pictures, but she also has no control over what anyone taking pictures at the event might do with their pictures. Maybe sharing some info. to help her be better informed would be helpful, because it's up to her to figure out what events would be best for her to attend with the child where photos might be taken.

And there's no way for her to know if you delete your copies or not... Any way you look at it, seems like she only has your word on it. The other thing is that there's probably no way for you to know for sure what her legal status is with this child, you're just going by what she told you. Which most likely is true but you may not know the whole story.

Maybe you're going to need to think about a contract so you're covered. But I sure as heck would not post the photos online at all, just probably not going to be worth the trouble.

 

[vintagesnaps]

And how did she see the pictures anyway?? Obviously she knew you got a good photo of her and the child.

Next time shoot film, then there's nothing for anyone to see on the back of your camera! I'm kidding, but I tell ya, we didn't used to have this problem... I just wouldn't be too likely to sell or give away my negatives, and I relate the same way as far as original files of photos.

Another thing that occurred to me (occupational hazard I think) is that this might have involved crossing state lines, and I don't know if that's some of the issue or not. But basically you may have evidence of her being at the event with the child. I don't know if that could be part of the reason she wants the files. I live in a tristate area where it's just a short drive and you're in the next state which for just about everybody is no big deal, but maybe adds to the concern.

Obviously the primary concern is protecting the safety of the child and possibly the mom herself. But it would probably be best like Jason said to figure out options so you can be done with this one. Unfortunately I think I know of too many situations... most likely this won't go anywhere.

 

[KmH]

What are your thoughts to this?

Run Forrest! Run!

Selling 'all rights' means selling your copyright.
Your copyright is in effect for the rest of your life, + 70 years, giving your copyright the potential of having a lot of value.

Many photographers have had photographs of people they thought had little value, until a person in their photographs became famous for one reason or another.

Brittney Spear's short marriage to a boy she knew from high school being just one instance. The photographer that had made the boy's high school senior portraits made some good $$$$$ from a variety of media that wanted to use those high school senior photos after the marriage and subsequent annulment.