Licensing Question

[Drew Phillips]

I've got a potential client that wants to purchase 15-20 photos from various future events to put on a web site. They want as much freedom as possible with the images (best situation for them would be to own the copyright), but I don't want to give it up because I will potentially sell the images elsewhere. What are the different types of licening agreements? I want to give them as much freedom with the images as possible without losing any control myself. Any suggestions are welcome.

[John Thawley]

Drew, the word you are looking for is EXCLUSIVE.

In today's environment, you need to treat copyrights and use similar to setting up a network firewall. You start with the single rule, no one has access. Based on that principle, you then proceed to write single rules for each type of access (or in our case "use") and who can share that access.

In other words, spell out "use." Don't attempt do spell out what they can't do... it will always be porous.

You state you want to be flexible.. I'm not sure why. Most here would probably disagree with you. To me, you're taking the position of having an all you can eat buffet... and you don't seem to care how many people I bring along.

Use is a line item menu. It's all about the distribution and how many people the client is going to reach with a marketing tool you created. I usually ask, what do you want to use the image for. I do not accept a vague answer. The rental car company doesn't accept.... "oh, I'll be back in a week or so." You don't tell the drive through... "a bunch of burgers."

It's called product description or defining the work. Spell it out and charge for it. Once you've defined the work, set your price and add the word "Non-exclusive."

JT

[Mike Ditz]

If they are going to put them on a web-site, why do they want "freedom" ? Freedom for what? Are they going to re-sell the images? Are they a manufacturer? Why do they want to own the copyright, did you ask them or did they just tell you what they think they want?
Web usage is different than print. For web use the things that determine fee is placement (home page, inside pages, banner) time (months? years?) and size. (1/4 page 1/2 page?) You don't have any control over distribution, once it's out there. it's out there.
The step down from a copyright transfer is "Unlimited time, unlimited use, exclusive" (sometimes exclusive means exclusive to a particular industry or exclusive for everything, it has to be clear), and then nextx step down from that is "Unlimited time, unlimited use, non-exclusive" This can cost them a lot of $ anywhere from $3 to $10 k per image
Sounds a litttle like they don't know what they want and you want to give " as much freedom with the images as possible without losing any control myself" Somebody should step up and make some decisions.

[Drew Phillips]

Thanks guys. It looks like I need to ask them specifically what they want to use the images for and then I'll go from there.

I mostly wanted to give them as much freedom as possible because it means more $ money for me. Like you said, giving them more use of the image means they have to pay more. I mainly just wanted to see what my options were in terms of licensing.

[Jason Jenkins]

You would probably earn more money by iniating a new contract for each use.

Web use? That's one contract with one price.

Brochure? That's another contract with another price.

Hero Cards? Yet another contract and price.

They want full copyrights? Do you have a another shot that is simliar? Sell them that one, keep the other to market in your other areas.

[Jacob Leveton]

chances are, they want full rights, unlimited use, and will offer a shade over a few pennies per picture. That's how most websites are these days ;)

http://photographersindex.com/stockprice.htm

you can use that and use "editorial" and "magazine" and use the magazine's unique hits per month as a measurement of "circulation". at least as a starting point... but chances are, they'll just want to pay you a flat rate for useage, and it's probably super low since most websites aren't profiting much if at all these days.

[Drew Phillips]

I guess my vague description of the issue didn't really give you guys enough info to completely help me out. They definitely won't be offering pennies per picture - they purchased photos from past events and they paid quite well - and they won't be making brochures or anything like that. They discussed having me shoot exclusively for them but were also open to non-exclusive rights as well. I mostly just wanted to know what were the various options when licensing a photo, and from what I've gathered it just needs to be as specific as possible.

[Todd Corzett]

If they are just going to use the images for the web, and not for brochures or anything... just sell them web usage. If they want freedom with the images... be available when they need to use the images for something else. Don't sell them more usage than they want, unless they want to pay for it specifically. I always try to refrain from selling unlimited usage for images... people only want to pay the minimum for something. If the unlimited rate isn't too high, then they're planning on using the image for something big (or you're not charging enough).

I mostly just wanted to know what were the various options when licensing a photo

Anything you can think of... basically, you're in the driver's seat when you own the copyright. Now, I said when you own the copyright... shooting for someone exclusively can mean that you hold copyright, and only they can use them... but, more likely, they will want the copyrights (remember "you're shooting for them" right). I would suggest avoiding these situations (often called a work for hire or "WFH") like the plague. They may seem like a great deal with money upfront, but you leave the event with just that... what they pay you to shoot. If they use the image, or sell the image to someone else, etc... you have no say because they own the copyright. You get the great shot of Dale Jr. burning a Corvette into a pile of goo... they make the money. You shoot some rookie driver that turns out to be the next F1 star... they make the money. If they own the copyright they can do whatever they want (including selling it to other people for all the money).

If they want unlimited usage, sell them unlimited usage, but keep the copyright at all costs (or charge accordingly for it - remember, with the copyright they could sell the image to Pepsi for their next million dollar ad campaign).

-Todd...

[Drew Phillips]

Thanks Todd, that helps.

[Jim Sykes]

Hit me up by email or better yet, call me Drew, I'll give you some insight, I just dont want to type it all out here because you just cant put it all in writing due to a lot of variables. You have a lot of options and if they are willing to pay for the "freedom," by all means sell it to them. I'm on a plane to Portland this afternoon, but you can get me for a few more hours or this weekend.

[Mike Ditz]

Jimmy-
Part of the beauty of these forums is that we all learn from each other. I am sure that a lot of people are keeping track of these respnses, because this isn't a uncommon issue at all. So instead of going 'private' with Drew, (or if you don't want to 'share' at all, your initial contact should have been an email, not a post) maybe you could make an effort to distill your advice down to something you could type up for the benefit of APN. Spreading your knowledge only helps the forum.

[Jim Sykes]

I understand, hopefully I can talk with drew and find out exactly what he is looking for, give him some advice and my thought was that he would then share what he did in a more precise level with the board later. There is too much still open in this question, I dont have the time, nor does it make sense, for us to go back and forth post after post for two days figuring it out when I could get it done in ten minutes in private. Hopefully then it can be shared in a more specific way.

[Mike Ditz]

Well.....any updates?

[Drew Phillips]

For some reason the client wanted to own the copyright for the photos even though I think it would benefit them more to just agree to full usage. I can't really do this because I use them for my own site, and I'm hoping to license them to other clients. Is it legal to take identical (nearly) photos at an event and then sell one (they would own the copyright), and then use the other for myself or license it to another client? Even if it is legal, I can see potential issues that might arise. Anyway, I don't know if I will be dealing with the client because I don't want to sell the copyright.

[Mike Ditz]

Do they even know what it means to own the copyright? Chose you battles, if they are willing to pay enough for you to basically do a work for hire job, do it and laugh all the way to the bank.

As far as taking identical shots, it may be legal but it's not ethical.

[Drew Phillips]

Yes, they know. It's frustrating because I know they will never actually utilize the actual ownership. I know their main concern is not having to deal with another contract if they want to use the image in some other way, but I really doubt that they would ever want to sell the image to another client. I tried convincing them that a full usage agreement would be to their benefit and mine, but my contact isn't the person that makes the decisions.

If they are willing to pay for ownership of the image, I guess I might consider it, especially since they would only be using 15 images from an event, and I generally take many more images than that. I would just have to shoot in a way that they could have their 15 images, but I would still have shots that covered everything for myself.