HELP: CEO wants "buyout" of portraits

Hi,

 

I took a portrait of a CEO for a newspaper and the CEO’s assistant wants to license three of the images from that assignment.

 

I use Fotoquote 7 for stock requests but the assistant said they “don’t have an intended use” and wouldn’t use it for commercial purposes and that if they got a request from a 3rd party "they would have to get your permission.”

 

I emailed the assistant asking him to clarify the scope of their “intended use” and he replied by asking if he could just "buy the photos"

 

I have read about telling the prospective client that you are paying for stuff you necessarily do not need similar to this:

 

The PRO-Files: When Should You Grant A Copyright Buyout?

 

Have you had similar stock requests and what is the best strategy in handling/pricing out these requests for a licensing period of 1-2 years?

 

Since I am not clear what they will use it for (apart from non-commercial) what would you do? Should I quote a ridiculous amount eg. $20k per image to pursuade him not to ask for buyout? Or should I continue to steer him for certain rights? The guy is not familiar with usage rights.

 

Thanks.

The question for you should be if you plan on getting any additional revenue from the photos - do you? If you had some iconic image that you think might be picked up by somebody else, charge and arm and a leg as a way of telling him "heck no". Otherwise, charge what you think you can get away with, give him the negs and sign the rights over. How much time and expenses (film/developing/rentals/travel) were involved? Figure your time for that one day was worth at least what he gets paid, and mark up all your expenses 100%. Just send them an invoice and take the check would be my advice.

I took a portrait of a CEO for a newspaper and the CEO’s assistant wants to license three of the images from that assignment.. . . Since I am not clear what they will use it for (apart from non-commercial) what would you do? Should I quote a ridiculous amount eg. $20k per image to pursuade him not to ask for buyout? Or should I continue to steer him for certain rights? The guy is not familiar with usage rights.

 

To proceed in clarifying what exactly the Client wants to purchase and if you continue dealing with the Assistant, you will first need to educate him.

 

Frankly - I'd cut to the chase and I'd give the CEO a telephone call, firstly having all my selling options sorted, with set prices for each.

 

BTW as you stated that you - (my bold for emphasis) "took a portrait of a CEO for a newspaper" I am assuming that you have it iron-clad that the 'newspaper' has no dibs on any of these images.

 

WW

As an amateur/volunteer, I have very little experience with this this kind of stuff.

 

Laws on photography, ownership and publishing rights vary from country to country and from contract to contract. I work (voluntarily) in the Netherlands and to summarize the laws here:

- the person photographed (the CEO) retains his/her 'portrait rights': determining how, when and where his/her portrait (photo) may be published

- the photographer retains 'authorship rights' to a photo, also determining how, when and where his/her photos may be published

- a publisher receives a licence (usually from the photographer) to publish a photo under certain conditions (time-frame, payment, association with an article, etc)

 

In practice, the photographer gets permission from the 'person portaited' to licence his/her 'portrait' (photo) for publication under certain conditions (or unconditionally). The photographer then licences publication of his photo within the terms agreed with the 'person portrayed'.

 

I (voluntarily) take photos for an organisation which publishes in a local newspaper and our standard 'permissions form' with those portrayed allows us to publish photos in different media without any constraint. They give us permission to publish their 'portraits' (photos) on social media, websites, folders, etc. We really do have 'multimedia' communications strategy so it's not a con. We do get in touch with people if we want to use their photos in an an 'unexpected way' (flyer, brochure, website, etc.). If they dont give their permission (although we are legally entitled to publish) then we don't.

 

So back to the OP. Who has which rights to what (CEO, Newspaper, photographer)? If the CEO (or his/her) organisation wants to 'licence' photos, does this contradict (possible 'exclusive rights') licencing terms with the Newspaper? If so is there a different 'deal' to be made with the Newspaper?

 

If you're free of contractual obligations, then the CEO sounds to me like a like an unexpected bonus. Up to you how you negotiate the 'bonus'' but you must have done something good to get to this negotiation. You could negotiate on money for the CEO photos or you could negotiate on being a 'preferred supplier' on future events.

 

Up to you.

 

Mike

. . . Laws on photography, ownership and publishing rights [and copyright] vary from country to country . . .

 

Indeed. I have noticed that sometimes the Photographers asking for advice here, don't know the laws, which are applicable to them.

 

I like the suggestion of considering negotiating a deal, outside the topic of money.

 

WW

I'd start by asking what they want to use it for. Sometimes, when organizations have photographers take pictures of someone for a specific use, they assume that the photographer retains rights for all other uses. They then have to ask for permission to use it for other uses. In the future, I would clarify this upfront, with a written agreement saying what they are going to pay, if anything, and what restrictions there are on additional uses, if any.

Hi, I have shared copyright and the very nice newspaper editor contacted me to let me know that they often give first dibs to the photographer to license images. So all good. Other photographers also have done this so it is not an issue.

 

To proceed in clarifying what exactly the Client wants to purchase and if you continue dealing with the Assistant, you will first need to educate him.

 

Frankly - I'd cut to the chase and I'd give the CEO a telephone call, firstly having all my selling options sorted, with set prices for each.

 

BTW as you stated that you - (my bold for emphasis) "took a portrait of a CEO for a newspaper" I am assuming that you have it iron-clad that the 'newspaper' has no dibs on any of these images.

 

WW

Hi, I have shared copyright and the very nice newspaper editor contacted me to let me know that they often give first dibs to the photographer to license images. So all good. Other photographers also have done this so it is not an issue.

 

That's very interesting. Where do you work, i.e. what country?

 

I did not know that any Copyright Law was written such that Copyright could be vested in more than one Entity.

 

WW

That's very interesting. Where do you work, i.e. what country?

 

I did not know that any Copyright Law was written such that Copyright could be vested in more than one Entity.

 

WW

 

I suppose, but an entity can be more than one person.

 

That would be more obvious as a corporation or partnership, though.

 

It used to be that scientific journals wanted copyright transfer for all articles

(and presumably photographs in them). Now, many are not asking for complete

transfer, but only enough to publish (in all possible forms).

IANAL, but as far as I know, transferring copyright gives the new owner unlimited rights to

use the image, plus the ability to relicense to anyone else, or to transfer to anyone else.

 

I believe that you can license unlimited use, without the ability to relicense,

or at least without the ability to sell the copyright to anyone else.

 

In the film days, there was only one negative, where copying was lossy.

Only one person would have the actual original negative.

 

But with digital, a copy is exactly as good as the original.

I suppose, but an entity can be more than one person.

That would be more obvious as a corporation or partnership, though.

 

Yes and "Entity" may be a Partnership (or another legal term, used in other countries describing a business comprising of more than one person), but it is still one Entity.

 

I used the word "Entity" purposefully, as I suspect that the OP might not understand exactly what they are describing or what they are asking.

 

WW

. . .

 

It used to be that scientific journals wanted copyright transfer for all articles

(and presumably photographs in them). Now, many are not asking for complete

transfer, but only enough to publish (in all possible forms).

 

Again - I know of no Copyright Laws that allows for a portion of it to be transferred.

 

This is the point - the confusion between Copyright and Publishing Rights.

 

WW

Again - I know of no Copyright Laws that allows for a portion of it to be transferred.

 

This is the point - the confusion between Copyright and Publishing Rights.

 

WW

 

Yes, at some point it is getting the words right.

 

If you own copyright, you can write a contract allowing someone (entity) to do

whatever part of your rights you want.

 

As well as I understand the journal question, it is related to the needed rights

for the future, such as future electronic media, but also leaving reasonable

rights to the author.

The Americal Physical Society, publisher of Physical Review and other physics

related journals, uses this copyright transfer agreement.

 

Physical Review Journals - Transfer of Copyright Agreement

 

It seems designed to give back reasonable rights to the original author though APS

does hold the copyright.

 

As to the OP, it doesn't seem so unreasonable to keep copyright, but sell the rights that

the APS gives back to authors. Among others, APS gives authors the right to put published

papers on their own website, as long as no fee is charged. That is, no commercial use.

Hi,

 

The copyright is shared and is not an issue. I am in the U.S.

 

I am thinking of licensing for 1-3 years and pin down their specific, non-commercial usage needs. Any idea what the range is on this? Fotoquote states licensing for one image in the "Quote Pack" for all internal use is $4212.

. . . The copyright is shared and is not an issue. I am in the U.S. . .

 

Thank you for answering. I do find that very interesting.

 

. . . I am thinking of licensing for 1-3 years and pin down their specific, non-commercial usage needs. Any idea what the range is on this? . . .

 

In this situation I've found that gaining an understanding of the Client's budget is more useful to have leverage during a price negotiation, rather than wasting energy on the topic of pinning down their exact non commercial usage needs.

 

I think that "non-commercial usage" is pretty substantially nailed down: certainly that phrase has somewhat a legal precedent where I work and not much more need be added to it. Maybe the situation in the USA differs and that phrase does not carry the same weight, I don't know, certainly a law which allows the sharing of a Copyright befuddles me.

 

Putting an arbitrary price or price range predicated by a table or guide on the web, is, in my view, fruitless. My view is this is a business negotiation, it is unique unto itself: the useful ingredients are: an idea of their budget; their level of dedication to having it; the ease that they can get it or a replacement for it somewhere else.

 

In any event, time is of the essence in all business negotiations, and from what is gleaned in this conversation, nearly two weeks have passed (since the original post, possible more time since the Prospect made the initial contact with the request) and the negotiation on price has not yet begun - in my experience many Prospects would have cooled off on the idea of spending any money by now.

 

My bottom line advice is put a price on it and sell it - soon - again I advise talking directly with the CEO, not the assistant.

 

WW

Join APA and ask experts.