Selling photos and copyrights

Dear All,

 

I am a graduate student and have been asked for taking photographs that would be used by the company on their

website. They offered me a nominal sum for doing it. But, they also would like to owe copyrights. Can you please

advise me how should I charge the company and what should I take into account?

 

Thank you in advance!

<p>So they want to pay you peanuts for the photographs and they also want you to hand over all your rights? </p>

<p>Is there any powerful reason why you should be unusually nice to these people? Your post does not make it clear what it the relationship between you and "the company". Do you work for them? Will you do the photography in time for which you are neing paid by them?</p>

<p>Just write up an agreement to include whatever you want, and have both parties sign it.....If they will not do that, then you negotiate something you can all agree on....</p>

<p>With regards to David's comment......It is usually a good, general, policy to be nice to people you are involved with.....</p>

<p>And as in any rights question, the laws differ by country, so where ever in the world you live makes a difference.</p>

 

Giving up the copyright is beyond nice. It means that you can never again control how these images will

be used, and regardless of how they are used or what value they may have in the future, you will not ever

be compensated again for the continuing value you created. A company does not need to own the

copyright of photos to use them on their website, they only need a license to use them. The company

probably wants to retain flexibility in the use of the photos. They might decide later that they want to use

them for something else, but don't want to pay you for a new license. You can address their concerns

without giving up the copyright. For me, this is non-negotiable and when people request this, I simply say

'no' and firmly. Most experienced photographers do the same. When you give up the copyright you are

giving up ALL future revenue from the images regardless of what they may be worth in the future. I can

see no reason to do this other than something well beyond a nominal sum.

Thank you so much all of you guys. I live in UK. I do not know people who asked me for doing this job.

With regards to license - would you please advise me what should I include while creating a license? Do you know any source where I could go through some samples?

Thank you once again.

<p>Great source here: http://www.thephotographybiz.com/photography-business/copyright-for-photographers/what-exactly-is-a-photography-license/ I am more familiar with the subject already. I'll be researching all night :) Thank you once again!</p>

<p>IMO there's not necessarily anything wrong with selling the copyright. Photographers work within whats called "work for hire" relationships all the time where their output is owned by the person/organisation that commissions it or who pays them a salary. Stock agencies sometimes commission "wholly owned" content on that basis and the photographer is not only art-directed to hell and back but also often gets to turn over his cards at the end of each day without even editing or in some cases seeing the shots.</p>

<p>The thing is that the points Mark raises are right- you hand over the copyright and you lose the ability to sell the work again at any point in the future, or to charge more if the client subsequently decides to use the photographs for a different purpose, or use them even for your own website, So the question is that for most photographers this is seen as a loss of future income, and so they are reluctant to give away copyright. Reality though is that it should depend on the nature of the photographs, and the more specific they are to the activities of the client then the less likely it is that they will offer the photographer a significant downstream revenue. </p>

<p>If you are being asked to produce photographs that are very specific to the company commissioning them, and are unlikely to be featured strongly in big print or TV advertising campaigns, and are fairly easily replicated then you're not giving up a lot by selling the copyright. An example would be photographs of a company's management or premises. And you have to bear in mind that whatever you get now is it, forever. So don't accept less than you think your time and skill are worth.</p>

<p>And as others indicate there are other means available to allow the company to use the images. A licence can be within a medium, within a territory, within a market, for a specified period or forever, or any combination of these and can be exclusive or not. It is entirely possible to satisfy a company that an (often understandable) desire for exclusive use of the images without handing over the copyright. But what it means is that every time they want to use an image, they have to check that the specifics fall inside or outside the terms of the licence, and if outside negotiate with the photographer for another. Some clients would just rather have the flexibility to do what they want with images, rather than go through that, but others don't even seem aware of licencing.</p>

<p>And just bear in mind, that you're not the only photographer in the world. If you want to do the job, and you can get a fee you're happy with , and yet you head off in the direction of a difficult negotiation, then the client can go elsewhere. There are circumstances where retention of copright is worth a battle, and other times when frankly it just isn't. The more unique your abilities, the more the copyright is liable to be worth.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Giving up your copyrights in full is usually foolish, but still depends on a number of factors that must be weighed.</p>

<p>1) Do you see any possible further use for the image?<br>

This is dangerous thinking as none of us has a crystal ball that sharp, therefor we maintain copyrights for that "just in case" scenario.<br>

We all have a price however. My images have re-sold many times. Would I sell out my copyright? If you hit the right number I would; you bet! We all would! No one has ever hit that number yet. ;)</p>

<p>The request for "buying out" the copyright generally comes from 2 sources or motivations.</p>

<p>1) They simply do not understand what they are asking for and it's up to you to explain licensing options.<br>

2) All out rights grab.</p>

<p>Number one is far more likely.</p>

<p>Photographers tend to be overly concerned with copyright. There is no problem with being in a work for hire situation if you are happy with the fee you are negotiating. The benefits you receive in compensation should be commensurate with the value you are giving up. As long as that is the case, then who owns the copyright is of immaterial concern. The rest is just licensing issues. <br>

For example, if they want the copyright, but you want the ability to use the images in your portfolio, then you can negotiate that they get the copyright but you have an enduring license to use the work to represent an example of your work in your portfolio, web pages, or other publications used to market your services as an artist. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>have been asked for taking photographs that would be used by the company on their website. They offered me a nominal sum for doing it. But, they also would like to owe copyrights. Can you please advise me how should I charge</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can charge anything you want but I will recommend that you consider, first, why you would give a profit seeking business entity the time of your labor, using your own belongings as well as you expertise for a "nominal sum". Do you usually do that?</p>

<p>If so, can you do some stuff for me? I need about about a couple hours or so of copy editing and content enhancement for a business website. I'll give you ten bucks. Plus credit which will help give you exposure.</p>

<p> </p>