A Not so Simple Deal

[sandysocks]

Something that should be simple has me scratching my head.

 

I was contacted by someone who saw one of my shots in a 2008 calendar. She

wants a print for her office. Next, she wants to know about getting hold of

the negative because several of the folks who work there seem to also want

copies for their homes. It seemed ok at first to me and I thought something

could be worked out. But after thinking about it for a bit, I began to have

doubts.

 

The image is digital. A cd could be copied perfectly for infinity number of

times. These copies could lay around for years while folks forgot where they

came from. I could eventually see the image somewhere with someone else's name

on it, through error if not intent. It seems so easy to lose control of an

image.

 

I need to reach an agreement with the buyer over the internet with terms

acceptable to us both. How would you handle this?

[art_haykin]

Tell them you'll sell them copies of the calendar.

[timkeller]

I'd offer prints only, for as many as want them, but not give them the digital file.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Simple solution: Make the prints yourself or have a lab make them for you.

 

Slightly more complicated solution; learn to use the IPTC fportions of your meta data and

add your name, contact, and copyright information. Then make your image canvas

slightly larger than your image and in that new border area ?RL POTTS and how to contact

you.

 

And then register your copyrights to your images. How many 600x900 pixel moderately

compressed jpegs do you think you can fit on a DVD-R or CD-R? I don't know either but

lets say we its at least several hundred. You can register your copyright on all of them for

$40.00 and 10 minutes of filling out paperwork. The benefit of registering your copyright

is that it provides for large statutory damages if someone knwingly violates your

copyright. How would they know that thye are doign this? By removing that border when

they go to print or try to resell them.

[geoffs1]

Typically, pricing is per use (i.e. per copy), so there would (should?) be little/no cost-benefit in the users having the prints made themselves (unless the plan to cheat you and make more than agreed).

 

I'd spin it positively by saying the quality of the prints from you will be higher than from an arbitrary photo-finisher (ex. Costco) because you will have vetted the color management, etc.

[sandysocks]

The quick responses are just amazing. Thanks everybody. I do need to look more closely at my IPTC options in Lightroom. Ellis, the information is valuable and I will not forget any of it.

[jlkphoto]

I would NEVER send a negative or full resolution digital file to such a customer unless I no longer cared about ever making money from the image.

 

In this case, I'd be very suspicious as to why they don't just buy prints from you if that's what they really want.

 

All the above about copyrighting your images is good advice but the reality is that unless the thief using your images is making a huge amount of money from them, AND YOU CAN PROVE IT, there is zero financial incentive to pursue them.

 

It makes no sense to spend $300 or $400 per hour hiring an attorney unless you can prove you've suffered a huge loss. Even then, you many never get more than a judgement you can't collect.

 

Better to never allow the theft in the first place, if at all possible!

[daniel_smith6]

To add to Ellis excellent information. If the people decide to remove your copyright info from the files and print them they put themselves directly into the realm of criminal activity as printed in the Digital Millenium Copyright act. Removing the copyright puts them in statutory penalties and negates any defense of 'I didn't know'.