NationalGeographicStock.com

[tom_mann1]

<p>About 6 months ago, I submitted three or four images (along with a few million other photographers) to their "My Shot" program. I never heard anything back about it until yesterday, out of the cold, I received an email saying that one of these images had been selected for their stock photo collection, and if I wanted to have them market it, upload a hi-rez version.</p>

<p>I couldn't find any definitive statement on their website about rates, their cut, etc. Whatever their rate is for one image isn't going to make much of a difference, but I'm curious ... does anyone know anything about this program? </p>

<p>Tom M.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>As I understand it from a previous look at their small print, submission to the Your Shot setup is a rights grab with NG stipulating that you hand over all rights in perpetuity.</p>

<p>Whether this My Shot deal is different I do not know. But their Your Shot t&c's were draconian enough to stop me from gifting them my work to profit from.</p>

<p>Details and comment here: http://copyrightaction.com/forum/national-geographic-magazine-your-shot</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>John, that's interesting. The terms and conditions for this program seem to be somewhat different:</p>

<p><em>"... Your participation is voluntary and <strong>you retain all rights to your photographic work</strong>. We will display your image on our website at http://www.nationalgeographicstock.com, and should it ever be requested for third party publication, <strong>we will license it and pay you a photographer's fee</strong>.</em><br /><br /><br /><em>Agreement To the Terms of Service</em><br /><br /><em>I hereby authorize National Geographic Society, its affiliates,subsidiaries and licensees (collectively, "NGS"), worldwide in perpetuity, to license <strong>non-exclusive </strong>rights in my photograph to third parties for non-NGS products (including, but not limited to, microtransactions), <strong>outside the context of the license specified in the Your Shot Submission Requirements</strong>. For each such license, NGS will collect a license fee for the use and will pay me a percentage of the fee collected based on <strong>the then-current revenue split </strong>in effect at National Geographic Image Sales for the relevant transaction type. I understand that I am responsible for providing NGS with up-to-date contact information to enable payments to me under such agreement. ..."</em><br>

(Note: I put some of their text in bold face.)</p>

<p>I guess the real questions: are</p>

<p>(a) "What will the current revenue split be?" -- 99% them / 1% me?, and</p>

<p>(b) Since the photos seem to have been selected from the "Your Shot" program, if a photographer makes a fuss, after submission, can they simply pull the current offer and revert back to the T&C of the original submission?</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

 

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Tom:<br /><br />Licensing fees will vary with usage. Typical textbook usage should run right around $250 or so for 40,000 print-run, one language, up to 1/2 page. Web usage typically much less. Ad usage typically a lot more.<br /><br />I'm sure they have the revenue split listed in there somewhere so look closer. For the majority of stock agencies the cut is normally 50/50 for direct sales/licensing and less if it's through an affiliate.<br /><br />If you are entering into an agreement with them where they will market your image for you/them there's very likely a section in the contract that will deal with termination and how that works. It varies greatly from agency to agency but typically it'll take anywhere from a couple of months to a year to get images pulled. This is normally because many agencies work with licensing quite far into the future and they don't want to run into the issue that a customer selected image suddenly isn't available because the photographer changed their mind. So, re-read the contractual language and I'm sure the info you're looking for is in there somewhere.<br /><br />Well done, by the way.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Thanks, Mikael. I'll hunt around some more.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Keep in mind that the company that sells their prints is yet another layer to the problem. Ever since they got tied up with Fox, they tiered out into many levels of corporate agreements. Almost every aspect of their selling is somehow contained. Any one of those could cause you trouble with some paragraph of technicalities somewhere.</p>

<p>Even if you get a good deal with one group, that company could have a pre-existing agreement with another one of the child corporations that you don't know about. This is what would get you screwed. They would stick with their parent-child or sister corporation agreements, and just send you a "sorry" message later.</p>

<p>Welcome to Corporate America. Responsibility emigrated around 1966.</p>

<p>We don't know where it went, but evidently it didn't go to Fox headquarters in Australia. </p>

<p>Last month's NatGeo in print had a sidebar about two of those subscriber/user submitted photos which turned out to be fake. That is, manipulated, but not disclosed. In one case, one of the photographers apparently lied directly to someone from National Geographic who called to check up on the picture.</p>

<p>It just does not look like they have control of things over there. I would recommend passing on this offer. If you had a face to face deal with some hardcore photo editor from National Geographic in DC, of course, accept that. All of this other stuff is a gimmick, in my opinion.</p>

<p>Pass on it.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>that company could have a pre-existing agreement with another one of the child corporations that you don't know about. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those agreements don't matter unless they have been granted rights in the photographer's agreement. While the whole agreement may not be here, it does assign exactly the same rights to affiliated groups that are in the agreement. What's posted is far more important than random speculation since it offers no rights to other agreements.</p>

[eric_m4]

<p>On the plus side, at least you can associate your credentials with a pretty prestigous publication.</p>

[revonda]

<p>Tom I recieved the same email requesting five of my images. No problem with Nat. Geo. wanting to put my stuff on their stock site, I just wish they had included a little more info. for us. Like will we be able to add more images with a link given to us or they (nat geo) will only request an image from our gallery there? Will we be able to have a gallery and profile on the stock site etc.?<br>

I also know of three other photographers they requested from as well. My guess is they are asking lots of folks now who participate in the "your shot" contest.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Hi Revonda - I spoke by telephone and had email correspondence with the editor that is running this program. Here's what I learned: </p>

 

<ul>

<li>It is a new, pilot program, only a few months old. <br /><br /><br /></li>

<li>Apparently they sent out invitations for either 2000 or 4000 images (I forget which he said...), out of the hundreds of thousands of images they have received in their "Your Shot" program, so it's a pretty select group. Submission of images to their stock program is definitely by invitation only. Photographers can submit only one image for each link that NGS provided to you. If you want to have other images considered for this program, submit them to the "Your Shot" program. They will continue to scan it for images of interest to their stock program.<br /><br /><br /></li>

<li>Once images are submitted, the photographer is not given any direct ability to manage them. If you want to update an image, change keywords, etc., send them an email (address given on your invitation) and explain what you want to do. They have this policy so that they retain control of images. Once listed, they don't want any images suddenly disappearing on them, issues with accession numbers, over-the-top tweaked versions replacing the ones they have accepted (eg, a flight of jets flying over a dog ;-) ), etc. <br /><br /></li>

<li>It sounds like they will freely re-keyword images, if necessary, to bring them their standards (...maybe a limited vocabulary?).<br /><br /></li>

<li>Quite a few of their well-known staff / freelance photographers already have large numbers of images on the stock site. Although he didn't say it directly, it sounds like, for stock purchases, ordinary mortals (like us) will be paid at the same rates as their superstars.<br /><br /></li>

<li>I suggested that to minimize dealing with a flood of questions from photographers, they should have a FAQ. He seemed very receptive to this. You had many of the same questions that I had. <br /><br /><br /></li>

<li>My impression is that they don't want lots of unsolicited calls / emails (eg, every person that has taken a picture of their kid and cat with their cell phone), so I intentionally have not given the contact info for the editor in this public venue. </li>

</ul>

<p>If I remember anything more about our discussion, or learn anything else about this program, I'll post it.</p>

<p>Cheers (and congrats),</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[revonda]

<p>Thanks very much for the info., Tom. I had a feeling we would not be able to just send them our stuff. lol and for that reason I started uploading to the gallery today. I had before only entered once a month if I remembered to the contest. Out of the original 13 submissions I made, three were chosen for the daily dozen, one was published in the "your shot" book, and one is available for wallpaper from the site. And still I have no idea how to contact anyone there regarding my images. A little frustrating. Even when exchanging information regarding the image that was published I talked to no one important like photo editors. Feeling a little sorry for myself now. lol</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Revonda - Check your email.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[tom_schwabel]

<p>I got one of these too and submitted quite a list of questions via email last week. Have not heard anything back... But if they sent out a few thousand of these they might just be buried.</p>

<p>Tom M:</p>

<p>Were you told anything about the licensing model that would be used? Is it RF, RM? Varies depending on the image? At least from pricing some images on their website it looks more or less like traditional stock prices (not micro) for both RM and RF, comparable to Getty and some of the others I am familiar with.</p>

<p>Were you told any sort of number on the licensing split? Or is this some big secret that they're not letting in on? If it is 50/50, that's great, but I have a funny feeling it is more like the 20 or 30% over on the Getty/Flickr deal.</p>

<p>Is there ANY sort of contract that spells all of this stuff out? Something that I can read and save away somewhere?</p>

<p>How payment is made?</p>

<p>I'm going to assume that since I've already given up a whole bunch of rights to NG (for NG products ONLY as I understand), this won't really affect that, but at least any other uses I hadn't given up at least now I can get paid for it?</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>@Tom S -</p>

<p>When it became obvious that he wasn't going to be forthcoming w.r.t. licensing details, I didn't keep pressing. I'll deal with this if and when there is any interest in my one paltry image. I'm *certainly* not going to upload a huge number of images to the "Your Shot" program with the hope that some of them will be selected until such issues are clarified. I only uploaded a few images, and it's going to stay that way until I learn more.</p>

<p>I did, however, strongly suggest that such info and a contract be included in an FAQ and other on-line documents. </p>

<p>My understanding of the difference between NG's use of photos submitted and external licensing of our images is the same as yours. NG can use anything they want, but they agree to pay us (a split) if someone external wants the image.</p>

<p>HTH,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

 

[tom_schwabel]

<p>Yup, since I became aware of just how much I had given them with "Your Shot" a few months ago, I haven't added any more images nor have any plans to. But if they can fill in the holes in this new program and provide a contract like the other ones I've signed,<em> </em>I can't see too much downside in giving them one or more of the three images they already picked...</p>

[tom_schwabel]

<p>Note that I haven't been able to find any information ANYWHERE on what split NG offers other contributors in the stock library. A complete mystery. Anyone know anything?</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Tom - My sentiments exactly.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Ah, yes ... the split. It's 95% prestige, 5% money, didn't you know?</p>

<p>;-)</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Not to defend NGS - as I know nothing about this part of their business. But, people that are not accustomed to working with agencies need to know that it is rare that an agency tells the photographer many details about a usage. This is pretty much industry standard and should not be cause for any alarm. There are several reasons for this and just to name a few: the publishers have no interest in getting calls from newbie stock photographers about when they [the photographers] will be paid, if they can get x comp copies of the book/magazine/article etc, and most photobuyers prefer to interact with agencies rather than individual photographers - especially if those photographers are not used to dealing with publishers and know the pricing structure, how rights work, what is typically granted for what usage etc.<br /><br />Again, not defending anything NGS is doing, I'm just saying that the detail that they don't want to divulge details on a specific usage shouldn't be cause for alarm <strong>at all.</strong></p>

[tom_schwabel]

<p>@Mikael - fully understood. I don't expect to know how the image is used in most cases and know the buyers want often don't want to have the hassle of dealing with us. I am already contributor with other agencies.</p>

<p>But in working with the other agencies, I have been given a contract which clearly spells out when photographers are paid (be it monthly, quarterly, etc) and what percentage of royalties the photographer is paid (in the case that it varies depending on the license type sold, it is displayed per type). Usually, I also know which license model I am submitting for, so that if I don't agree, I can back out of submission for that image.</p>

<p>It almost seems to me like NG rolled this out too soon and needs to go back and refine a few things. Unless the split is really bad or they are going to sell as microstock, I can't imagine I will have issues with the terms but I need to see something in writing so I know what I've agreed to.</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Tom:<br /><br />When I wrote about getting paid, I wasn't referring to when the agency pays you, that should absolutely be spelled out in the contract.<br /><br />What I was referring to was the following completely made up* scenario (as an example): NG Agency licenses your image to Time Magazine for $350 on June 1st. June 15th you start calling Time complaining that you have yet to be paid. Time - obviously - have no idea what you're talking about since their deal was with the agency.<br /><br />The above might sound like an extreme example. Sadly it isn't, it's right out of real life. Obviously not involving you, nor NG agency or Time magazine but aside from the names of those involved, how it is presented above is how it went down. Now imagine the same poor editor getting one phone call (at least) a week regarding payment, regarding getting a free copy of the magazine where the photo is ran, getting an extra free copy of the magazine for the photographer's mother, a call that amounts to a request to be a reference for the photographer... And so on. This is why photo buyers are sometimes somewhat unwilling to work directly with inexperienced photographers, and why they prefer agencies, and also why the photobuyer very much wants the agency not to reveal many details of the usage to the photographer most of the time.<br /><br />*well, not completely made up, but you get the point...</p>

[tom_schwabel]

<p>Got some answers. See below:</p>

<p>Thank you for your inquiry. Hopefully this will answer your questions:<br /><br />Current Image Sales commission structure pays the photographer a <strong>forty </strong><br /><strong>percent share </strong>of the license fee. License fees are negotiated with <br />publishers based on a variety of details including, but not limited to: <br />nature of publication, print run, page size, international distribution <br />etc.<br /><br />Photographer is free to exhibit and market same images through other <br />channels.<br /><br />If licensed by a third party, Image Sales requisitions the fee. <strong>Commission </strong><br /><strong>payments are made by NGS Accounts Payable, at the end of each month, by </strong><br /><strong>check. </strong> Licensee info is available upon special request.<br /><br />Terms of agreement are displayed at the upload page. <strong>There is no written </strong><br /><strong>contract as this is a non-exclusive, per image representation.</strong><br /><br />Licensing is non-rights-managed.<br /><br /><strong>Contact info is updated via email.</strong> If a photo is licensed, a personalized <br />vendor account is created on the website.<br /><br />Upload at your discretion and convenience. Only files loaded by you are <br />added to the collection.<br /><br /></p>

[tom_schwabel]

<p>And finally, an additional response that clarifies the somewhat contradictory information about license model in the previous posting of mine:</p>

<p>"Mostly non-exclusive" would have been a more accurate term to describe <br />it. RF model applies when we have limited file sizes and can not <br />guarantee exclusivity. When a participant is interested and provides a <br />large enough file, we can treat it as RM. Though be advised that this <br />colection is not intended to be an income generator for commercial <br />photographers. You are already familiar with the RF pricing structure: <br />the larger the file, the bigger the fee. Currently we have no plans to <br />make these images available for microtransactions. Whether or not this <br />changes in the future, the images remain on the site solely at the <br />discretion of photographers. I hope this answers your questions.<br /><br /></p>

[juanital]

<p>Any more on this? Did you try them out? I received an invite too but was worried at first it being a scam. I would be interested what anyone has done. While this info is useful I'm not savvy in the stock world-so maybe someone can enlighten me in layman's terms? Thank you!</p>

[tom_schwabel]

<p>Juanita,<br>

For the moment I have decided to pass on this. Unfortunately, the image would likely be licensed as RF and their RF licenses do not include some exclusions that would protect my rights to sell this image as fine art. Other agencies often include RF restrictions that require the buyer to pay extra (usually double) for the right to produce on-demand posters and prints. I'd like to keep the legal right to produce prints a little more tightly controlled as one image sells prints well. I'd hate to see a poster site buy it for $400, produce 20000 prints, and all I ever see is $160. I can get $160 for two prints selling on my own.</p>

<p>But, some images are great stock sellers but not so interesting for prints. So you want to think about what kind of image(s) you have and how they might sell best. If you're particularly attached to an image you might not like the idea of selling it as RF. If you're not so attached, then maybe it is a good choice for this.</p>

<p>Plus, without a written contract, if they decide to change the terms I have no legal footing. Sure, the editor I exchanged mail with was able to clear many of my concerns, but I could not get this in official terms. In the past I learned a very very hard (and extremely expensive) lesson about protecting my image rights and don't want to go there again. I'm not saying don't do this; NG is a prestigious name to be associated with and for sure this isn't a scam; just make sure not to make the decision lightly and educate yourself on the different types of stock licenses (RF and RM and what rights they grant buyers), how the contributor agreements vary between the major stock houses (Getty, Alamy, etc), and what you want to get out of your images.<br>

-Tom</p>