pay for use of image.

[mdineen]

<p>i was approached by a company wanting to use an image of mine for a christmas card. initially the deal was that i was going to make the cards, but they decided to have someone else do that and just pay me for the rights to use the image. does anyone know a ballpark range for what one would charge for that? i'm not sure if it makes a difference, but there will be around 600 cards.</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p><a href="http://photographersindex.com/stockprice.htm">http://photographersindex.com/stockprice.htm</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.d-65.com/photographerresource/pricing.html">http://www.d-65.com/photographerresource/pricing.html</a></p>

[aimee_pieters]

<p>In an idea world, charge them what you would profit from making the cards. Remember, they can use this image for other purposes (or will), so 2 things will make this worthwhile for them:<br>

1) Provide a high-res fully retouched file<br>

2) Give them unlimited use (you don't really have much control over this anyway)<br>

Let us know how it goes......-Aimee</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Aimee:<br /><br />That is completely untrue. If the license agreement specify that they are allowed to make 600 cards, they can't use the image for any other purpose (legally) without a new usage agreement. <em>Can</em> they? Sure, if they are willing to risk getting hauled to court and get sued. Most serious businesses wouldn't risk this simply because it isn't worth it.<br /><br />Mary simply needs to specify in the usage agreement the number of cards they are allowed to print (and any pother usage details they agree on).<br /><br /></p>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>does anyone know a ballpark range for what one would charge for that?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Curious....Only 600 cards? Hmm? OK.</p>

<p>Write your agreement with them to produce (X) amount of cards only.<br>

What to charge is pretty much up to you; perhaps you can ask for a percentage of the profits which itself has a downfall if they don't sell all the cards. Larger greeting card companies will pay for single use PLUS royalties on future sales during the 1st production run only.</p>

<p>Personally, and w/o knowing anything about this print company, I would charge a flat (single) use, (Time Limited) (Exclusive) use for approx $200-$275.</p>

<p>At a minimum, include the following in your agreement:</p>

<p>1) Start date + End Date = Duration of use.<br>

2) Indicate exclusive or non-exclusive use. (Exclusive is time limited)<br>

2a) Media type: In this case, print only.<br>

2b) Card stock and size + total quantity.<br>

3) Indemnify yourself against all claims for mis-use of image. (i.e) If no model or property release exists, say so in your paperwork.<br>

4) Describe the image being used. This is usually part of the delivery memo, but it's ok to place it in the agreement as well.<br>

5) Client promise to pay (X) amount within (x) number of days upon receipt of image: Usually found in the invoice, but ok in the agreement too.</p>

<p>Although this appears to be a small print run, I see no easy way around some form of a licensing agreement.<br>

You may be tempted to simply trust the verbal agreement. Don't do it. Your agreement may not be with the Nike foot wear company, but that is not a valid reason to abandon a written agreement.</p>

<p>If you see the possibility of future work, I highly suggest getting a book concerning the business aspect of photography from getting work to writing a license agreement.</p>

<p>All the best and good luck.</p>

 

[mdineen]

<p>thanks for all your responses. guess i was unclear about the use. they are a company sending christmas cards to their customers with my image printed on them. no profit for the company, it's just a one time marketing expense. i am thinking in the $200 dollar range. am i way off base? i would have been able to make much more if i were producing the card.</p>

[aimee_pieters]

<p>A couple of responses here:<br>

Mikael & Kevin - while it's important to properly compose the usage agreement, the reality is that the recipient is in posession of the file and it can be nearly impossible to police the usage. If in fact they violate the usage agreement, it becomes the photographer's choice to spend the time and expense to litigate the matter. So my feeling is to get paid adequately upfront and move on to the next client.<br>

Mary - You seem to be unhappy with the amount you're suggesting and they haven't accepted your proposal yet. If you're going to grant them use, then be comfortable with what you're being paid and also be prepared that they may negotiate down from your initial offer. That's how everyone does business.....-Aimee</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Aimee:<br /><br />I don't agree. At least 40% of my income every year is for re-use of previously licensed images. Granted, I license only to "professional" clients like magazines, book publishers etc. Often my one-time usage fees are higher than what the publisher could get an RF image for, so not only do I get paid adequately up front but I also get to invoice them again and again for the same image should they re-use it, need broader or more usage than what was originally agreed upon.<br /><br />You are right that it can be impossible to police the usage. I would never license an image to a publisher I didn't trust enough to feel confident they wouldn't violate the usage agreement. On the few occasions when it has happened it has been due to a mistake and the publishers in question paid up (triple what I normally would have charged for the same usage) with no questions asked.<br /><br />That's not to say there aren't dishonest image users out there - naturally there are. But I think it's important not to generalize too much in either direction, so to speak.</p>

[thesaltypeanut]

<p>Aimee - I would have to disagree completely with that logic as well. Sure people can abuse an image release, but a big company who is taking the right steps necessary to get said release? I highly doubt it.</p>