photo in a feature film—no compensation?

[patricia_a_murray]

<p>i've been approached (via email) and asked if i would be interested in having one of my photos used for the opening credits of a feature film. this person had apparently been looking around in flickr and came across an admittedly beautiful photo of my parents on their wedding day. after i expressed an interest, the person emailed back and said that there would be no compensation for the use of my photo. <br>

<br />letting them use my photo free of charge does me no good at all. so my parents would be seen by millions in a hollywood movie. yay. i can't pay my light bill. i would feel so stupid as an out-of-work (and broke) person making a "donation" to the makers of a multimillion-dollar movie. what do you think i should do?</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>If you don't like the lack of compensation, say no. </p>

<p>If you want them to use the photo but need the money, ask for it. Worst they can do is say no.</p>

<p>You miss every shot you don't take.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>The 'person' knows enough people find flattery and vanity to be adequate compensation for such uses. They will find something suitable for free soon enough. The internet age makes finding stuff that people will allow to be used easier. Vanity isn't necessarily a bad thing. After all, look at all the people showing their work online here and elsewhere. Indeed, you are already allowing your parents image to be seen by "millions". Should someone else have to pay you if they want to show your work as well? That's up to you.</p>

[link]

<p>Not all feature films are Major Studio multi million dollar productions. With digital cameras and editing today, it's possible to make a feature film for a few thousand dollars (if nobody gets paid). These are more often labors of love than true commercial enterprises. It's also common for very small commercial productions, (about $200,000 budget) to get made by paying small sums to the crew, but the producers and director work for free while hoping to get into Sundance :)</p>

<p>So, if Sony Studios is asking for your photograph, you should be paid. (I doubt they'll pay more than $100 unless you're HCB) But many independent movies are out of cash by the time they get to making title sequences. You could ask for a very small honorarium ($25?) or perhaps a DVD of the finished movie and an invitation to the Premiere. </p>

<p>Or you can say no</p>

[keithdunlop]

<p>"letting them use my photo free of charge does me no good at all."</p>

<p>It also doesn't do professional photographers any good! It's hard enough to make a living from photography these days without photographers (both pro and amat.) willing to give away work for free.</p>

<p>Either do your homework and research the budget for the film, the distribution, etc., and work out an appropriate level of compensation for the licensing and usage of your image, or say "no thank you".</p>

[john tonai]

<p>You are also missing an important point-copyright. If this photo is of your parents on their wedding day I would assume that you are not the photographer. Unless they are old enough that the copyright has run out, you don't have the right to distribute the image, with or without compensation.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Nor would they to incorporate it in the film?</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<blockquote>

<p>John:<br>

If this photo is of your parents on their wedding day I would assume that you are not the photographer.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>OP:<br>

i've been approached (via email) and asked if i would be interested in having one of my photos used for the opening credits of a feature film</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are a gazillion wedding pictures on Facebook etc so if you want payment there is probably one person who would agree to it without a fee. <br>

If seeing your parents' picture on the big screen is not that much of thrill to you, I think you have nothing to lose by asking for a 'small donation'. You could also ask the person what the film is and if this does not work out, when the film is released check they didn't use it anyway. I know its sneaky but...</p>

<p> </p>

[patricia_a_murray]

<p>i had a nice lengthy response yesterday that somehow didn't get posted. i'll just thank everyone for their responses and advice. i'm not a movie buff and almost never go to the movies (fewer than a dozen times in my 55 years). having my parents' photo in a movie is not a big deal to me; i just want to be compensated if the photo is used. in addition to coming up with a price, i'll also look into the copyright issues as well. thanks again!</p>

[enlightened-images]

<p>If these guys are doing a feature film; they have a budget for everything. Are you going to tell me you're gonna let the guy that delivers sandwiches make more for his contribution, but you'd accept nothing? I've personally licensed images for use as background art (hanging on a wall) used in one scene of a feature film for several hundred dollars. Opening scenes in a film are prime real estate and worth $$$. This guy's cruising for suckers on Flickr, cuz he knows many photographers are happy as clams to shoot themselves in the (fiscal) foot just for the opportunity to be published. But like you said, that won't even pay your light bill. I'm willing to bet that would be worth four figures if it's featured on-screen prominently.</p>

[cre8tiveparadigm]

<p>crabbe they have a budget, tonai is right about coypyright</p>

<p>I find it astounding that anyone on a site that exists as a forum for persons interested in and engaged in making money from their photographs would advise a person to provide an image to a commercial enterprise for gratis. Notwithstanding the issue of copyright pointed out by John Tonai, Gary Crabbe is right - they have a budget. If not as others point out vanity will lead them to a free image. They can pull one from their own circle of family and friends. Because this reality exists is no reason for any person to short change themselves. Be assured that they are doing everything in their power to protect their rights to the copyright of their film.<br>

Sadly, they are not alone. Major Hollywood players have just made a film called "A day in the Life" if memory serves that contains major if not all footage from films submitted from a "YouTube" contest. I understand that the submissions are not being compensated. I believe this is unethical. In todays world of digital data there is no excuse for not recording who the submitters selected are and compensating them on a per second basis of used footage. It is simply stock footage. At a rate of $50.00 per second with a one minute minimum the cost of a 90 minute film's stock usage would range somewhat above $270,000. This is small change in a Hollywood Feature budget. Big action sequences can spend that in a days shoot. In Hollywood $10,000,000.00 is a low budget film. (note: $50.00 is a very low rate for this type of use but given that they are amateur films $300.00 minimum compensation seems reasonable. It constitutes that stipend mentioned).<br>

While this is beyond the scope of the request here, Patricia, copyright not being an issue has a right to compensation pure and simple. </p>

[james_kirkikis]

<p>Several posters mentioned that most people would be happy simply to be a part of a major production. But, as you mentioned, pride does not prevent the electric company from turning off your power. Amazing that a muli-million dollar movie is looking to save a few pennies by asking for a photographer to onate a photo.<br>

It does not have to be that way: I had an opportunity to provide a photo for a major motion picture, one that would go on to win several Oscars. The photo was simple (an office building) and was on the screen for about a second, and not even an intergral part of the film (used in a slide show describing a character). The production company was offering $5000. I would have felt more pride in cashing the check than bragging I was part of an Oscar winning movie. Unfortunately, they chose someone else's photo, so I felt neither.</p>

 

[patricia_a_murray]

<p>wow, i really appreciate your responses and your willingness to share your experiences. i had absolutely no knowledge on this subject. wow, James Kirkikis—$5 for one photo? incredible!<br>

as it turns out, my photo will probably not be used. i did come up with a price, and my 'contact' did agree that the amount was reasonable, but i don't think they'll use the photo. you see, as a precaution, i made the photo 'private,' which means that no one can see it except me. i haven't heard from the company since i did that. it's possible that they were going to take the photo anyway, knowing full way that i couldn't fight them in court.<br>

oh, well, it's all good. at least i didn't get ripped off! thanks, again, all.</p>