Asking for a friend

[laurenleephotography]

<p>My friend, Ann is a part time professional photographer. She photographed a remodeled kitchen for a friend who designed the remodel. Ann told her these images were for her only. They have her watermark logo embedded. It seems this friend/client gave Ann's images to this 2012 Sourcebook (not sure what this is) and they've already used the images. In the aftermath, they sent Ann this email<em>:</em><br>

<strong><em>"We ran several of your images of a kitchen designed by Lisa Tilley in our 2012 Sourcebook. </em></strong><br /><strong><em>Please let me know if the usage fees below are acceptable. If so, please send me an invoice along with a completed w-9 form (attached).</em></strong><br /><strong><em>One 3/4-page: $125</em></strong><br /><strong><em>Three 1/4-page: $225</em></strong><br /><strong><em>Total: $350"</em></strong><br>

I've done some reading and there is a lot of information out there, but it is not consistent. But, what IS consistent is that it seems like you guys are getting at least $15,000 for usage fees. This isn't to even begin to ask about how you control the usage of any image.<br>

I hate that they already used her images. I hate that her friend/client gave them the images to use without consulting her. Now what does she do? Something seems to tell me they know what they are offering is far below typical usage fees. And, they did say "Please let us know if the usage fees are acceptable." They aren't. So how should she handle this after the fact?</p>

 

[tonybynum]

turn them into clients! $15k for that - no way . . . youre out of your mind, not for that kind of useage . . .

sure they should not have used them without permission from the creator, but it's done, settle on a fair

price (they left that door open) then make them a new client . . .

[Matt Laur]

<p>15,000 <em>cents</em> maybe, would sound about right. Four- and five-figure fees are associated with elaborate, commissioned interior shoots that involve lighting crews, designers/stylists, all-day use of rental grip trucks, etc. Think Moen or Armstrong having someone shoot for Architectural Digest's cover. That sort of thing.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>The $15,000 photographer is one that has been published on covers, features, ads, etc... and as Matt pointed out it is almost always commission work. </p>

<p>Your "friend" should be glad they are willing to pay something for the work and they are coming clean about using the images - most companies would simply remove the images and replace them with $2.00 - $3.00 Stock images from Getty or the like. </p>

<p>My advice - send them a letter thanking them for their honesty and say that the fees they have quoted are fine and that you will be providing them with a limited release (upon payment clearing the bank). Along with the invoice for the amount indicated and the w-9. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I would agree with everyone else. It's important to understand that it was not an assignment and therefore the prices are not going to be the same. Even as an assignment, $15K sounds extreme for a kitchen remodel shoot. FWIW, I met a guy once doing a cover shoot for AD and he was getting $5K.</p>

<p>However, the usage was unauthorized, so normal fees may not be the best gauge of things. This is a copyright violation and, if she doesn't care about the friendship, she should go to a lawyer. If she does care about the friendship, she should ask for 50% more and see what happens.</p>

[laurenleephotography]

<p>I am getting a good idea of where you guys are coming from. Thanks for the clarity. I really appreciate your input. </p>

[mariosforsos]

<p>What has been said so far is absolutely correct! But methinks that the problem started with your friend giving the images to the interior designer without any kind of agreement or release and without agreeing on any kind of pricing.</p>

<p>A sourcebook, for your info, is pretty much like a catalogue of ideas and businesses providing/supporting them, much like a telephone directory, so the usage they're suggesting (letting aside the fact they should not have used the images in the first place without your agreement - by the way, how did they handle the embedded watermark? Did they remove it somehow? If so, this should be brought up as a problem...) seems pretty fair to me...</p>

[danmarchant]

<p>A company's first offer is never the most that they are willing to pay - especially give the large penalties for copyright infringement. Obviously those penalties vary depending on if the copyright is registered, if the images were marked with copyright info or if the infringer removed said copyright into.<br>

The DMCA allows $25,000 statutory damage awards above and beyond any other damages. If someone infringes on your copyright and you had a copyright message and they removed it by cropping, photoshop, or editing out your copyright info from the image file attributes etc., you can receive substantial damages. The minimum damage award is $2,500 and the max is $25,000 per offence (meaning pre image used).<br>

<br />If your friend registered her images with the copyright office she can pursue for actual damages or statutory damages (but not both) if you have never sold an image for more than $250 you are likely better off going after statutory damages, which max out at $30,000 per accidental or inadvertent infringement. However if you can demonstrate wilful or deliberate infringement it goes to a maximum of $150,000 per infringement. Having a copyright message means the infringer must know, and it is therefore willful infringement, and the same applies if they removed an existing copyright message.</p>

<p>On the above basis I would certainly go back and ask for double what was offered. If they accept, great. If they don't then talk to an IP lawyer and see which of the above your friend would be likely to receive before responding again.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>I'm being cynical but it wouldn't surprise me if the friend felt she should get a cut if the deal is accepted. In any event, I agree with accepting the terms. The friend may have made representations of some kind to the publication. The publication did, at least, contact the photographer after the fact. Its not really a situation begging for the photographer to to get all midevil on the publication even if they can.</p>

[laurenleephotography]

<p>Just for the record, I have nothing to do with this. If you are referring to HER friend, I must say that isn't the case, either. The friend gave the images without Ann's consent. Until Ann tells her friend, she is probably unaware of any of this. It's a shame how understandable it is that you are inclined to be cynical. Thanks for the input.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Without knowing the publication or the quality of the photos, I would say the $350 is in the right ballpark for what your friend might have hoped to get if the publication had approached her seeking photos. The fact that they have tracked her down and offered payment is highly professional and appropriate. The posting we see here more often is that a photo has shown up somewhere without advance permission and the photographer has to go after the publication demanding to be paid. Ann should accept the payment and let the publication know that she is available for work and would be glad to do business with them going forward. It could turn into a lucrative arrangement -- besides work from the publiation, it could help her get work from other clients they could refer to her. Trying to get a slightly higher fee isn't worth the trouble and going in demanding $15,000 would make it clear that she has no concept of what photogrpahy pays and would guarantee that they would never use her work again.</p>

[keithdunlop]

<p>In order to price the usage accurately, you need to know the nature of the publication, the market, the distribution, etc. All of these factors contribute to the proper usages rates.</p>

<p>Once you have that info, download a copy of FotoQuote Pro and get some rates ranges. Off the top of my head, you're definitely getting low-balled, especially given the copyright violation issue.</p>

[enlightened-images]

<p>I have an extensive page on my site called "Stock Photo Pricing Help" but photo.net won't let me post a link to my site. If you want to find it, click on my NAME (Profile) -> Website -> Weblog -> (sidebar) Photography - Stock Photo Pricing Help. Pass the link on to your friend.</p>

<p>The fees are on the low end of fair, and your friend doesn't have to accept them. Perhaps more like a 3/4 p. @ $350, and the 1/4p @ $175.00 each, then a little discount off the top for multiple image use if you want to be nice, or because they were used first, skip the discount.</p>

<p>It sounds like the company is trying to be fair advising of use and offering a standard license fee, although she can charge what she wants, she might not want too charge too much or risk alienating her friend / client.</p>

<p>Hope that helps.</p>