explain need for licence to client

[arjen van de merwe]

<p>I have a request from a small pharmaceutical company here in Africa needing product photography. They have never dealt with a license and a restriction on use of photographs. How do I explain that I need to restrict their use, and charge again if they re use the photos (after a years license included in the photography fee)?</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>a. That's my business practice and it is a common practice among professional photographers.</p>

<p>b. That's the way I can earn a living at photography.</p>

<p>... but if you can't explain it yourself, then is there really a need to restrict usage?</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>Do you really need to retain rights to the images which you probably cannot use without their permission?</p>

<p>I would give them a price to include transfer of rights.</p>

[photomark]

First, forget Steve's advice. You should retain your rights the image, even though that's not what you

are asking about. You can't know the future value of an image. It's not uncommon for companies to be

bought by larger companies, or for them to want to share imagery with business partners. Also,

depending on the kind of imagery you are shooting and your model release, you may not need their

permission for future use. Obviously nobody here has enough knowledge of specifics, but there is

almost never a reason to transfer rights without a big payday.

 

As far as educating clients, it's hard with small firms that don't have a lot of experience. One idea is to

stop talking about restrictions and start asking them what they want to buy. Try to figure out as much

as you can about the possible use before you talk money and then price the job with every realistic use

they want. This is what they would like and you are showing them the price for it. If the price is too

high, then they have a chance to negotiate. Instead of getting restrictions, the are getting a discount for

deferring use until later.

 

Another way to explain it, is that you charge based on the value of the image. You don't want to have to

charge them what you would charge Merck or Pfizer. Because they don't need the worldwide media

buys that a multi-national does, you can give them a better price. But if they insist on having the option

for television rights, annual reports, billboards in Europe, etc. you would certainly be willing estimate the

value of the images with that in mind. But that's not a great deal for them. If they find out they need

those billboard rights, you'll give them a fair price later.

 

Good luck.

[Charles_Webster]

<p>+1 for what Mark said.</p>

<p><Chas><br /><br /></p>

[steve m smith]

<p>You're stuck in the past with an old way of doing business which was only possible then because you had control. i.e. you had the negatives and your customer had no way of getting prints without your cooperation.</p>

<p>Today your customers get digital files and have the means of copying and manipulating them without your help.</p>

<p>You can either stick to your principles and probably lose work in the process, or change the business model to suit current technology.</p>

<p>A successful business is one which provides what the customer wants, not one which tells the customer what he should expect. If you don't provide what is being asked, someone else will.</p>

[arjen van de merwe]

<p>Thank you very much, this is very helpful.<br>

Mark, I will be going that way.</p>

[photomark]

Steve, I just had the best year I've ever had. By far. And it's only mid-September. If this is stuck in the

past, I'll take it.

 

A successful business is not just the one which provides what the customer wants. It's the one that

understands the value of what their customer wants, understands what it costs to produce, and is able

provide it for a profit over the long term.

 

This 'new' way of doing things sounds interesting, but have you really thought it through? Have you put

together a business plan that disregards the value of the thing you make and still works? The simple fact

is that the right photograph is very valuable to your customers and it's hard to get. A photographer needs

to value their own work.

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>The simple fact is that the right photograph is very valuable to your customers and it's hard to get. A photographer needs to value their own work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

<br />I appreciate that this is the case with the right photograph (to use your words) but the OP is writing about producing photographs for a pharmaceutical company which I assume to mean photographs of their products. The company would not want and would certainly not allow a photographer to use these images in any way so they don't really have any further value other than the money earned for photographic services.<br /><br /><br /></p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>the right photograph is very valuable to your customers and it's hard to get.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How hard is it to "get" photos of products? </p>

[photomark]

Excellent use of quotes, John. It conveys the perfect combination of sarcasm and contempt.

 

Arjen hasn't given us enough information to discount his job as trivial and not worth perusing in a professional

manner. We have no idea what kind of work he is being asked to do. Product photography runs the gamut

from simple representation (i.e. catalog work), to high end creative advertising work. Open up a Vanity Fair or

GQ and look at the watch and perfume ads. How much time do you think they took to get those shots right?

How many assistants? How many art directors and client meetings? Also, product photography sometimes

includes products in action, which often means people and locations. We just don't know.

 

Here's a behind the scenes video of a truly simple product shot of a hamburger:

 

http://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/mcdonalds-behind-the-scenes-photo-shoot-reveals-why-fast-food-looks-different-in-the-ads.html

 

Is that as easy as you expected?

[danmarchant]

<blockquote>

 

<p>Do you really need to retain rights to the images which you probably cannot use without their permission?</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>If you retain the rights to the image then you don't need their permission to use it, which is kind of the whole point of retaining copyright.</p>

<p>If the client wants ownership the OP certainly shouldn't give it away.... but they could sell it.</p>

 

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>there is almost never a reason to transfer rights without a big payday.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Except when there will be NO payday without doing so. Especially when there is no market value of the images as to third parties. Whether a job will be lost or worthy of forgoing, in any event, depends on the individual circumstances.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>We have no idea what kind of work he is being asked to do.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You just told us that the photos the customer wants are hard to get. Now you "have no idea what" the customer wants. You don't know if competitors can supply desirable images with more desirable terms. No idea how the customer may react to licensing restrictions when, apparently, there are accustomed to no restrictions. But gave one size fits all advice nevertheless.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is that as easy as you expected?<br /><br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Speaking of sarcasm.<br /><br /><br />The question was if the product shots will be hard to get which is not necessarily based on ease of shooting. Since you have no idea what the customer wants, you don't know. If a specialized style is desired, then there may be more negotiating power. If its a slew of routine catalog shots, there might be little.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you retain the rights to the image then you don't need their permission to use it, which is kind of the whole point of retaining copyright.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The photographer may not have much, if any, use for the images elsewhere. Moreover, a very broad license can be provided which may satisfy the customer's concern making transfer of copyright a non-issue.</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>If you retain the rights to the image then you don't need their permission to use it, which is kind of the whole point of retaining copyright.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Following on John's point, I have never found a use for any product photography I have done, unless there was a model inside the product<a href="http://spirer.com/images/savage1.jpg">. </a> Shooting 300 products for a catalog with a single setup is good for what later? Can someone come up with an actual use? The only reason I can think of is to use for self-promotion, but that can be licensed back when selling the copyright.<br /> <br /> If someone paid me $50 for the copyright on a day's worth of product images (once again, without a person inside the product), I would gladly take it, but even they don't think it's worth it if they have the right to use in the catalog.</p>

[requiem]

<p>The OP, in a <a href="00aqvo?unified_p=1">separate post</a>, described the task as simple product and package images on a white background, 36 in total. This suggests minimal artistic input, particularly if the images are being used for a regulatory filing or other non-marketing purpose (e.g. electronic product labeling). Arjen is certainly unlikely to have use of much of them, as the company's copyright on the packaging would be in play.</p>

<p>Such cases seem well-suited for "work for hire" treatment; Arjen should certainly charge for his time, skill, and effort, but holding a veto on future use is probably being counted as a liability by the company. If the images are as basic as Arjen's other post implied, someone within the company is almost certainly considering handing the job to an intern. Barring a sufficient disparity in image quality, legal freedom at no cost generally outweighs restricted licenses that come with a bill.</p>

<p>To Arjen: If there is more of an artistic element involved, and these are something you'd like to include in your portfolio, be sure to license those rights from the company as well. As Mark suggested, this isn't about setting restrictions, it's about making sure each side has the rights they need under the current copyright regime.</p>