Company asking to use my flickr pictures for their marketing purposes?

[yenny_r]

<p>Hello all,<br>

I have a humble flickr site that I've been maintaining for several years. Once in a while, I would get a request for using some of them for their own purposes. The latest one was a request to use some of my flickr pictures for their marketing purpose. Particularly from this album: https://www.flickr.com/photos/14786780@N07/sets/72157644976870916/<br>

Their exact wording:<br>

"We would like to use the images on our project marketing information sheets that describe the exhibit work our firm designed. The project sheets will potentially be viewed by our prospective clients only and not used for commercial purposes. We would also like permission to utilize your photos on our website where we reference the Kidspace Children's Museum. This would not be for commercial use. "<br>

I'm just learning about copyright and the general photographers' opinion on this matter, so I'm not sure how to respond. The company has a website, of which it relies heavily on pretty pictures on different sites in different states, as it is one of their main selling points to their clients. On one end, I feel like it's a dishonor to photography society that a company (a pretty big one, from their website) who get paid for advertising these places, failed to compensate the photographers who shot the pictures. On the other end, it seems that this is how the photography world is going to? <br>

I don't make money from my pictures, however I do put some of them in my blog to support my articles, where one of the post would have identical pictures with the ones they requested, not sure if it mattered: http://beyondlosangeles.blogspot.com/2014/06/kidspace-childrens-museum-part-2.html <br>

If I say yes, what photographer credits do you usually give? What about giving the digital copy of the image? (they requested that, as I will quote below):<br>

"Please let me know if you give your permission to use the image, the required photographer credit and how we can go about receiving a digital copy of the image."<br>

Thank you for helping this novice. </p>

[john_h.1]

<p>I'm not sure why it matters what other people do. You don't seem to have any particular need or desire for the company to post any of it so there is no need to bargain for anything. You should feel free to choose any terms you want. In any event, if you agree to let the imagery be used for "marketing information sheets", a digital file will obviously be needed. </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>They're being disingenuous in the extreme. Of COURSE it's for commercial purposes! They want to use your photographs to help further their business goals - they want to show them to prospective customers in the interests of securing new business. It's called ADVERTISING. It's commercial use by definition.<br /><br />But more to the point, it doesn't matter if it's commercial or not. That's a meaningless distraction. ANYBODY who wants to use your images needs to seek license from you to do so - you hold the copyrights, and they want to COPY them.<br /><br />Tell them that you're pleased to hear your work would be a constructive addition to their sales tools, and that you'd be happy to license their use of the images at a competitive rate. Generally, for such use, the paying customer shouldn't feel the need to credit you for the photo in their own marketing material - that's a distraction from their own message to their prospective clients. And that shouldn't bother you, because what you're asking for instead is cold hard cash.<br /><br />Rather than get tangled up in usage royalties and the ensuing paperwork, consider granting them a license in exchange for the amount of money you'd consider your time worth (before paying taxes!) had they contacted you in advance and commissioned you to make those photos for them. What's your time worth? More than minimum wage, surely. $100/hour?</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

"I feel like it's a dishonor to photography society that a company (a pretty big one, from their website) who get paid for

advertising these places, failed to compensate the photographers who shot the pictures. On the other end, it seems that

this is how the photography world is going to?"

 

Ad agencies, public relation agencies, publications, and companies have always tried to get photos for as little as

possible if not for free since I started in the business of professional photography in 1980. Nothing new now except for a

lot more suckers who fall for the "think of the exposure!" Line.

 

Exposure can be valuable, every commercial photographer I know (and I know a huge number of them ranging from very

experienced top end pro level to the rank beginner level) will do work for exposure or for free. The real question is: what

is the value of that exposure to you?

[david_henderson]

<p>It's commercial usage, without any doubt at all.</p>

<p>There is every possibility that as soon as you mention a fee they win backpedal rapidly, and run off to find the next amateur in line who will be flattered to have their work used by a company, free or not. I'd be tempted to price the work as Matt suggested and see whether they counter-offer ( which means that they might really want to use the work, rather than just some work they can get for free) or whether you simply don't hear from them again. <br>

If you haven't had any interest in professional work so far, how much is this sort of exposure worth to you? Maybe its best to make a decent amount of money for the licence and accept the risk that it might kills the "opportunity".</p>

<p> </p>

[noreen]

<p>I wonder if/when they will ask about model releases.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>What Matt said. I am surprised that a large organization would try to pull such a stunt. </p>

<p>Make them pay and shrug is off when they move along. You are not doing this for money so you do not have any skin in the game as they say.</p>

[enlightened-images]

<p>If it was me...<br>

They could opt for a full priced traditional rights managed license for commercial marketing use and corporate web site use based on size and press run, or<br>

<br />I'd charge a *Minimum* of a high-end traditional RF license, just for the marketing materials, *with* a requirement for a credit line in all printed or electronic uses for 3 years, $750 for 5 years, or $950 for unlimited term non-exclusive use. (2x times RF rate)<br /><br />For web use, at a minimum, I'd limit to inside secondary screen, 3 years, under 600 pixels $175 with a credit line and a live link back to my web site, $300 no credit line, or $495 no credit line no term limit (again, another rate equal with a high-end RF image, but without the RF license.<br /><br />Hope that helps.<br /><br />Gary.</p>

<p>PS I have a page about pricing images on the sidebar of my weblog, but Photo.net won't let me post a link. You can find it by going to my web site though.<br /><br />PPS @ Ellis V. Great pic of the Japanese Umbrella which showed up on the bottom of the page.<br /><br /></p>

[andrew_andrews1]

<p>Hi Yenny,<br>

It seems that they are a charity of some sort (they appear to be largely funded by donations). <br>

All they've done is asked to use your photos on their site, if you agree say yes, if not say no.<br>

The most useful photographer credit to give them would be your name and website. This could be beneficial to you in terms of SEO and driving traffic to your site. If you already have the images, I don't see what you have to lose by sharing your images and getting credit for them. I doubt they'd be willing to pay huge sums of money, but you could ask.<br>

They seem pretty reasonable in the way they've approached you.<br>

Andrew</p>

[yenny_r]

<p>Sorry for the late reply! I submitted a response earlier but didn't seem to be posted.<br>

Thank you for the insights! I appreciate the pro and cons that you offered in the posts above. They are very helpful & I can tell they come from your experience.<br>

Just for clarification: No, they are not a charity. I looked at their website & they have many pictures there, however I can't find any credits given to any photographer. If it is on brochures to their clients, such as zoos, museums, and so on, who is going to check who took the pictures anyway? <br>

They credit they are offering is to put my name. Not sure how valuable it is. Currently I am an amateur, but going pro in the future is definitely on my mind. I'm still learning all the ropes, both on photography & business side. <br>

Thanks again for all the inputs. </p>

[aaron l]

<p>Don't forget about "charities" - the people working there get paid, the people emailing you get paid, the people processing their paperwork get paid. They're not working for free, why should you? I've had this several times and I ask the person emailing or calling me if they receive a salary/hourly. Invariably it's yes. I ask how much it costs for them to show up to their job - usually nothing save gas and that doesn't count. Then why should I who've invested $1000's in gear and training, who has much more at risk, not get paid.</p>