Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jools Elliott

Would you charge for this?

Recommended Posts

Afternoon all

 

Not really a stock question but arising from a stock sale.

 

I was contacted by someone who had seen a photo of mine in one of the UK papers. They like it so much that they would like to be able to do a painting from it.

 

They have divulged that they are an amateur but do the occasional exhibition as well as the occasional sale.

 

How would you approach it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A royalty agreement? Any amount the calculator comes up with is going to be huge. Or maybe a trade if you like their work, or an amount the likes of FAA would charge.

Whichever way, you get something for an image a less scrupulous artist would just nick anyway.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First say thanks for contacting you. Most artists don't realise they can't just reproduce a painting from a photo without permission.

A calculator price for an amateur artist is going to be nonsense so just make a judgement call - I guess £25-£50 - and a commission if it sells. And that wont't be much - most artists seem happy to sell for £100 or less.

They'll probably run but your only other choices are commission only on sale or gift it - and nobody ever values something they got for free.

Edited by Peter Noyce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most artists don't realise they can't just reproduce a painting from a photo without permission.

 

I have to say I didn't realise that either. Is there somewhere this is quoted as it would be useful.

 

Not sure what to charge on it. Commission is a good idea so I will float that and see what happens:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I have to say I didn't realise that either. Is there somewhere this is quoted as it would be useful.

It's a breach of copyright. Proving it is the thing, but there's recent law here about significant similarities of layout also being a breach. Something to do with boxes of tea.

 

Edit- here it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Island_v_New_English_Teas

From what I recall Wiki is quite close for once.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was asked the same thing regarding some bird pictures - the artist was brilliant and very upfront - the amount of work put into her pastels makes the sales rate here at Alamy look really generous. I sent her some low res versions which she worked from on screen - told her no charge.

 

Come Christmas and I received a beautiful framed original pastel of one of my dogs (that's her - Emma in the snow - on the left of this posting) - better than any tiny fee !!!!!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My approach is to ask for a low fee (say $50.00) but if it becomes a commercial product, they would have to contact me to obtain a license which would reflect 10% of profits. In relation to those "painters" using photographs (not their own) as derivatives and without the permission of the photographer is endemic on the Net. I belong to a Copyright Infringement Group of painters and photographers on Facebook. One of the members found that a certain US "painter", based in Florida, selling prints on Fine Art America, ImageKind and RedBubble was using photographs he found on Google and placing a Photoshop filter on them and passing them off as "acrylic on canvas" or "oils on canvas" where it was patently obvious that they were actually photographs and not paintings at all. He stated that the "original painting" was not available for sale. Of course, it was not available as it only exists on his hard drive. When I pointed out to FAA, Imagekind and RB what he was actually doing, and that they were risking their safe harbor protection by publishing his "work", FAA took his site down. Imagekind and RB are still thinking about it. He even used a photograph of a National Geographic photographer and was selling it as prints. None of the photographers I contacted were aware of this infringement of their work and many were furious. I also found yet another "painter", also based in Florida, doing exactly the same thing. He even had the same image that the other "painter" was selling, using the same filters. So it would appear that nicking photographs and putting a few "watercolour" filters on them and flogging them off as paintings is probably endemic on print on demand sites. Sheila

Edited by Sheila Smart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies.

 

So, if a price was agreed what size of image would you send? Would you watermark it?

 

I tried looking on a couple of image library sites to see if they might have some kind of pricing to cover what the person wants to do but there isn't anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Space Cadet - leave me out of this...

Sorry, not with you.

Have you some connection with Temple Island v. New English Teas? If so I wasn't aware of it.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an artist from Europe contact me about making a rendition of a old Cadillac front end image of mine for a friend. I said it was ok with me, as long as he stated it was from my pic and did not sell it. About 6 mo. later he asked if he could do another in a different medium to exhibit/sell, yet wasn't sure when he'd get around to it. Again I stated to give me/my image credit and we'd work out the details once completed, though I'd prolly ask for him to make a small contribution to a charity in my name if he received a decent amount. Most artists are in the starving category and since this one was very upfront with me throughout, I didn't need a commission. So for me it would be a case by case basis on who the artist is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just had the person come back to me on this.

 

They originally found my image through a newspaper and then tracked me down through the copyright line.

 

Apparently, a solictor advised them they could pay me a "token" amount of £1!!!

 

I don't know. It seems that some people out there really place no value on photography. My answer in the end is going to be a firm no.

 

Thanks everyone for helping out on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jools - that £1 is a pretty standard 'token' payment for a written agreement where no proper fee is required but legal protection is - it is not intended to be offensive as it would be something that you could agree to - or turn down - it is not a value placed on your image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, No, No. Do not say NO. Name a price, say £250 or more and spell out very limited rights and insist on a byline "after a photograph by Jools Elliot" That should be the end of the matter, but if they do take a chance, you have some leverage. You would probably succeed with a 100% uplift for flagrancy if push came to shove. What do you suppose his solicitor charged them for his cynical advice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@Space Cadet - leave me out of this...

Sorry, not with you.

Have you some connection with Temple Island v. New English Teas? If so I wasn't aware of it.

 

...

 

 

Whichever way, you get something for an image a less scrupulous artist would just nick anyway.

 

boom boom!

 

dd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@Space Cadet - leave me out of this...

Sorry, not with you.

Have you some connection with Temple Island v. New English Teas? If so I wasn't aware of it.

 

!!!

 

 

A royalty agreement? Any amount the calculator comes up with is going to be huge. Or maybe a trade if you like their work, or an amount the likes of FAA would charge.

Whichever way, you get something for an image a less scrupulous artist would just nick anyway.

 

:)

 

dd

 

oops . . . didn't think the first attempt worked . . .

Edited by dustydingo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and to add. Because the photo has already been paid for by the newspaper who bought it and printed 1000s of times it seems that seems to add justification to what the solictor was saying.

 

Sorry, sticking to my guns on this one.

 

And Robert. They saw a price that they would have to pay for it through the image library along with the restrictions on what they could do (just exhibiting and no selling of it) and balked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just had the person come back to me on this.

 

They originally found my image through a newspaper and then tracked me down through the copyright line.

 

Apparently, a solictor advised them they could pay me a "token" amount of £1!!!

 

I don't know. It seems that some people out there really place no value on photography. My answer in the end is going to be a firm no.

 

Thanks everyone for helping out on this.

 

The £1 payment is nominal to give value to transfer of title.

 

Bet the solicitor charged more than £1 for the advice!

 

Ask for what you consider to be a fair price for the use - plenty of opinions already given.

 

Good luck, your masterpiece may make you both immortal.

 

dov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The artist is either telling porkies or he has misconstrued what the solicitor said. Perhaps he asked the wrong question.

Nick, got it :) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.