Pricing and restrictions questions.

[mickfly]

I would appreciate some pointers here from those in the know, thanks.

A local musician wants some promo pictures doing and we have agreed a fee for a half day shoot, BUT what sort of licence should I write her to stop the images being used for editorial use, other than social media, posters etc.

The reason I ask is that there may be the chance of fame for her and I would hope they would want the pictures for national media etc.

I would get a release and post some pictures as RM on Alamy, but wouldn't want her sending the ones I licence to her to be sent all over, willy nilly.

Any suggestions appreciated.

 

[vpics]

I don't think you should restrict social media use. But here's a thought. Why don't you give here specially formatted social media files that have your watermark in them. E.g. © joebloggs.com

[spacecadet]

Just draw up a licence with tight conditions. Remember you can sue quite cheaply on third-party UK infringements anyway.

[MDM]

I would have thought that editorial and advertorial use, including social media, would be part of any promotional commission like this and that the client would be assuming that to be the case, given that you haven't actually given her a contract yet. If you were to place excessive restrictions on the licence, you could even lose the job if she reads your contract. Also it wouldn't do your reputation a lot of good if you were to place heavy restrictions on usage. And suing for infringements in relation to commissioned work like this would probably be an absolute reputation killer. People would be afraid to use you.

 

An alternative would be to include your right to licence the images for editorial purposes and use this as an opportunity to build a reputation with her and other local musicians by producing top class work. She might even retain you as her photographer when/if she becomes famous. As vpics says, you coud try to include a watermark on the social media files which would be a promotion for you and perhaps a credit for any other editorial use.

 

And of course include a clause that allows you to use the pictures in any media for promotion of your own business.

[Niels Quist]

I would have thought that editorial and advertorial use, including social media, would be part of any promotional commission like this and that the client would be assuming that to be the case, given that you haven't actually given her a contract yet. If you were to place excessive restrictions on the licence, you could even lose the job if she reads your contract. Also it wouldn't do your reputation a lot of good if you were to place heavy restrictions on usage. And suing for infringements in relation to commissioned work like this would probably be an absolute reputation killer. People would be afraid to use you.

 

An alternative would be to include your right to licence the images for editorial purposes and use this as an opportunity to build a reputation with her and other local musicians by producing top class work. She might even retain you as her photographer when/if she becomes famous. As vpics says, you coud try to include a watermark on the social media files which would be a promotion for you and perhaps a credit for any other editorial use.

 

And of course include a clause that allows you to use the pictures in any media for promotion of your own business.

 

+1

[mickfly]

Thanks for the input guys, I will ponder which way to go, but I think MDM has it nailed.

I'll make a licence based on the suggestions.

[Chuck Nacke]

Mick,

 

I quit doing commissioned work two decades ago and I got back into the business more than a year ago.

The world has changed a lot and it took me a while to realize that the $2,000+ per day + expenses jobs were not going

going to come fall into my lap.  I will tell you that there is no such thing as a half day, keep in mind that I travel to most

shoots with over 4,000 watts of power and six heads.  I am making 1/4, per hour, of what I made in 1998, even though

my day fee is the same or a bit more. 

 

The one thing that I insist on is that all images that I make are copyright Chuck Nacke, period end of discussion.  When I

am commissioned by to make images for client that has hired me, paid me, has the right to reproduce, post on the world wide

web and use all images that I have made for them as they see fit.  I own the copyright and license rights 100%.

 

I go out of my way not to get into discussions about licensing and hate contracts.  I agree with MDM.

 

Chuck

[Ed Rooney]

 

I would have thought that editorial and advertorial use, including social media, would be part of any promotional commission like this and that the client would be assuming that to be the case, given that you haven't actually given her a contract yet. If you were to place excessive restrictions on the licence, you could even lose the job if she reads your contract. Also it wouldn't do your reputation a lot of good if you were to place heavy restrictions on usage. And suing for infringements in relation to commissioned work like this would probably be an absolute reputation killer. People would be afraid to use you.

 

An alternative would be to include your right to licence the images for editorial purposes and use this as an opportunity to build a reputation with her and other local musicians by producing top class work. She might even retain you as her photographer when/if she becomes famous. As vpics says, you coud try to include a watermark on the social media files which would be a promotion for you and perhaps a credit for any other editorial use.

 

And of course include a clause that allows you to use the pictures in any media for promotion of your own business.

 

+1

 

 

 

+3, counting Chuck

 

Mickfly, do you not see that you are trying to get paid twice and give the client nothing for her money? She is not hiring you to do her personal snapshots. 

[mickfly]

 

 

I would have thought that editorial and advertorial use, including social media, would be part of any promotional commission like this and that the client would be assuming that to be the case, given that you haven't actually given her a contract yet. If you were to place excessive restrictions on the licence, you could even lose the job if she reads your contract. Also it wouldn't do your reputation a lot of good if you were to place heavy restrictions on usage. And suing for infringements in relation to commissioned work like this would probably be an absolute reputation killer. People would be afraid to use you.

 

An alternative would be to include your right to licence the images for editorial purposes and use this as an opportunity to build a reputation with her and other local musicians by producing top class work. She might even retain you as her photographer when/if she becomes famous. As vpics says, you coud try to include a watermark on the social media files which would be a promotion for you and perhaps a credit for any other editorial use.

 

And of course include a clause that allows you to use the pictures in any media for promotion of your own business.

 

+1

 

 

 

+3, counting Chuck

 

Mickfly, do you not see that you are trying to get paid twice and give the client nothing for her money? She is not hiring you to do her personal snapshots. 

 

I wouldn't be giving her nothing for her money, she would have good use of any images provided, BUT I would want to use them myself for stock.

[KevinS]

I sometimes use the phrase "no third party use" to grant the client unrestricted use while retaining the chance for a use fee from a magazine or book should there be any interest. And I always make it clear that the copyright is not being transferred, but staying with me.

[Bill Brooks]

Clients want to control their brand and burnish their reputation. In a paid assignment you are supposed to do that. That is incompatible with doing the assignment, and then retaining stock rights. Suppose your client has a girl next door brand today, but 5 years from now becomes Ms Sexy. Does she want the old images hanging around? Does she want them out of her control?

 

Stock rights will get you peanuts, but if you become a trusted supplier of photography you become part of a trusted circle of suppliers. Becoming part of that trusted circle for a famous person, politician, or corporation, will open many doors for you.

 

You have to make a decision. Are you a corporate photojournalist? Or are you a paparazzi photojournalist?

 

You cant be both.

[mickfly]

Update:
She has got a friend to do it (probably for 'exposure'), I won't lose any sleep about it, she'll get what she pays for.
Thanks for the input.