A company wishes to use one of my images

What kind of rate would be a fair rate to quote them for the image?
I think a reply along the lines of ''My my wife needs money to feed our kids so food vouchers would be a nice middle ground for Asda the monthly shop is £200 then quote their company house financial achievements and use the cliche ''no such thing as a free lunch!
Photographers need to value themselves asking for images to promote a business for free is very disrespectful when said company is turning a healthy profit.
Get on the phone a negotiate and use some tact as written communication can be taken the wrong way.
Talk about what they like about your image and compliment the effects and bring it back to them how your image will support there marketing wonderfully.
Every time they talk about getting things done for free tell them how wonderfull they must feel being global and having a successful business making money.
Mention that you are thinking of submitting images to a stock library.
 
Last edited:
GlennBlackPhotos said:
What kind of rate would be a fair rate to quote them for the image?
Click to expand...

Either nil, because he's not allowed to sell them at all, or a huge amount, to make it worth while when/if the venue decide to sue him for breach of contract and the amount they feel they lost by having their commercial exclusivity taken away from them :)

It does strike me as rather hypocritical to be talking about how much money can be made from these shots, and how dishonest/disrespectful the effects company are, while ignoring the fact that they are not allowed to be sold. We keep hearing about the rights of the photographer, but are happy to ignore the rights of the venue.

It's no different to trying to run a taxi service using hired cars, when the hire agreement specifically forbids it, then trying to take the moral high ground when someone asks for a lift.

Now, if the tog wants to sell regardless, aware that he's breaking a contract by doing so, fine. But lets stop pretending he somehow has a right to do so; he does not.

The effects company are being unreasonable asking for the shots for nothing (though if I was them, I'd be saying to the tog "we would pay, but the venue's rules prevent us from doing so). If he sells, the tog is being dishonest. Pot and kettle surely?
 
Last edited:
The conversation has been about the principle of selling or giving work for free, in general - as to whether the images in question are actually available or not is down to the OP and any arrangement he may or may not have with the venue. It goes without saying that the relevant permissions must be in place before the images can be passed on, for free or otherwise.
 
Yes, I take your point Lindsay, but I pointed out the un-availability of the images quite early in the thread, and yet most people have chosen to ignore the tog's (inadvertent I'm sure) potential dishonesty, while lambasting the effects company. People continue to urge him to do this or that to get money out of the company, quite specifically rather than in general terms, despite knowing full well, if they've read the thread, that he's not allowed to sell them.
 
Lindsay, I think he may be able to give them away free, though maybe not if he knew they'd be used commercially. Depends whether the court interpreted the clause as commercial use by the photographer, or allowing any commercial use. So if he gave them to me for personal use, which he's allowed to do, then I gave them to the company, he'd be off the hook I think, because neither I nor the company have any contract with the venue, and he's stuck to his.

Yep, I still would Steve; the issue I have is the moralising against the effects company while knowing you're doing wrong yourself that I dislike. I'd sell them, it's wrong to, but at least I admit I'd be doing wrong.

But no it's not the user's issue; there's no contract between the user and the venue. It's firmly the photographer who's at risk because it's them that broke a contract and allowed commercial use.

To be fair I doubt the venue would worry. The clause is really there to prevent someone making a business out of taking and selling loads of pictures, undercutting the venue's/artist's/promoter's market, not to stop the odd opportunist deal.
 
Last edited:
Commercial usage is fairly specific, paid or unpaid it would require the necessary permissions if the images are being used to advertise, promote, or endorse a business, a product or service. Other forms of usage such as editorial, educational, newsworthy, artistic etc are exemptions and permissions are not required for such usage, irrespective of whether money has changed hands. So providing photography was not prohibited within the venue, and there were no additional clauses, the OP could use the photos in that way. Most venues however prohibit commercial usage.

And yes, it is the photographer who would take the rap. This is why stock agencies usually require photographers to provide clear evidence that they have commercial rights/release.
 
The only thing is Lindsay, these are pictures of the companies own products (though not only those), so I think the permissions issue may be a bit muddy in this case.

So really I think the issue is that the OP can't sell his shots; that's specifically prohibited. He could of course approach the venue and ask for permission.
 
Lindsay D said:
And yes, it is the photographer who would take the rap. This is why stock agencies usually require photographers to provide clear evidence that they have commercial rights/release.
Click to expand...

It's usually the end user (publisher) who has the responsibility. That's why stock agencies ask for releases. It's to protect them, not the photographer.


Steve.
 
Steve, that's to do with copyright. In this case the venue don't claim copyright, they simply put a contract in place that says "you're allowed to take photos, but not for commercial use". The publisher can't be party to that contract, because they knew nothing about it. It's the photographer who breaks the contract when they use the shot commercially.

It may be that legally you need permission to show someone else's property in an advert (though if that's so, how do adverts ever show city scenes?), but the point is that that doesn't get the photographer off the hook; he still broke a contract.
 
Last edited:
Giving work away will devalue the work of every photographer in the future. It is hard enough to get paid work as it is. Digitisation has seen the value of images tumble and the abuse of copyright increase dramatically. We need to protect our work and our income from this piracy.
If you give work away you will not be paid next time either, neither will the next photographer they use. Having looked at the web site of the pyrotechnics company I would say they cover some high profile events (for which they get paid) they should have a budget for this kind of situation. They are just trying it on and if they are allowed to get away with it, they will try it on with everyone. DON'T DO IT.
Get a friend to ask them to come round and put on a display for free and see what they say.
 
You're right Barry. And selling images you have no right to sell devalues the work of those who do have those rights, and who may well have invested money and time into obtaining them.
 
Steve Smith said:
Or lose.



True.

It's not a criminal offence but you will probably not get any repaet business from that venue.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Or repeat, oh, and you could do with some of these ,,,,,,

If you are going to give English lessons for free on the internet's, please make sure you can first use it yourself correctly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top