Someone wants to purchase one of my images!

[T.D.]

I just received this comment on one of my shots on smugmug:

Great shot of the capital! I'm a local realtor wandering if I can purchase the rights to use this shot in some of my marketing.

Please get back to me, I'll even send you a mock up sample of the ad I hope to run.

Thanks,

This is a shot of the state capitol. I have absolutely no idea what I should charge. Any thoughts??

Here is a link to the image: http://hoyboy.smugmug.com/photos/87880268-L.jpg

[floydianslip6]

Its a bit complicated since they are going to be using the shot for marketing. The first question would be what kind of file they want. If they want a digital file, how big and at what DPI, the bigger the photo and the higher the DPI the more expensive the shot is going to be. The majority of stock photography at high resolution 9" x 6" at 300dpi is around $400 - $500 WITHOUT ROYALTY.

The other question to ask yourself is do you expect royalties everytime they use the image. Also if the image is a major part of the ad, are you going to be paid per lead that the ad generates??

Selling photography for marketing is a tough call since there are so many factors. I'd leave it to someone with more experience in this kind of work than myself...I'm sure someone else can elaborate. Just some ideas to think about.

[fivefish]

Think future sales... from the same realtor, or from their colleagues. Don't price yourself out of a sale but don't give it away too.

I think $150-$250 for this promo run is a good price, and if she decides to do another print run, then maybe charge an addtl $100-200 license per use afterwards.

Then tell him/her to recommend you to some of his colleagues.

PS: Realtors are kinda cheap so don't think big $$$ when charging them.

[IndyJeff]

Whoa, whoa, whoa fellas. Don't get to hopped up on the possible income, initially and future wise. First, ask yourself "Can I sell this to be used in an ad campaign?"

While you may rain on their parade and glamourous ideas of using the state capitol in their ads, they will sure be thankful if you ask your attorney, or suggesting they ask their attorney, can they use this without any sort of release from the state. Better to see bitter dissappointment on their face from not being able to use it than to have them with that hounddog look in front of a judge just after he finds in the states favor against them and you.

Just check first....better safe than sorry.

[LBaldwin]

Ok gang,

First images of public properterty belong to the photographer. The gov't cannot prevent or stop the use of images of public(ly) owned property.

I have made several inquires along this line. Just like images that belong to
the National archives the military and several government agencies can;t charge for usage, just printing costs. Your tax dollars paid for the buildings, parks etc. Permits are sometimes needed for shooting in those areas, but the images belong to the photographer.

2nd the buyer of the images may understand some of usage rights. So the seller should act accordingly. Usage rights are sold so, that the end user can utilize the image legally.

Try not to sell all rights to the image, but limited and exclusive rights. If you set up the sale according to the usage + exclusive time frame.

You want to find out what type of material he wants to produce. Newspaper, magazine or TV is one set of rates, web based is additional.

The client will probably want a comprehensive usage agreement. If so something in 1200 to 1500 per year is not unusual. 250 to 400 would be for just one type of usage. As far as lowering the price against possible future work is basically BS. Enforce your rights, conduct your self in a professional manner and you will get respect. THAT will get you future business and allow you to negotiaite from a position of strength.

There are great calculators on the EP website along with some excellent contracts. EP has legal assistance from top attorneys so you can depend on the quality of their stuff.

Thanks,

Les

[T.D.]

Thanks everyone for your advice. You've certainly given me a good starting point. This is all so new to me.

I appreciate you each sharing your perspectives.

[IndyJeff]

Ok gang,

First images of public properterty belong to the photographer. The gov't cannot prevent or stop the use of images of public(ly) owned property.




This is an advertising use and that may be a different set of circumstances, it would still be best to check with an attorney before proceding any further. The state still has the right to control the use of it's property images. I could be wrong but, it would be better to check first.

As an example the state of Kentucky registered the word Kentucky and got a trademark/copyright on it. Ever wonder why Kentucky Fried Chicken is now KFC since Pepsi bought it? How about the Kentucky Derby? Ever notice it is now advertised "The Run for the Roses" by ABC and not the Kentucky Derby?

[LBaldwin]

This is an advertising use and that may be a different set of circumstances, it would still be best to check with an attorney before proceding any further. The state still has the right to control the use of it's property images. I could be wrong but, it would be better to check first.

As an example the state of Kentucky registered the word Kentucky and got a trademark/copyright on it. Ever wonder why Kentucky Fried Chicken is now KFC since Pepsi bought it? How about the Kentucky Derby? Ever notice it is now advertised "The Run for the Roses" by ABC and not the Kentucky Derby?


For a large nationwide TV campaign I might agree. For a local ad I would not bother. You might call the state media relations department, but it is generally geared to TV not stills. Agreed that each state is different. Checking with a lawyer before I use an image I create? I might as well hang up my camera and get a job flipping burgers.

I do keep an attorney in my rolodex for contract issues. Most lawyers are not really equipped to handle issues as above. It would be cost prohibitive to do this even once for a small case useage.

BTW has every business that uses the name Kentucky removed it from its name?
Les