My first real sale....help req.

[Jonny]

Guys,

I am so pleased that a local gallery has asked for some copies of one of my shots to sell but being a total novice i really dont know what to do.
My thoughts are this:

1. As it is a the picture is of a local, very historic pub i am sure i need a release. As it is a very popular building that is featured on many postcards etc i am sure it wont be too much of a problem. However who do i really need to ask? I rang the pub today to speak to the manager but she was busy so i need to call back but i did learn that she was just the manager and didn't own the property. Do i need to speak to the people that actually own the building who are a brewery?

2.With a release i just go ahead and sell prints to the gallery. OR do i let them print their own from the file with a contract stating how many they can print and where and what they can sell.

3. What the hell do i charge? Is there a rule of thumb for this kind of thing or do i just pull a figure out of the air? Double the print cost, triple the print cost? I don't want to put them off by giving a too higher price.

4 Also would it be reasonable to ask them to put my name in the corner of the print / matte etc...

Like i say this is my first real oppotunity to sell one of my shots professionally so i want to get it right.

I dare say this has been asked a million times before so please forgive me.....but i am so pleased!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Stan35mm]

I'm not a pro as of now, but I know that in US you don't need a release form if the building was build before 1991 (or similar?). People in the picture, it's a different story.

Regarding setting the price, read the sticky message above before you decide to charge as little as tripple the cost of the print...

[robertwgross]

I'm not a pro as of now, but I know that in US you don't need a release form if the building was build before 1991 (or similar?)

This is total nonsense.

---Bob Gross---

[Stan35mm]

This is total nonsense.

---Bob Gross---

My statement that you don't need a release form for photographing a building built before 1991 was based on info I found in:
http://www.photosecrets.com/p14.html
The guide I'm quoting was written by a copyright attorney.

Here is a quote:
"Only buildings created after December 1, 1990 are protected by copyright. Fortunately for photographers, the copyright in an architectural work does not include the right to prevent others from making and distributing photos of the constructed building, if the building is located in a public place or is visible from a public place. So you don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a public building."

Maybe my interpretation of the issue described in the article is incorrect. I would welcome comments on this.

[robertwgross]

Maybe my interpretation of the issue described in the article is incorrect. I would welcome comments on this.

Yes, and you still have your dates wrong.

---Bob Gross---

[mgbeach]

Hey Bob,

How about offering the correct information instead of continually shooting Stan down?

[Stan35mm]

Yes, and you still have your dates wrong.

---Bob Gross---

Bob,
...it's very easy to criticize others.
I might be wrong, but I did an effort to quote the source of my opinion.

If you post on this forum, I assume you want to share your knowledge. Would you like to elaborate?, e.g. how should this be understood, what is the source of YOUR knowledge, etc.

I hope I'm wrong, but from the way you verb your replies it sounds like your main goal is to impress others, and make fun of those who in your opinion are wrong.

Regards,
Stan

[robertwgross]

The original poster is from the United Kingdom and asked a question.

Then somebody from Canada offers factoids based on US law.

That, fundamentally, is nonsense, and it doesn't help the original poster.

---Bob Gross---

[Croasdail]

Soooo - what is the right answer.... we now evidently know all the wrong ones. I would really love to know as I am doing a photo essay on the changing south, and I want to make sure if I publish anything I am not in any legal jeopardy. I also travel internationally monthly and take lots of images of buildings.... it would be nice to know the precident here.

Not sure how being rude helps here... obviously the location was misunderstood and that could have been pointed out without being curt. Hope that is not the trend for this forum...

[Mastervtec]

Awesome job on being a total ass bob.

[Moppie]

Bob wasn't rude, he was merely blunt and honest. :)

The internet, no, the World is full of such people, they have a tendancy to be blunt and honest because they know more about the particular subject then most people will ever know about thier own feet.

If you can't handle a very simple honest answer (that was from where Im sitting, also slightly humorous) then you may find a life involving contact with other people very difficult.

The thread starter asked a simple question that is geographicaly relevent. (remember only about 7% of the worlds pop'n live in the USA). Bob merely pointed that out.

[robertwgross]

There may be a few Brits here who can help with the question of British law. But I doubt that we are going to move the structure to the US so that US law can apply for the photographer's benefit.

Yes, blunt and honest. I'm not one to sugar-coat it.

---Bob Gross---

[Croasdail]

Actually - there is this little thing called the Berne Convetion and UCC that does control copyright protection across subscriber nations - of which the US, Canada and the UK belong too. Many of the controling principles do apply in most contries. Now with respect to specifics of historical places viewable from public places.... who knows.

Being honest and blunt is all good if you are adding value to the conversation...

This is total nonsense.

---Bob Gross---

and

The original poster is from the United Kingdom and asked a question.

Then somebody from Canada offers factoids based on US law.

That, fundamentally, is nonsense, and it doesn't help the original poster.

---Bob Gross---

doesn't add any value at all.... partially because it is wrong. Berne and UCC do apply to the ownership of these images - in England, Canada or US. It doesn't control if he can take the image but it does control what he can do with them afterwards.

[Croasdail]

Jonny - sorry for how this thread got of track... back to a couple of your other points, it is easiest if you provide them with a finished product to sell. If you have them do the duplication and all that, then you really need to enter into a licensing agreement for copyrighted material where you will need to specify all the details on how it will be reproduced to asure that your name is not attached to some poor quality reproductions, as well as protect your revenue and rights to the image. There is also a book out there called "Pricing Photography: The Complete Guide to Assignment and Stock Prices" that might give you some guidance as you get further down this road - it probably is available on Amazon. Good luck - I hope this all works out for you - and sorry for the direction this thread took. Cheers!