Permission to print - What next?

Hi All,

You may remember a couple of days ago I asked advice on how to go about printing pictures of a public building. In the end, I decided it would always be best to ask permission.

I contacted my local Cathedral as I have several images I would like to arrange for print (postcard use, that sort of thing) as well as make available in a range of sizes.

Anyway, the Chapter Steward from the Cathedral has replied to my email saying my proposal of x% of profits would be appreciated and he is happy for me to sell my images of the Cathedral.

He then went on to say he was impressed with the sample images I gave him to look at, and could they use them for 'Cathedral use'. What exactly this means I do not know. He also requested to use them free of charge, but will credit me as the photographer (with my name/website).

So... What is the next step? Do I need some sort of official contract signed to say they are happy with me using their prints.

And would you give away your work free to the Cathedral? This is the first "job" (although it's not really a job) I've got... more of a gig to showcase my work! It'll get my name out there (not necessarily in a big way), but I was just wondering what everyone elses thoughts are on this?

Should I try and determine what "Cathedral use" actually means?

Thanks in advance for any replies

Amnesia

Anyone?

Definitely get a signed permission/contract with everything spelled out precisely. What is expected from you for your sale of the photos, and what they are 'licensed' to do with the photos. (ie: it would kind of defeat the purpose of you making and selling postcards if they are going to make them too and give them to their community...)

I'm sure others with more experience and details will chime in. The above is what I see constantly here, and what I would do. Hope to be in that situation often.

Without there consent for printing, it would have left you in a tight spot. The % of sales to most religious groups almost always opens the door for their consent. Allowing them to use the photograph as they wish on this one could also be considered as payment along with the %.

But in written form keeps everybody warm an comfortable.

Glad everything worked out

<-- Would not have asked.

NeoSoulPhoto wrote in post #12086436
<-- Would not have asked.

...and you would have opened the door to getting sued for illegal commercial usage.

I contacted my local Cathedral as I have several images I would like to arrange for print (postcard use, that sort of thing) as well as make available in a range of sizes.

Postcards are commercial products, you need a property release. A print is not commercial here - UK law you have to check on your own or someone else familiar can comment on that. Using the images without a release is trouble, big trouble.

Anyway, the Chapter Steward from the Cathedral has replied to my email saying my proposal of x% of profits would be appreciated and he is happy for me to sell my images of the Cathedral.

Walk or donate - it's your choice. Should be a write off I would think, donating money to a non-profit church, commercially you need an agreement from them - a CONTRACT - not an email, not a hand shake, a contract - that's for you to negotiate. Prints you do not need a contract to sell them, it's not commercial (here at least).

He then went on to say he was impressed with the sample images I gave him to look at, and could they use them for 'Cathedral use'. What exactly this means I do not know. He also requested to use them free of charge, but will credit me as the photographer (with my name/website).

If it was a for profit business, they pay - always pay - or some kind of trade off that will benefit you. Credit is not a trade off, access is not a trade off. A church is non-profit usually, the money used keeps the church going, it'd be charity to give them some images. HOWEVER, you need to put it in writing what they can and can't do with the images - it's free/charity work then it's limiting a bit. "Internal use" would be things like brochures, websites, etc.

So... What is the next step? Do I need some sort of official contract signed to say they are happy with me using their prints.

YES - have everything spelled out, negotiate a deal to benefit you both. ALWAYS put it in writing, just did some handshake deals and all worked out - but one tried to say they owned the rights because of some state policy for education workers - well, a quick no that's not the way it works from me and they balked - but like an idiot didn't have it in writing with signatures, had it all in emails, just not a contract - put it on paper with signatures every single time.

And would you give away your work free to the Cathedral? This is the first "job" (although it's not really a job) I've got... more of a gig to showcase my work! It'll get my name out there (not necessarily in a big way), but I was just wondering what everyone elses thoughts are on this?

They're usually non-profit and charities, everyone should do charity work if it's something you believe in. The churches have pamphlets and things they send to those who attend so you could trade off an advertisement selling those prints or your services, i.e family shoots, etc. Think long term - what does the Cathedral do, who are its members, etc.

Should I try and determine what "Cathedral use" actually means?

Always, put it in writing, always, every time, not most the time, every time - take it from an idiot who didn't!

Personally, I'd ask for eternal redemption in exchange for "Cathedral Use."

Then, GO NUTS!

Thanks everyone, really helpful replies.

MJPhotos, thanks for being direct. I'm going to start looking a bit more into UK Law just to double check. However, by getting a contract signed at least I will be covering myself.

Does anyone know where I can get a decent template for a contract from? The ones I find online seem to be a quick letter but don't really detail anything.

I am happy to donate to this charity, and offer the images they choose (and those images only) for their "Cathedral Use". Again, I would need to check what this means.

I'll get another email from them in a bit more detail and explain I'll arrange to meet with two copies of the contract for us to sign.

Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction, this is a totally new area for me!

MJPhotos24 wrote in post #12088456
...and you would have opened the door to getting sued for illegal commercial usage.

I'd take that chance, Its not very likely that a church will Sue you over that and I doubt that they would ever even see the post card. Would I be wrong for selling a photo of the empire state building with out getting permission from the owners?

Is there an actual law regarding this?

I think in NYC you need a permit for commercial photography.

MJPhotos24 wrote in post #12088456
...and you would have opened the door to getting sued for illegal commercial usage.

I don't know what the laws are everywhere, but in Ohio the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame museum lost that court battle when they tried to sue a photographer who made and sold posters from a photograph of the building. The court ruled, "Property has no privacy rights," and because federal laws for neither copyright (which explicitly exempts photographs of buildings) or trademark (the building is not a registered trademark) applied, the photographer was home free.

The University of Georgia has also lost its lawsuit against a photographer who sold images of their property. The University of Georgia sued on the grounds of "conversion" (using someone else's property for your own profit), but the federal court ruled, essentially, that while the real estate belonged to the University of Georgia, the photograph was fully the property of the photographer and sales of the photograph involved no real use of the real estate, so there was no conversion of the university's property.

In fact, according to photoattorney.com, there has yet to be either legislation or case law indicating that there is any requirement for a property release. So far, every time the issue has gone to court, the photographers have won, giving us a body of court precedent.

There is more information about that here: photoattorney.com

NeoSoulPhoto wrote in post #12091647
I'd take that chance, Its not very likely that a church will Sue you over that and I doubt that they would ever even see the post card. Would I be wrong for selling a photo of the empire state building with out getting permission from the owners?

Is there an actual law regarding this?

The issue with photographs of the Empire State Building is that numerous views of it have been registered as trademarks (same with Disney's Fantasyland Castle, the Chrysler Building, and a number of other iconic buildings). It can still be imaged as a work of art under certain creative contexts, but selling postcards of a straightforward shot would be problematical.

Copyright law explicitly exempts photographs of buildings from the copyright protection of the building plan owner (but beware copying someone else's photograph of the building!)

RDKirk wrote in post #12092107
I don't know what the laws are everywhere, but in Ohio the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame museum lost that court battle when they tried to sue a photographer who made and sold posters from a photograph of the building. The court ruled, "Property has no privacy rights," and because federal laws for neither copyright (which explicitly exempts photographs of buildings) or trademark (the building is not a registered trademark) applied, the photographer was home free.

The University of Georgia has also lost its lawsuit against a photographer who sold images of their property. The University of Georgia sued on the grounds of "conversion" (using someone else's property for your own profit), but the federal court ruled, essentially, that while the real estate belonged to the University of Georgia, the photograph was fully the property of the photographer and sales of the photograph involved no real use of the real estate, so there was no conversion of the university's property.

In fact, according to photoattorney.com, there has yet to be either legislation or case law indicating that there is any requirement for a property release. So far, every time the issue has gone to court, the photographers have won, giving us a body of court precedent.

There is more information about that here: photoattorney.com

Actually, believe I was thinking of buildings with trademarked logos and such - remember a stadium having issues, but it had the team name/logos/etc. plastered all over it. So crossed signals, I need a vacation from my sunny work vacation.