License to Include Resale Rights?

Hi guys,

I was wandering if anyone knows how much to charge to include resale rights for photography. So far, my license agreement allows full usage rights, web and otherwise but does not include resale rights (even if the project photographed belongs to the client). If someone else want to purchase the photos, they have to contact me and I distribute them to whoever I want. But a client is interested in purchasing full rights, which means they want to be able to distribute them. What percentage of the total price would you charge for this type of unrestricted license? Many thanks in advance.

Do they want the additional right to sell or do they want all rights (to own the copyright). The cost of an image depends in part on its value to the customer. A image taken for your local store to be used in an advert will be a lot less than the cost of an image to be used worldwide by an international cosmetics company to generate $ millions in sales. In the same vein a local store using an image on postcards will be worth less than a big company company that sells posters/cards world-wide.

Next there is the issue of your additional revenue. If this is the sort of image you would usually expect to make additional sales from and those sales are likely to be impacted by this company selling the image then you need to charge more.

Conclusion
You need to give us a better idea how the image will be used before someone can give you an indication of its value.

If they think the photos are further salable by them, then the photos are further salable by you. Your price should take that lost income into account.

Here is an example from the music industry: You can get a license to play the entire BMI music catalog on your website for about $350 a year. But to get a license to distribute a video CD containing even a few seconds of a single BMI song will cost you tens of thousands of dollars.

A resale license is expensive. How many times can that image be sold? How much more money are they going to continue to make not just using your image but reselling it again and again? That's the kind of thing you take into account for your pricing.

If they're talking about a transfer of copyright from you to them, in the US that means they will even be able to claim to have created the work themselves (the US does not recognize "moral copyright")...they don't even have to credit you--they can put their own name on it, and you can't even use the photograph for your own portfolio unless they give you permission.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #13271838
Do they want the additional right to sell or do they want all rights (to own the copyright). The cost of an image depends in part on its value to the customer. A image taken for your local store to be used in an advert will be a lot less than the cost of an image to be used worldwide by an international cosmetics company to generate $ millions in sales. In the same vein a local store using an image on postcards will be worth less than a big company company that sells posters/cards world-wide.

Next there is the issue of your additional revenue. If this is the sort of image you would usually expect to make additional sales from and those sales are likely to be impacted by this company selling the image then you need to charge more.

Conclusion
You need to give us a better idea how the image will be used before someone can give you an indication of its value.

To be honest, I'm not too sure I know what the difference is between having the additional right to distribute and to own the full copy right of an image. If they own the full copy right, what else do they have the right to do besides resale the photos?

I believe they only want to be able to distribute the photos. But since I created this thread, I've decided to make it a rule NOT to give distribution rights to anyone. I'll draw the line at selling an exclusive usage rights, but no distribution.

With the copyright, they can claim authorship (in the US) and prevent you from using it. They can also develop derivatives (which would not be included in a mere license to distribute). A license to distribute can also be limited in any way you want if you still retain copyright.

pixel_junkie wrote in post #13273407
To be honest, I'm not too sure I know what the difference is between having the additional right to distribute and to own the full copy right of an image.

Read http://www.copyright.g​ov/circs/circ1.pdf
It is basically the difference between saying to your son that he can borrow the car to drive to school and giving him the pink slip. If they own the copyright (one word) they own the image and are the only ones who can make use of it (or grant permission for others to make use of it). You would have no rights to use the image unless they agree to grant you those rights.

Thanks!