How do you describe specific photos in a license?

When putting together a license document, how do you call out the specific photos for which you're granting the license?

- File names are so easily changed, I'm reluctant to just list the images by filename.
- Can't say "All photos taken on this day" because there are obviously some non-keepers that aren't included in the license.
- Can't really say "All files on this disc" either because the recipient just make another disc and put whatever files they like on it.
- A contact sheet with all the applicable photos on it? That seems to be how some portrait studios handle it, but it only works if the number of licensed images is small. My brother got something like this for his kid's school photos, and we got something along these lines when we bought an image from Disney Photopass.

In my recent case, I did some headshots for a local writer/performer, and he bought the license to print, use for self-promotion, and put on his book jacket. I gave him about six files on a disc and a hastily-put-together license agreement listing the file names. I really don't care how he uses the images, but any reputable print service will [hopefully] want to see a license from me before they print them for him.

So. How do you identify the specific images that are included in a license agreement?

How many images are we talking ? I have no idea what common practice is--the commercial stuff I do involves many dozens of shots and I specify that the license is for all returned photos taken on such and such a date / time.

If there were just a couple, why not include small size watermarked versions in the document ?

For software we generally just use the program/filename/libra​ry name/whatever can be used to readily identify the stuff as shipped.

If someone changes the filename, or puts the data somewhere else, it is all still bound by that license. If that wasn't the case then everyone could take any digital product, rename it, and do whatever they please with no legal recourse. (As opposed to them doing it anyway and just not caring.)

Embed the copyright in the exif.

nathancarter wrote in post #14796028
When putting together a license document, how do you call out the specific photos for which you're granting the license?

- File names are so easily changed, I'm reluctant to just list the images by filename.
- Can't say "All photos taken on this day" because there are obviously some non-keepers that aren't included in the license.
- Can't really say "All files on this disc" either because the recipient just make another disc and put whatever files they like on it.
- A contact sheet with all the applicable photos on it? That seems to be how some portrait studios handle it, but it only works if the number of licensed images is small. My brother got something like this for his kid's school photos, and we got something along these lines when we bought an image from Disney Photopass.

In my recent case, I did some headshots for a local writer/performer, and he bought the license to print, use for self-promotion, and put on his book jacket. I gave him about six files on a disc and a hastily-put-together license agreement listing the file names. I really don't care how he uses the images, but any reputable print service will [hopefully] want to see a license from me before they print them for him.

So. How do you identify the specific images that are included in a license agreement?

Date alone: "Images taken on 7/12/20012." I don't bother with listing filenames on the license (that would have been like listing negative frame numbers back in the film days, and we didn't do that either). The printing agency won't worry about confirming images against the license.

EXIF is easily changed or deleted if you're dealing with a thief, so registher your copyright for the image itself (which is why you send images to the copyright office and not just filenames).

For your own purposes, you might file a copy of the license with a representative image so that you can keep track of them.

RDKirk wrote in post #14799291
Date alone: "Images taken on 7/12/20012."

For your own purposes, you might file a copy of the license with a representative image so that you can keep track of them.

If you were to shoot two jobs on a given date, free Karen's Directory Printer v5.3.1 will let you list the files from one job for the records in about a minute.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #14799751
If you were to shoot two jobs on a given date, free Karen's Directory Printer v5.3.1 will let you list the files from one job for the records in about a minute.

If I were shooting two jobs on a date for the same client, they would be one job.

RDKirk wrote in post #14799773
If I were shooting two jobs on a date for the same client, they would be one job.

And your point is?

PhotosGuy wrote in post #14802395
And your point is?

There is no point to attaching a list of files to the license. It does nothing to improve the enforceability of the license. If anything, it opens the door to breaking the license.

"Your honor, this license is clearly and specifically limited to images bearing these file names. The images used by my client do not bear those file names."

You'd have to fall back on copyright registration of the images...which you already had to do anyway.

It's just record keeping, & I quoted you & suggested a easy way to do it.

RDKirk wrote in post #14799291
...For your own purposes, you might file a copy of the license with a representative image so that you can keep track of them.

We often shot for more than one client on the same day, sometimes at the same time, too. I don't see where, "If I were shooting two jobs on a date for the same client, they would be one job." is relevant to the topic?

Not to mention you could have two different licenses involved. Perhaps you have cut the client a break for images that are to be used on internal training documents, vs a different set of images that have been licensed for their external marketing department. These are two different sets that would require different terms of use.

Also, I have never encountered a defense of renaming the file to get around licensing in software. If I purchase a license for ABC-Middleware-Library to use in a program, and the license clearly states that I am allowed to use it for a single program before forking over more cash, I can't simply rename the folder to "Free-Middleware-Library" and go on about my day as if nothing happened.

If you are really worried, look up software to generate a hash key/number of the data, and include that value somewhere in your license. The client then gets to keep a master copy of the work somewhere in an archive, and if you ever go to court all you have to do is ask them to compare their master image list to the one in question, and the hash that is produced. If they try to change anything on their end of the license, such as swapping an image for another, then their hash will no longer match.

Luckless wrote in post #14804162
Not to mention you could have two different licenses involved. Perhaps you have cut the client a break for images that are to be used on internal training documents, vs a different set of images that have been licensed for their external marketing department. These are two different sets that would require different terms of use.

Also, I have never encountered a defense of renaming the file to get around licensing in software. If I purchase a license for ABC-Middleware-Library to use in a program, and the license clearly states that I am allowed to use it for a single program before forking over more cash, I can't simply rename the folder to "Free-Middleware-Library" and go on about my day as if nothing happened.

If you are really worried, look up software to generate a hash key/number of the data, and include that value somewhere in your license. The client then gets to keep a master copy of the work somewhere in an archive, and if you ever go to court all you have to do is ask them to compare their master image list to the one in question, and the hash that is produced. If they try to change anything on their end of the license, such as swapping an image for another, then their hash will no longer match.

You would describe the images and use if necessay.

My point is that filenames are too perishable to be worthwhile embedding into a legal document. That only weakens the document and provides room for argument. That's like identifying a person in a legal document by the hat he's wearing at the time.

RDKirk wrote in post #14804284
My point is that filenames are too perishable to be worthwhile embedding into a legal document. That only weakens the document and provides room for argument. That's like identifying a person in a legal document by the hat he's wearing at the time.

I find myself in the very rare situation of disagreeing with you.

I have spent over 20 years negotiating IP related contracts (video games) which were created by expensive IP lawyers. They almost always used place-holder project names to identify the game (sometimes as simple as "Racing game 1") and projects would sometimes be renamed several times during development without ever producing an amendment to the contract. None of the numerous legal disputes that have arisen over the years (video game publishers are pretty litigious) have ever been successfully challenged on the basis that the name changed.

A list of file names is a perfectly acceptable way of identifying the images. If you are taking action against someone for using the images outside the scope of the agreement you are already in court. It is easy to produce a copy of the original CD of images and show that they are the same images misused by the client. There is no court that would accept the changing of a file name as a defence.

But you absolutely must do this:

If you can't show the image you say was your image, you have no case. But the filenames prove nothing--and I have seen unnecessary irrelevancies in legal documents become points of argument later on.

Back in the film days, I never ever, ever, ever saw a license that listed negative numbers.