Instagram Offer

I recently got some images of the pier in Oceanside during a very nice sunset. I was contacted by a hotel chain that would like to use the image I posted on IG. Once I clicked on their media terms FAQ this is what it says:

Is this a good idea or not based upon anyone's experience?

For $10,000, let them have whatever they want. For $100 ... ?

So it depends on what they are offering, how much you want/need the money, and what value the image would have if you sold it elsewhere.

Consider offering them a non-exclusive license, if they're not paying much, with no re-sale allowed.

goalerjones wrote in post #18992303
Is this a good idea or not based upon anyone's experience?

As Spenser says, if they are paying you US$10,000+ it is an OK deal. Otherwise it is terrible.

Unless you are being well paid it is another case of this https://petapixel.com …tagram-photo-rights-grab/

You are granting them to right to use the image not just on IG but worldwide, anywhere, in advertising or on websites forever for commercial use.

What exactly are they offering you?

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18992320
As Spenser says, if they are paying you US$10,000+ it is an OK deal. Otherwise it is terrible.

Unless you are being well paid it is another case of this https://petapixel.com …tagram-photo-rights-grab/

You are granting them to right to use the image not just on IG but worldwide, anywhere, in advertising or on websites forever for commercial use.

What exactly are they offering you?

No prices have been discussed yet, they sent me the above terms link and expressed interest in my image.

As others have said, it better be a fairly significant amount. If you sell it to them, they can use it anywhere in the universe, sub-license it to anyone they want for whatever reason and whatever amount they can get, transfer any and all rights to anyone they want for whatever amount they can get, for the rest of eternity. It can literally be sub-licensed by them dozens of times or used in countless promotions with no further compensation to you.

This is how I ended the conversation pending further response from them:

goalerjones wrote in post #18992337
This is how I ended the conversation pending further response from them:

Whilst the hotel's 'standard terms' are rather one-sided, the small excerpt of your message to them comes across as rather unfriendly and prickly. Even if you think those terms are exploitative, I would approach this matter with courtesy. You should keep things professional and just walk away if you don't get a fair offer.

Ambit claims are irritating, for sure, but actually quite common in business, made with the expectation that real negotiation will follow.

I think you missed out on an opportunity here.

The bottom line is that they liked your photo and wanted to buy it, and that puts you in the driver's seat. Regardless of what their published or proposed terms are, you can always propose your own terms that are entirely different. You can outline how the image may be used, for how long, in what markets, and in what media.

I don't know what the photo was going to be used for or how much it might be worth, but $500, $1000, or $2500 might be nice to make for temporary use of your photo.

Just my 2¢.

Spencerphoto wrote in post #18992345
the small excerpt of your message to them comes across as rather unfriendly and prickly.

Very much so.

diveguy wrote in post #18995580
I don't know what the photo was going to be used for or how much it might be worth, but $500, $1000, or $2500 might be nice to make for temporary use of your photo.

.
The "going rate" in many genres is that for a company/corporation to use a photo on their social media feeds (both Facebook and Instagram), is usually $100. . For a company to pay as much as $500, there would need to be usage far beyond them using it on their social media accounts. . Licensing photos for commercial and advertising use doesn't bring in anywhere near as much as many people seem to think it does.


.

The problem with reading too many threads on copyrights and licensing is that there is an echo chamber where one photographer after another tries to top the next with the extent they will go to protect their rights. While I agree with that in principle, in practice everything has a price, especially for hobbyists and part time pros. Nobody wants to be the guy who gets a token price then sees their image as a Windows screensaver but drawing a hard line regarding rights before negotiations begins means that image will probably not earn you a dime. But it will be the most coveted image never to leave your web gallery.

Spencerphoto wrote in post #18992345
Whilst the hotel's 'standard terms' are rather one-sided, the small excerpt of your message to them comes across as rather unfriendly and prickly.

I felt initially from everyone's responses that their offer was insulting, which is why I asked in the first place having no prior experience with these matters.

goalerjones wrote in post #18996861
I felt initially from everyone's responses that their offer was insulting, which is why I asked in the first place having no prior experience with these matters.

I think you misinterpreted those responses. The consensus was that they were indeed asking for the universe (literally) but, in the absence of any info regarding fees, it was hard to say whether granting such rights was appropriate or fair. Further responses - in summary - were advising negotiation.

IMO - Having sold images to places like your asking about in the past, I think this is more about them being lazy and less about them trying to screw you. Chances are they don't want to take any chances that some dumb employee sends / uses your work inadvertently and violates the terms. So they have terms like this so that no one can accidentally violate the agreement from their side.

I only know this because, I felt it was unfair and questioned the business that wanted my work and it was explained to me, that they didn't really have a marketing department, just one guy that did 2 other jobs for the company as well......and that it was either my photo or a micro-stock site photo.

dgoakill wrote in post #18997281
IMO - Having sold images to places like your asking about in the past, I think this is more about them being lazy and less about them trying to screw you. Chances are they don't want to take any chances that some dumb employee sends / uses your work inadvertently and violates the terms. So they have terms like this so that no one can accidentally violate the agreement from their side.

I only know this because, I felt it was unfair and questioned the business that wanted my work and it was explained to me, that they didn't really have a marketing department, just one guy that did 2 other jobs for the company as well......and that it was either my photo or a micro-stock site photo.

were you actually paid for your work?