Rate for using a photographer's images as artwork references

I'm a professional artist who recently came across a photographer with a unique and cool style. I sent him an email him and asked if I could use one of his photos for an oil painting and what his rates were (I haven't started painting yet as I wanted to get his approval). He's fine with me using his images as long as he's properly attributed and gets 30 percent from all sales. What do you guys think of this number?

To be honest, it seemed a bit high at first, but then again, I have no experience when it comes to this stuff, as I typically shoot my own reference photos. Maybe it's perfectly normal, I don't know?

Here's an example:

An oil painting usually takes 6-8 weeks to finish. Let's say I sell it for $7K in one of the art galleries that represent me. That's $3.5K to the gallery and another $1K in taxes. Which leaves me with $2.5K. The photographer then gets $750, which leaves me with $1.75K (not a fantastic hourly rate obviously, but that's another story).

Is trying to negotiate a lower percentage frowned upon and a total no-no? I obviously want him to get paid for his work, but I want a fair deal for myself as well. That's why I'm asking you smart people as I'm pretty much clueless. I hope I'm not coming across as a cheapskate.

Thanks in advance for any advice you can give me.

Given that anyone could go to the same location and take a photo of the locale which is used as the basis for a painting, I think (personal opinion only, not commenting on standard practice) that is is atrocious to want 30% of your take...unless there is something unique in his/her photo which provides uniqueness that you would not get in driving to the same location to snap a photo with your smartphone. As an artist, you are not able to duplicate exactly the photo taken, you make only your interpretation of what you see, real scene or photo.

Wilt wrote in post #19282105
Given that anyone could go to the same location and take a photo of the locale which is used as the basis for a painting . . .

We don't know that anyone could. Busto didn't say. What if the scene is on private property, perhaps the photographer's property? Or it's on Mt. Everest, or it's underwater, or the photo was taken from a helicopter, or its subject no longer exists, or [fill in the blank]?

"derivative work" usually does not in any way require compensation for the original. Check it out;
https://en.wikipedia.o​rg/wiki/Derivative_wor​k

Wilt, per the OP's first sentence, this is not about painting the location, but the photographers' style.

Thanks for your input!

The photographer in question shoots models at various locations. I'm a paying subscriber to his Patreon feed, where he uploads one new photo each day, so that's how I came to know his work. He's not a professional photographer but has a pretty unique vision, at least I think so.

Oh well, I think I've decided that I can't afford what he's asking, considering I have to spend almost two months completing a full figure painting. With the gallery asking 50 percent and the photographer asking 30 percent, I simply can't make it worth my time in order to pay the bills. If I painted really fast, or if I sold prints and not original paintings, I could maybe make it work somehow. So I'm going to send a polite email and decline his contract offer.

Busto wrote in post #19281990
I'm a professional artist who recently came across a photographer with a unique and cool style. I sent him an email him and asked if I could use one of his photos for an oil painting and what his rates were (I haven't started painting yet as I wanted to get his approval). He's fine with me using his images as long as he's properly attributed and gets 30 percent from all sales. What do you guys think of this number?

To be honest, it seemed a bit high at first, but then again, I have no experience when it comes to this stuff, as I typically shoot my own reference photos. Maybe it's perfectly normal, I don't know?

Here's an example:

An oil painting usually takes 6-8 weeks to finish. Let's say I sell it for $7K in one of the art galleries that represent me. That's $3.5K to the gallery and another $1K in taxes. Which leaves me with $2.5K. The photographer then gets $750, which leaves me with $1.75K (not a fantastic hourly rate obviously, but that's another story).

Is trying to negotiate a lower percentage frowned upon and a total no-no? I obviously want him to get paid for his work, but I want a fair deal for myself as well. That's why I'm asking you smart people as I'm pretty much clueless. I hope I'm not coming across as a cheapskate.

Thanks in advance for any advice you can give me.

Be willing to agree to his offer, but make it clear, he only gets 30% from the proifts of your work, not what the art is sold for, out of the sale price, you will deduct your cost of selling the work and producing the work, which will include your time for producing the paintings.

Make sense?

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19282111
"derivative work" usually does not in any way require compensation for the original. Check it out;
https://en.wikipedia.o​rg/wiki/Derivative_wor​k

The OP posted later that the photos include models. Would this complicate things, as in the model's having a say over use?

OhLook wrote in post #19282334
The OP posted later that the photos include models. Would this complicate things, as in the model's having a say over use?

Not if they signed release's.

Cool! I never thought of it that way... Cost of materials and time... Makes perfect sense actually. Thanks.

1. It is always acceptable to negotiate.

2. When deciding what your counter offer should be you should give some thought to how much time and money would it cost you to get a studio/lighting, hire a model, arrange for hair/make up to create a similar shot?

3. Don't want to pay? You could always spend some time searching sites like https://pixabay.com for suitable free images.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19282111
"derivative work" usually does not in any way require compensation for the original. Check it out;
https://en.wikipedia.o​rg/wiki/Derivative_wor​k

Wilt, per the OP's first sentence, this is not about painting the location, but the photographers' style.

I have a hard time conceptualizing how any artist (non-photographer) can 'copy' any photograph, much less paint a literal copy of what someone else photographed, much less replicate a model's face that is unmistakeably recognizeable! Even when there is alive model in a studio during an art session, there are as many interpretations of the scene, the model's pose, etc. as there are artists in the room.

Everything is negotiable. I might come back with a counter offer but simply say the economics of art production don’t support a 30% residual. Have you considered the market for secondary sales like an edition of prints and NFTs? The NFT smart contract could include residuals for resales going directly to you and the photographer.