When You License An Image For Website Use . . . . .

When you supply an image for licensed use on a website, is it common practice to supply the full size original image file, or is it better to supply an image at their required size and at 72dpi?

I was just wondering because I'm not too enthusiastic about having full size copies of my original photographs outside my control, unless it's absolutely necessary.

Thanks,

Mike

I have been thinking about this situation (licensed images used on websites). Most of us go to great lengths to ensure that people don't steal our images, by only posting small, watermarked versions online.

Now, if someone wants to use one of your images on their site and you license it to them, then they have paid for its use and can use it on their site. All well and good so far. So, now everyone has access to a potentially large, un-watermarked version of your photograph that you previously went to great lengths to protect!

Is it common practice to supply limited resolution and limited size images (for website use) for this very reason?

Mike

If they're going to use it for a website, surely they'll downsize it so they don't eat up their bandwidth.

They're paying for the image so I guess the question becomes, are you charging them enough for the use? I sold a couple of images to a company with the caveat that there was a two-year time limit on web use. Beyond that, it's more money...

I sell down-ressed versions for web usage. If they're using it for web I don't see that they need the full filesize and I've never yet had someone complain about it.

Yes, I would expect them to optimize the image for website use, so I thought that was a pretty good reason for not having to send them a full-size image to start with.

A quite a few photographers seem to base their terms and conditions on a specific standard docoment (like this one: http://www.craigjoiner​.com …0Joiner%20Photo​graphy.pdf ). The document doesn't specify limits on file size or resolution for website use, which is what got me thinking.

I suppose I could add my own terms to a document based on the original source, but I was wondering if there was a common practice already established.

Mike

Jim G wrote in post #7250610
I sell down-ressed versions for web usage. If they're using it for web I don't see that they need the full filesize and I've never yet had someone complain about it.

Thanks Jim.

That does make sense. Do you specify a limit for size or resolution, or just supply it to their required size at 72dpi (or ppi)?

Mike

Mike-DT6 wrote in post #7250629
Thanks Jim.

That does make sense. Do you specify a limit for size or resolution, or just supply it to their required size at 72dpi (or ppi)?

Mike

They should be telling you their requirements.

If it's more (size wise) than you're comfortable with, negotiate a different / better deal.

Depends on the client, one I upload only web-ready images with the largest size at 800px because that's our deal and don't trust someone from them grabbing it and putting it in a publication thinking it's fine; another has log-in info for my site to take full res and use them on the site only because know they won't. So, just depends on the client. If all they are using it for and you're preparing it for them, I'd fit it to there needs.

Thank you both.

I haven't done this before, so I wasn't sure what the common terms are.

I think I'm going to specify that I will supply the web-ready images as it negates all of my concerns.

Thanks again,

Mike

If I license for web use, I supply web size. Simple as that. Someone who pays for web use doesn't need a hi-res, otherwise they would have bought another license and a hi-res image.

The license I supply always mention the numer of images, the size I supplied them on (800x533 for web), the fact there is a watermark on them and the kind of use they paid me for.

Gebruikersnaam wrote in post #7251576
If I license for web use, I supply web size. Simple as that. Someone who pays for web use doesn't need a hi-res, otherwise they would have bought another license and a hi-res image.

The license I supply always mention the numer of images, the size I supplied them on (800x533 for web), the fact there is a watermark on them and the kind of use they paid me for.

Ditto for me. I sell "web size" and "full size" images, for different prices.

By the way, the PPI is completely irrelevant to this discussion. You're selling a digital image, sized in pixels not inches.

Dave

Thanks for the latest replies.

I mentioned ppi because the resolution is displayed as pixels per inch. Isn't that relevant in that it determines the size of the on-screen image? Or is it irrelevant because all displays are the same resolution?

Mike

Mike-DT6 wrote in post #7273198
I mentioned ppi because the resolution is displayed as pixels per inch. Isn't that relevant in that it determines the size of the on-screen image? Or is it irrelevant because all displays are the same resolution?

Mike

Nope, it's not. As an experiment, grab any image you want, and make two copies. In photoshop, set one to 1ppi, and the other to 1000ppi, without resizing them. Then view them both. You won't be able to tell the difference. It's not because displays are all the same resolution (they aren't), it's because images for display are sized by pixel count, not by that little field called ppi that's stored in the jpeg header.

Dave

Okay, noted, thanks!

So, what determines the visual quality of images for display if it isn't the amount of pixels that fit in between zero and another specific distance relative to that?

Mike

Aside from photo editing, sharpening, color adjustment, etc, the quality is purely in the display. If I have a 72dpi display, the photo will be just a bit grainy. If you have a 96dpi display, the same photo will look a bit sharper on your display (though smaller, if you hold a ruler up to it).

Dave