# Want to license one photo - what to do?



## agp (Jun 16, 2014)

I recently took a photo of the Islamic Center of America, a very beautiful mosque. I contacted the ICOA admins and asked if they would like to use my photo, and if so, we could work out a license deal. To my surprise, I got a reply saying:

Thank you for the offer. The pictures you took are
nice. What did you have in mind?

I'M SO LOST NOW! What do I do?? I have never licensed a photo before, or made any money from photography. Photography to me is just a hobby that I have been taking more and more seriously over the past year. Should I license the photo and then charge them? Or, since I am just starting out, ask for a one time fee and then send the full resolution picture? Any input is welcome!


----------



## keyseddie (Jun 16, 2014)

You already automatically have the copyright. Now you have the opportunity to form a relationship, and/or sell them the rights to one or more images. They are not pictures, they are photographs , or for me, images. The photograph is how you start, and assuming you do pp, voila, it's a finished image. If you are a good communicator, arrange a meeting to discuss possible uses of your images. And have options for them to evaluate.


----------



## agp (Jun 16, 2014)

I'd imagine they would just use it on their website, but I'd have to ask to confirm. What's a reasonable price to ask for rights to use versus rights to the image as a whole (/ownership)? Do we need to go through a third party?

By the way the images in question are the most recent two in my Flickr.


----------



## IzzieK (Jun 16, 2014)

I like the last one...


----------



## keyseddie (Jun 16, 2014)

I would think they would only want the first one, but who knows. I don't know the money situation in the area, but judging from their response, neither do they. The relationship could be important to you, but don't give it away cheaply, or that's the value they will put to it. They have plenty of $$$. $100 for website use and $250 for all rights seems like a win/win to me. Offer to make them a signed matted print for a reasonable amount if you think that might fly. Don't be afraid to give away all rights. Your image is good, but not unique. You can just go out and shoot it again next Tuesday. Good luck.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 16, 2014)

Are they even willing to pay?  They may well be looking at this as an offer of a decent, free image and just want to cover their bases before accepting.  They may well have no need for it right now but just want to keep it on file for future use if they can.   

Assuming that they have lots of money and want to give some of it to you, then all you need is a simple, "I.... of XYZ Photography in exchange for the sum of $......  grant ...... a non-exclusive license to use an image taken by me, namely ...... (Copy attached) for the period of Date to Date, in all formats and all media (or not as you desire).  No use of the image may exceed <dimension x dimension>, or a run of XXX thousand copies."

Price-wise, well, I have NO idea what a cold-call commercial image is worth, but I'm thinking not a lot.  If this had been a commissioned image, I would guess $1500 - $5000/year depending on usage.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 16, 2014)

keyseddie said:


> .... Don't be afraid to give away all rights. Your image is good, but not unique. You can just go out and shoot it again next Tuesday. Good luck.


I'm sorry, but this is just plain bad advice IMO - ALL rights is a pretty big thing; even exclusive use should be charged a hefty premium for.


----------



## agp (Jun 16, 2014)

I asked for $100. Here's the response:

We don't pay for unsolicited photos. 
Also, we don't allow photography on our property for commercial
use or profit. Please kindly refrain from using our property
for such purposes. 



False alarm! Can one not allow the photograph of a building that can be seen in public to be used for profit?


----------



## tirediron (Jun 16, 2014)

Well there's a surprise!


----------



## agp (Jun 16, 2014)

Big downer. Why ask what I had in mind if they weren't willing to pay?


----------



## tirediron (Jun 16, 2014)

agp said:


> Big downer. Why ask what I had in mind if they weren't willing to pay?


As I said earlier - because they figured they might get it for free, or possibly at the worst, for photo credit.


----------



## agp (Jun 16, 2014)

Can they legally refrain me from using a picture of a public place of worship for profit?


----------



## tirediron (Jun 16, 2014)

agp said:


> Can they legally refrain me from using a picture of a public place of worship for profit?


Depending on how serious they are yes, very likely.  That's not to say that you don't have the right to use the image (as I understand US Law), but any organization with deep pockets that wants to fight an individual will usually win simply because you don't have the resources to continue challenging them.  That said, I very much doubt if (1) They would go to that extreme; and (2) anyone else would want to use that image.


----------



## keyseddie (Jun 16, 2014)

tirediron said:


> keyseddie said:
> 
> 
> > .... Don't be afraid to give away all rights. Your image is good, but not unique. You can just go out and shoot it again next Tuesday. Good luck.
> ...


Both of us, and the OP can only guess what the Mosque people will do. fact is, however, the original image can be easily duplicated with a blue sky at approx same time of day. Would you agree? Nothing else is changing. With all due respect tired iron, the fact that anyone would think the potential client would not realize this image can be shot again and be gullible enough pay a hefty premium for all rights is just plain bad advice IMO.


----------



## agp (Jun 16, 2014)

Well okay so if I've taken a wonderful photo on the street that somewhere included let's say JPMorgan's sign on a building, and I sold that photo for big bucks. JPM can come to me and sue me for using their name to make money without their consent? What about if it were not JPM, but instead of small local restaurant? What about if there were no signs, but the building was designed by a famous architect, can the architect sue me?

Seems to me that photography is a very risk business then.


----------



## keyseddie (Jun 16, 2014)

Sorry it didn't work out. C'est la vie.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 16, 2014)

keyseddie said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > keyseddie said:
> ...


Let's assume that photographer 'X' transfers all rights to an image to client 'Y'.  'Y' has paid a lot of money (many tens of thousands in some cases for high end commercial work) for a unique image to which they now own the copyright and the original photographer goes out and duplicates that image...  do you not see where the problem may lie?  (Hint:  Read up on derivative works).  That aside, what I was actually referring to was the transferring of all rights.  Sure, offer exclusivity because it's expensive, especially for images which the photographer is unlikely to be able to use again (the one in this thread being a prime example), but giving up all rights means giving up all control, and since the US does not have, as far as I'm aware, the moral rights aspect to their copyright law....


----------



## tirediron (Jun 16, 2014)

agp said:


> Well okay so if I've taken a wonderful photo on the street that somewhere included let's say JPMorgan's sign on a building, and I sold that photo for big bucks. JPM can come to me and sue me for using their name to make money without their consent? What about if it were not JPM, but instead of small local restaurant? What about if there were no signs, but the building was designed by a famous architect, can the architect sue me?
> 
> Seems to me that photography is a very risk business then.


You live in a VERY litigious society; anyone can sue anyone for anything.  Yes, photography can be risky, but it helps to be informed; know the law and what your rights are, as well as the rights of those around you.  I'm not going to comment on your examples simply because as a Canadian, I don't know enough about US law.  I'm sure KmH can offer some insight.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 16, 2014)

keyseddie said:


> Sorry it didn't work out. C'est la vie.



Yep... at the end of the day.... nothing ventured, nothing gained!


----------



## keyseddie (Jun 16, 2014)

You may be right and I am deferring to your knowledge. Fact is, we both tried to give the OP our advice and ultimately, something happened that was no surprise to you nor I. Enjoy the afternoon.


----------



## agp (Jun 16, 2014)

Keyseddie,

Since you are in the US... If someone wants to buy my photo for $1, I can't legally sell it simply because the Islamic Center of America representation told me I can't sell a photo of the mosque for profit?


----------



## keyseddie (Jun 16, 2014)

Somebody else will have to chime in on the actual law. But the fact that you asked and they told you you can't use it should be enough for you to back off. You tried, it didn't work out, now go try something else.


----------



## D7K (Jun 16, 2014)

Photos of Trademarked and Copyrighted Works

May be of some help...I'm not US based, nor a lawyer but i figure a quick read may either give you some info or point you in a direction to get it..


----------



## agp (Jun 16, 2014)

I'd love to hear more regarding this issue.

I do not want to back down so easily on this. This is not because I think my photo is so great and it will make me so much money, and not because I'm bitter about them not wanting to buy my photo, but because saying someone cannot sell a photo of a public building simply does not seem right to me. If it really is illegal, then I'm not going to break the law. But if it isn't, I'd really love to sell a few copies of my photo for one-one-hundredth of a cent and let them know about it.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 16, 2014)

agp said:


> I asked for $100. Here's the response:
> 
> We don't pay for unsolicited photos.
> Also, we don't allow photography on our property for commercial
> ...



Depends.. here in the states from what I understand you can market a photo of a public structure provided they were taken from public property, such as a city street or sidewalk. If you were standing on their property when the photo was taken, that could very well alter the equation. 

Also you need to make certain there are no trademarks or logo's visible in the picture even if it was taken from public property. Laws do vary quite a bit from place to place though so really your best bet is to consult someone with an actual legal degree in that jursidiction who specializes in that sort of thing. Frankly copyright laws are a confusing, convoluted mess under the best of circumstances.


----------



## agp (Jun 16, 2014)

From what I understand, places of worship are public places. If I were in someone's patio taking a picture of his/her house, yea sure that's private property and the home owner has the right to tell me if I am allowed to use/sell the photo. But a mosque?

There are no trademarks on the photo. Only some writing on the door that I do not understand. But I doubt a place of worship would be trademarked or branded...


----------



## tirediron (Jun 16, 2014)

agp said:


> From what I understand, places of worship are public places. If I were in someone's patio taking a picture of his/her house, yea sure that's private property and the home owner has the right to tell me if I am allowed to use/sell the photo. But a mosque?


A mosque, church or synagogue is just as 'private property' as your house; the difference is, they are what is termed 'publicly accessible' private property, in other words, the public is granted access under certain conditions, but they can change them at any time; it's no different than a shopping mall really.  As for allowing you to use it, I'm a bit hazy on the commercial side of things, as far as US law goes, but I can see no reason why you couldn't sell the image as a fine-art print if you waned to.


----------



## KmH (Jun 16, 2014)

Few businesses/organizations will be willing to pay for unsolicited photographs.

You can make photos of the mosque from public property, like the sidewalk or street.

You can indeed profit from selling your images because profit does not necessarily mean a commercial use.
Selling your images to individuals would be an editorial use.

Also the rules apply differently for property in a photo than they do for people.

Commercial use would be at issue if your photo of the mosque was used to promote or advertise some other business.

Oh, I almost forgot - it is not a good idea to use the term 'all rights'.

American Society of Media Photographers


> :: PLUS ::
> PLUS Usability Rank.......Discouraged
> 
> *Additional Info*...............    Not recommended for use in a license. An ambiguous term that frequently results in misunderstandings. Often confused with buyout and copyright transfer.
> *Term In Use*.................    "The client asked to license all rights."


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 16, 2014)

John knows his stuff, and you probably have some 'homework' to do if you want to license images, there's a lot to learn about it. 

Did you look at their website? to me it looks like they may accept photos given to them for their site (just as a church would accept donations); it's up to them if they choose to pay or contract with a photographer. 

My understanding is that you can take a photo for your personal use/collection, and that you can sell an art print which would be intended for the buyer's personal use (to hang it on the wall). Licensing for retail/commercial use would usually need a property release from the building owner.  Another use is editorial (publication in newspapers or other media outlets) which typically would not require a property release but a publication might request one before they'd use the image. 

I'm more familiar with sports/events but teams and venues have gotten stricter on what camera/lens spectators can bring in, and work to protect their product, trademark, images, etc. and usually license usage of photos of their team, players, or arena (property). 

A trademark would be a 'mark' that's registered (such as symbols used by a company for a product). This center may or may not have one but if a photo included one you'd have to check into what constitutes a violation. 

American Society of Media Photographers is one organization that has resources including releases and licensing info.


----------



## agp (Jun 16, 2014)

All very useful information, thank you :hail:


----------



## DirtyDawg (Jun 18, 2014)

agp said:


> I do not want to back down so easily on this. This is not because I think my photo is so great and it will make me so much money, and not because I'm bitter about them not wanting to buy my photo, but because saying someone cannot sell a photo of a public building simply does not seem right to me. If it really is illegal, then I'm not going to break the law. But if it isn't, I'd really love to sell a few copies of my photo for one-one-hundredth of a cent and let them know about it.



You say you don't want to back down and you're not bitter but you want to sell some pics and let them know.  Why?  What purpose would that serve?  The previous advice was good, you tried and they weren't interested.  Move along...

Oh and why would they ask what you had in mind?  I bet the offer took them by surprise, they had no intention of buying a photo but were curious what you would propose.  They probably had no idea either.  Don't take it personally. If someone came to me with a beautiful image of my property I'd not pay for it either.

Remember that initial excitement?  Something else will turn up.  Think of all the rejection letters many famous people have received.  This has made you stronger but let it go.


----------



## JohnF1956 (Jun 23, 2014)

Back in the day (late 1980s), I was down at the World Trade Center late at night with my Pentax 67 on a tripod. Security came up and asked if I was a commercial photographer and if the photos were for commercial use. I replied that they were purely private and we talked for a few minutes. They had orders to ask specifically if the work was commercial, but also to use their judgement. Too many cases of someone pulling up with a van, unloading photographer, assistants, models and art director, taking 40 photos and then getting back into the van 10 minutes later pretending that they were only there to take pictures of the models. 

A corporation that builds something like the WTC or any other major landmark with unique architecture also owns the rights to commercial exploitation of any image of that building in isolation. If you want to use a picture of the Empire State Building for commercial purposes, be it an advertising campaign or on a financial prospectus (it actually makes no difference, as long as money changes hands), you have to acquire the rights to do so. The original poster has simply been told by the owners of that building exactly that.


----------



## sashbar (Jun 23, 2014)

God works in mysterious ways. Especially when money is involved.


----------



## vfotog (Jun 25, 2014)

agp said:


> I'd love to hear more regarding this issue.
> 
> I do not want to back down so easily on this. This is not because I think my photo is so great and it will make me so much money, and not because I'm bitter about them not wanting to buy my photo, but because saying someone cannot sell a photo of a public building simply does not seem right to me. If it really is illegal, then I'm not going to break the law. But if it isn't, I'd really love to sell a few copies of my photo for one-one-hundredth of a cent and let them know about it.



you have a very aggressive attitude for someone "just starting out".  If you are going to sell images, that's business and so you need to start thinking businesslike. The first thing is to actually understand the laws. and if you are thinking a house of worship is public property, you have a lot of learning ahead of you. and really, selling a few images at next to nothing to spite them is really immature. Plus, burning bridges is no way to start out as a photographer. Alienating a community because you didn't understand the law is ill-advised at best. You want to gain customers, not lawsuits. Btw, I don't think you ever did answer the question: were you on their property when you took the image?


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Jun 25, 2014)

agp said:


> I'd really love to sell a few copies of my photo for one-one-hundredth of a cent and let them know about it.


    I'll buy a hundred copies from you for that price. Is shipping included?


----------

