# Questions about licensing ?????????



## DiskoJoe (Aug 29, 2012)

I was presented with an offer to license one of my photos by a financial investment start up. The agreement goes as follows:

This agreement between licensor and licensee is exclusive. The Licensor agrees to not enter into
separate license agreements with third parties interested in using the same image(s) listed in
Attachment A.

By this agreement, the licensor allows the licensee to use, display, and publish the image(s) listed in
Attachment A in any commercial, personal, non-profit or editorial projects involving advertising, print
media, web site publication, or broadcast as chosen by the licensee.

The usage will be perpetual. Licensor represents that he is the sole owner of the copyright of the
image(s) listed in Schedule A, and upon execution of this agreement licensor remains the sole owner of
the copyright of the image(s) listed in Attachment A. No transfer of intellectual property is made by this
agreement.

As good and valuable consideration for this agreement, the licensee agrees to pay the licensor a lump
sum of $250.


Just wanting to get peoples opinions of this arrangement. Personally I think it is a bit low for what they are asking. 

This is the photo in question:




Sam Houston Statue by DiskoJoe, on Flickr

Discuss.


----------



## CowgirlMama (Aug 29, 2012)

DiskoJoe said:


> Personally I think it is a bit low for what they are asking.



This. I'm no expert, but they're asking for full rights to the photo, forever and you can no longer do anything with it, for $250. That's not much at all.


----------



## charlie76 (Aug 29, 2012)

A bit low?!?  Image is ok IMO...for 250 I'd take the money and run


----------



## CCericola (Aug 29, 2012)

Try some of the pricing solutions here: NPPA: Business Practices Toolkit

It does sound low, a 3 year license of a similar photo of that statue from Getty Images for advertizing (any medium) is $1,830.00


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 29, 2012)

Way too Low! But I will leave that discussion to others still in the "biz"... since I am badly out of touch with current pricing! (IMO, they are trying to get something for literally nothing!)


----------



## tirediron (Aug 29, 2012)

Send it back and ask them what the punchline is!  They're trying to lowball you.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Aug 29, 2012)

CCericola said:


> Try some of the pricing solutions here: NPPA: Business Practices Toolkit
> 
> It does sound low, a 3 year license of a similar photo of that statue from Getty Images for advertizing (any medium) is $1,830.00



Was that on photo search? I was researching some stuff on there too and another Sam Houston photo was going for around that for web advertising only and these guys want to use it for advertising and other items. So $250 seemed way too low given that they want exclusive rights.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 29, 2012)

Or counter-offer; for $250 they can have a one-time, non-exclusive use of the image for print only up to 4x5.


----------



## KmH (Aug 29, 2012)

A bit low?

That is a great license deal for them, because you get reamed.

Obviously, they wrote the use license.

I thought ASMP had/has an online use license generator. I have looked, internet search engined for it several times in the last week and haven't found it. Does anyone have the link?


----------



## DiskoJoe (Aug 29, 2012)

KmH said:


> A bit low?
> 
> That is a great license deal for them, because you get reamed.
> 
> ...



That would be nice. But the deal seemed way too low after seeing everything they want to do, in perpetuity. Thats the part that really got me. $250 does not seem like a good deal to get to use my photo indefinitely for anything needed.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Aug 29, 2012)

$250 is a great licensing price.....per year. 

These clowns are expecting / hoping that you're clueless.

I'm not a stock image expert, but I know that the price should take into account the length of time displayed, how many people will view the displayed image, what types of media the image will be displayed in (print, web, etc.) and if the image rights are given exclusively to the licensee.

That said, don't price yourself out of the market. Just negotiate on terms you're happy with.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Aug 29, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> $250 is a great licensing price.....per year.
> 
> These clowns are expecting / hoping that you're clueless.
> 
> ...



The per year suggestion is good. I really dont want to price myself out but im not getting screwed on this deal either. I know they really want to use my image and have seen what stock sites have to offer and they are not as good as mine and much more expensive. But this would be my first licensing agreement.


----------



## KmH (Aug 29, 2012)

Rule #1 - Exclusive or more Use = Higher Fee

From - How to write a license | American Society of Media Photographers

Also see - http://asmp.org/tutorials/licensing-stock-photographs.html



> *Media Permissions*
> 
> The central element of the license description. An accurate description of the media in/on which you will permit your client to use the image, and the extent to which your client may use your image in that media.
> 
> ...


----------



## orljustin (Aug 30, 2012)

Yeah, perpetual, exclusive, commercial use for anything?  They're trying to screw ya.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Aug 31, 2012)

UPDATE

So they contacted me back regarding the agreement. I advised that it was not acceptable and that for unlimited usage the cost would be $2500, no personal usage, or they could set up an annual usage agreement but cost would vary depending on the types of media that the image would be used for. 

Let's see if they respond back. 

Thank you everyone for your feedback. All of the feedback I have received has been pretty consistent in regards to everyone thinks I was about to get screwed. This really helped me to make an informed response to the agreement presented to me.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 31, 2012)

You may actually have an issue here, that statue may well have some rights attached to it. You might be trying to sell something you haven't got the right to sell.

Can't imagine why they want exclusivity here.

ETA: I'm gonna put this at 20% probability that it's a sting. They want you to sign a thing that says you have exclusive copyright, and accept money. Then they seriously put the boots to you.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 31, 2012)

Created by Enrico Filiberto Cerrachio in 1924 for the Women's Club of Houston, artist died in 1956. I'm not seeing any obvious "nope, no copyright issues" flags here, but obviously I am not a lawyer.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Aug 31, 2012)

I agree with all. 

But just for thought - if you try and get a "more fair price" will they abandon the deal and take their business elsewhere?

Pics are a supply and demand thing, seems to be a lot of supply going on lately unless you have such a stellar silhouette they feel they can't go past to shop elsewhere.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 1, 2012)

Is there anything in the agreement requiring you to indemnify them against any damages should it turn out that you do NOT hold the copyright as you are required to assert in the contract?

If there isn't there's something odd going on. Possibly just 'their lawyer doesn't have a clue' I suppose.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Sep 5, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Is there anything in the agreement requiring you to indemnify them against any damages should it turn out that you do NOT hold the copyright as you are required to assert in the contract?
> 
> If there isn't there's something odd going on. Possibly just 'their lawyer doesn't have a clue' I suppose.



This deal was not wrote up by a lawyer. I am not worried about them taking their business elsewhere if it means that I do not get a suck deal and labeled the "cheap guy"

They want exclusive rights because of the name of the business. If I told you it would make sense. There are no copyright issues with the statue. I have seen stock photos of it online but no ones is as good as mine. 

So now its all up to how much do they want the image. From what is available online I can see why he originally approached me.


----------

