# Licensing art photos?



## DGMPhotography (Apr 4, 2019)

I was always under the impression that if someone was going to sell prints of my photos, that I should license them. And that's generally what I've always done. 

I took pictures of a painter's paintings and now he's all in a tizzy that he has to license the photos to sell prints of his art. 

Thoughts?


----------



## tirediron (Apr 4, 2019)

How are you doing your licensing?  If this is a simple case of photographing a sculpture/painting so that the artist can use the images for promotional purposes, then I'd provide the license for the cost of the session fee & product.


----------



## limr (Apr 4, 2019)

The painter should be demanding his own license, too, actually. His painting is copyrighted, and he is giving you the right to photograph it, which is essentially a reproduction.

If he is the one who is going to use that photograph, then you license the right to reproduce your photograph.

Price both of the licenses the same and call it even.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 4, 2019)

limr said:


> The painter should be demanding his own license, too, actually. His painting is copyrighted, and he is giving you the right to photograph it, which is essentially a reproduction...


Depends...  did the OP create the images at the request of the artist?  Then I would say that any necessary licensing is implicit in the work-for-hire request.  If it was a mutual project with reproduction allowed on both sides, perhaps...


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 5, 2019)

tirediron said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > The painter should be demanding his own license, too, actually. His painting is copyrighted, and he is giving you the right to photograph it, which is essentially a reproduction...
> ...



The client contacted me and hired me to take photos of the paintings to use for listings to sell the original paintings. 

I had mentioned maybe he should look into doing prints, so he asked me about it later and that's when I brought up the licensing. 

It's just what I've always done but maybe it's different because of the medium? 

I've taken pictures of cosplayers, where the paid a session fee, and then they would also license a photo or two to sell prints of themselves. Same thing with my friend's band. They paid for the shoot, but also licensing to use the photos on their physical albums for sale.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 8, 2019)

Bump


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 8, 2019)

Yes, I think this is a different situation. The typical process for prints of paintings is for an artist to go to a printer to have giclee prints made. I think large flatbeds are used. I don't see anything like typical inket prints of paintings being sold at art exhibits, art shows, or in artists co-ops, etc. 

Until it was brought it up I hadn't thought about copyright of the artwork as well as the photographer's copyright of their photos; I don't know how that's handled. Try photographers organizations like American Society of Media Photographers - Homepage or PPA. 

If an artist wants photos of the artwork to market or display online, then the photographer could provide digital images. When I've done juried exhibits I submit a digital copy, and if it's a lumen print, cyanotype, Polaroid, etc. I scan those (hi-res). I found scanning 2 D work produces much better results than photographing them. 

For whatever will be provided, FIRST do a contract specifying usage (for how long, where and how the images will be used, etc.). THEN set up a shoot and take the photos. If additional usage is requested later, then a contract would need to be done to cover that additional usage.

What's done for cosplayers is similar in sports to photos used at autograph signings. Typically those are provided by the team and would have been part of work contracted by a team photographer with the team (or might have been part of a work for hire situation although more is done freelance these days). This doesn't seem to be that type of situation, except maybe an artist would want a print of one or more of your photos to put up in an art center or something? Can't say I've ever seen that done; a photo of someone's artwork might be in a brochure or pamphlet or on a poster for an upcoming show or exhibit.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 8, 2019)

Your Cosplayer example is spot on; the artist using your work to make prints for sale...  that's a tough one.  Logic says it should be the same, but I can see a lot of artists balking at it....


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 10, 2019)

tirediron said:


> Your Cosplayer example is spot on; the artist using your work to make prints for sale...  that's a tough one.  Logic says it should be the same, but I can see a lot of artists balking at it....



Exactly, that's why I'm having difficulty with this. 

I just don't know the best way to go about it.


----------



## zombiesniper (Apr 10, 2019)

I did a shoot recently for an artist where I knew the photos would be reproduced onto mugs, rugs, prints etc.

I took it as a hired job and quoted a studio time expense + a licence fee per image that was accepted. Studio fee was paid up front and the rest paid after. It's the only way I could even comprehend to shoot something like this.

Edit: I just read about the painter wanting a licence. 
I reduced my licence fee to allow for me to use the images of the paintings I shot.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 15, 2019)

zombiesniper said:


> I did a shoot recently for an artist where I knew the photos would be reproduced onto mugs, rugs, prints etc.
> 
> I took it as a hired job and quoted a studio time expense + a licence fee per image that was accepted. Studio fee was paid up front and the rest paid after. It's the only way I could even comprehend to shoot something like this.
> 
> ...



Okay, so it isn't totally crazy to license photos you took of someone's art. 

Can you tell me about your license and fees?


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 15, 2019)

Mugs and rugs?? that's getting into retail use, a different type of usage that would be licensed differently.

Closest thing I know offhand is a photo in a brochure, licensing would be for the first year's print run and # of copies; add'l. licensing for a second year/print run, etc. But that's to license usage of the photographer's own photo. 

I was wondering if usage in this situation could be for a specific timeframe, specific number of photos/prints to be made and used...? but not sure if that seems right or how copyright for both would figure into this.

I did a quick search on ASMP and an article came up about an artist and 'reproduction' rights for prints of her photo collage. It seems like your situation may be more about the artist having the work reproduced and his rights to reproduction... I don't know of artists having their work reproduced by having photos taken. 

Did you try the US Copyright office website? All I know is to get on there or American Society of Media Photographers - Homepage or try PPA to learn about this stuff; ASMP offers webinars etc. that are available to non-members.


----------



## zombiesniper (Apr 16, 2019)

DGMPhotography said:


> zombiesniper said:
> 
> 
> > I did a shoot recently for an artist where I knew the photos would be reproduced onto mugs, rugs, prints etc.
> ...



I licensed mine as a commercial use licence giving the artist the ability to use the image on products indefinitely. It also stated that no editing rights had been granted. The licence also stated that once the images were accepted that all future edits would be at my hourly rate. 
I also always put in a little caveat that if any terms are broken all licences are void and all usage rights return to me. This discourages some of the horrendous InstaSnapFace filters being applied to one of my images.

For your use case it would be more appropriate to licence in a manner that vintagesnaps has described.



vintagesnaps said:


> Mugs and rugs?? that's getting into retail use, a different type of usage that would be licensed differently.
> 
> Closest thing I know offhand is a photo in a brochure, licensing would be for the first year's print run and # of copies; add'l. licensing for a second year/print run, etc. But that's to license usage of the photographer's own photo.



Agree that my licence was for a different use but the principal is the same.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 18, 2019)

I mean, yeah, that makes sense to me. But how do I explain that because I took the photos their copyright belongs to me? 

He retains the right to his artwork, but reproducing the photographs that I took for print I think would require a license. But it's not something you would expect as an artist.


----------



## zombiesniper (Apr 18, 2019)

Their copyright is still theirs.
This means you can't use the image of their artwork without them allowing you to.

They hired you to take the images. You retain the copyright on the images you took.
You write the contract to state what the images can be used for and for what period of time. Also include your own usage on your website/social media for advertising but no sales purposes.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 19, 2019)

zombiesniper said:


> Their copyright is still theirs.
> This leans you can't use the image of their artwork without them allowing you to.
> 
> They hired you to take the images. You retain the copyright on the images you took.
> You write the contract to state what the images can be used for and for what period of time. Also include your own usage on your website/social media for advertising but no sales purposes.



Yeah, I meant the copyright of the photos is mine.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 19, 2019)

The issue is dealing with a person who thinks it's ridiculous that they would need to _license_ photos of _their_ art.


----------



## zombiesniper (Apr 19, 2019)

You need to find a way to make them understand that any image you take, you have the copyright for and therefore a licence is required. I know this could be difficult for some people to understand but I explained this way.

Ford may own the copyright to the Ford name and logo but if I take an image of a Ford GT, the image copyright is mine, not Fords just like their painting image copyright would also belong to me.

If this is something that they can't agree with then I would decline the job.

You may have gathered I'm not always a people person and like to kick drama to the next person as quick as possible.


----------



## Original katomi (Apr 20, 2019)

Hi can you enlighten this fossil, here in the UK
What is this all about why the need for licences? Or have I missed the point


----------



## limr (Apr 20, 2019)

Nitpick: Ford's design and logo is a trademark, not a copyright. Different issues and protections.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 20, 2019)

Original katomi said:


> A nice walk around lens, this is my go to lens if I am just out with the camera rather than a planned shot. On the 600d it’s a nice light combo that one can lug around and not wish it was lighter





limr said:


> Nitpick: Ford's design and logo is a trademark, not a copyright. Different issues and protections.



What Does Copyright Protect? (FAQ) | U.S. Copyright Office


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 20, 2019)

If you were going to take photos of Ford cars with the Ford logo for the Ford company for their ads and marketing, that would be commercial use; you would contract for the photos, the amount and type of usage, time frame, etc.

If you took a photo of a Ford for your own personal use or to use as a fine art print (for the personal use of the buyer) you shouldn't need permission. If you took the photo at say, a car show (that was publicly in view) for your local newspaper you would contract that as editorial use. 

If you took a picture of a Ford with its trademarked logo and wanted to put it on T shirts or mugs, that would be retail use; if you took the photo to try to use for marketing your business or any other business purposes that would be commercial use - for both of those you'd need permission from the Ford company. 


With this situation, I think it's more than we can figure out on a message board and you'll need to get information from pro photographers organizations, or even try your local art community nonprofits for info. If the artist isn't connected to any local art resources in the community and/or doesn't understand licensing etc. I don't know what else you can do but explain it the best you can. Maybe you'll need to provide the photos you took for the artist to use online for his intended purpose and leave it at that.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 20, 2019)

DGMPhotography said:


> The issue is dealing with a person who thinks it's ridiculous that they would need to _license_ photos of _their_ art.




You made photographs of his artwork, for him to use. You are selling him rights to photos, that YOU made. Seems simple to explain.

Edited to include the OP's comment, above my response, which was made,specifically,to the OP.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 20, 2019)

But that was for online marketing/promotion by the artist, apparently to show paintings he has available/for sale. For reproduction purposes, then how would the artist's copyright come into it? (as well as the photographer's?). 

As I said earlier in this convoluted thread, usually a painter would go to a printer to have giclee prints done (or something along those lines). That gets into reproduction of artwork. I don't know of artists selling copies of photos of their paintings, that's not anything I've ever seen done at any sort of art exhibition or artists co-op, etc.


----------



## webestang64 (Apr 20, 2019)

Not sure if this helps.
As a lab tech I copy many paintings/artwork. Those digital (or negatives, rare I do that anymore) images are the painters/artists images to do what they will with them. The lab does not have any rights to those images.


----------

