- This topic is empty.
Commercial website yoinked one of my photos!
-
A company has “borrowed” one of my photos from my flickr and put it on their website. Its a fairly small image.
I have contacted them to let them know they are in breach of copyright. They are want to buy the image outright.
I need to get a ballpark on what I should charge – I’ve been told anything between 100 – up to crazy money.
Any advice would be appreciated. Image is here:
[url]http://www.stormcinemas.co.uk/limerick/
There is another thread about this issue here https://www.photographyireland.net/viewtopic.php?t=5292, it might shed some light over what you should consider when charging for breach of copyright.
Things you should look at:
– The particular use of the photo
– The broad (further uses) of the photo
– The intended audience
– If credit is given to the photographer
– If there is some agreement (post publishing) between the company in breach of copyright and the photographer regarding further comissionsI probably forgot a few but I’m sure the forum members will remember and add them to the list!
In regards to charge I wouldn’t go asking crazy money from them because they will simply drop the image from the website and you will see nothing, I would personally try to reach an agreement where if they need more photos for brochures, events, etc you will be contacted as their main photographer.
Hope it helped,
Rod
This is a commercial organisation who should know better. Negotiate for a reasonable sum, say a couple hundred Euro, and if they refuse threaten legal action for breach of copyright. Dont think about it, just do it.
Ask Steve D – he sold an image to the Waterfront Hall and to a commercial organisation after they spotted it on his website and wanted it for their own purposes.What’s your FlickR name?
http://flickr.com/photos/rossomck/
Might be an idea to make some discreet inquiries of local professional photographers, saying that you’re interested in getting a certain architectural image done for your website and see what sort of figure they would look for then use that as the basis for your negotiations. If you go straight in with all guns blazing they might just remove the image and get someone else to do it for them. A lot of photographers that do this sort of thing have a clause whereby if an image is used without prior agreement (and therefore in breach of copyright) they demand a fee of anything from 3 – 5 times their standard reproduction/usage fee.
Thorsten wrote:
……A lot of photographers….have a clause whereby if an image is used without prior agreement (and therefore in breach of copyright) they demand a fee of anything from 3 – 5 times their standard reproduction/usage fee.
A good idea!
The beauty of such a clause in a contract, is that if a photographer supplies a client with say a dozen images to choose a select few from, and he later finds out the client ‘copied or stole’ additional images, then the photographer can sue for breach of contract which is a relatively simple matter, and the level of damages has already been envisaged or set by the contractual terms. Otherwise he would have to sue for breach of copyright which can be more involved.
This would obviously not apply to the present scenario. These people have not entered into any contract, or agreed to any terms, so they cannot be bound by such a clause. However if a matter such as this went to Court, and a judge had to assess damages I have no doubt it would be considered as a relevant factor to take into account.
If they want to buy the image outright then they would be able to use it for any purpose e.g. brochures, website, posters etc. You would lose any rights to licence its use in the future.
Tell them you would like ?500 for them to use the image on their website only, and give them a suitable sized JPEG…..they would have no need for the full res file. Explain that if they wanted to buy the image outright it would cost ?1500.
When you hear them gasp for breath, kindly suggest that there is a better alternative.
As a caring photographer, you understand that buying an image outright is not the best solution for the customer. So for ?1500, you will provide a series of 10 photographs detailing the interior and exterior of the building. These would then be licensed for website and marketing material use for 5 years, for example.
If they choose not to use you, still bill them for the use so far…….which is still giong to be “?500, or should I seek legal advice?” Hopefully (if you come across in a professional manner) they will see the extra ?1000 as small change for what they will get.
Hope that helps. Hope they pay. Hope you enjoy the new lens you will get from it. :lol:
SteveD wrote:
If they want to buy the image outright then they would be able to use it for any purpose e.g. brochures, website, posters etc. You would lose any rights to licence its use in the future.
Not really Steve, you can licence the image for only that specific purpose and you can even limit it’s license in time, that’s how photo libraries price their rights managed images.
Also I think you are asking a bit too much… or maybe I’m just cheap on the issue, what I think is that for 500 Euros they will be able to get any professional photographer to deliver a set of 5-10 images witch will take a couple of hours work to do… you will probably get more than that if you bring this to court but is it worth the hassle?
Rodcunha wrote:
SteveD wrote:
If they want to buy the image outright then they would be able to use it for any purpose e.g. brochures, website, posters etc. You would lose any rights to licence its use in the future.
Not really Steve, you can licence the image for only that specific purpose and you can even limit it’s license in time, that’s how photo libraries price their rights managed images.
Also I think you are asking a bit too much… or maybe I’m just cheap on the issue, what I think is that for 500 Euros they will be able to get any professional photographer to deliver a set of 5-10 images witch will take a couple of hours work to do… you will probably get more than that if you bring this to court but is it worth the hassle?
When they say buying the image outright, they mean ownership of the image. They are not asking for license to use the image. If someone buys one of my images outright, they own it. I am very familiar with the process of licensing photos, hence why I mentioned it as an option later.
Also, I believe the price of ?1500 to be modest (although I havn’t seen the standard of the original posters work yet).
Well if they plan on owning copyright for the image, yes… I would think 1.500 Euro would be cheap… but you only give what you want to give, you don’t have to give them “ownership” of the image.
Rod
Rodcunha wrote:
Well if they plan on owning copyright for the image, yes… I would think 1.500 Euro would be cheap… but you only give what you want to give, you don’t have to give them “ownership” of the image.
Rod
I think you may have misunderstood me Rod. The original poster said:
They are want to buy the image outright
which in my mind means they wanted to buy the image outright (which means ownership of the image)….hence I gave a suggested price. I also mentioned the licensing price in the same paragraph.
So I’m not sure why you think I dont understand the difference between image ownership and licensing?
I’m not saying that you don’t understand… the outright is the the issue here… I’m not sure if they do understand that owning the copyright of the image is going to cost them loads… It’s them… not you Steve.
Thanks for the advice all.
Im just a hobbyist, im not out to screw them over.
I was delighted to see it up there in the first place.
I guess it breaks down to what its worth to me.
I don’t believe in this pay per use system, I’ll sell the photo outright – they can wallpaper the cinema with it if thats what floats their boat.
dundhoone wrote:
Thanks for the advice all.
Im just a hobbyist, im not out to screw them over.
And nobody is suggesting that you should! But bear in mind that if you sell cheaply, for less than the going rate, you end up contributing to the continuing downward pressure on photography pricing. I’m not highlighting this because I want to try and save the salary of the local professional photographer but more out of interest in the overall quality of photography in general. A continuing downward pressure means that ultimately standards will suffer, as photographers begin to cut corners in an effort to save costs. That can’t be good for anyone.
dundhoone wrote:
I was delighted to see it up there in the first place.
I would be too! But wouldn’t that delight have been all the sweeter if they had asked your permission (and given you a credit for it). After all, they won’t let you into their cinema to record and copy the latest blockbuster for your own use, will they?
dundhoone wrote:
I guess it breaks down to what its worth to me.
Well, if you’re not thinking of going pro and perhaps want something that you will enjoy, why not ask them for a years free access to all the latest movies?
dundhoone wrote:
I don’t believe in this pay per use system, I’ll sell the photo outright – they can wallpaper the cinema with it if thats what floats their boat.
Nothing wrong with pay-per-use. It’s a win-win for the client and the provider. In fact, it happens in the music industry every day – you’ve got to pay a license fee to IMRO if you want to publicly play (broadcast) music. Given that music is just another form of creative expression, why should it be any different for photography?
Commissioned images and stock images will have different prices. For website use plus brochures, I’d be amazed if you’d get more than 150 Euros! HOwever, because they nabbed it, you could ask for 400 Euros and probably get it.
There are some big numbers floating around here, this isn’t an image of Prince William snogging a girl! It’s the outside of a cinema at night. A very nice image but nothing that couldn’t be reproduced easily.
The dance image that I recently sold to be a poster at Olympia made ?160.
Out of interest Ross, if this went to court would you or any of your colleagues take it on as a “no win-no fee” case (assume you’re going for 500 Euros). Do you have small claim courts in Ireland?
Si
Allinthemind wrote:
There are some big numbers floating around here
I was sort of thinking the same, hence my suggestion to check what a local professional was likely to charge for the job. And like you say there is a big difference between stock pricing and commissioned pricing.
Allinthemind wrote:The dance image that I recently sold to be a poster at Olympia made ?160.
That was quite cheap! But that was an image you had already shot, right? I mean they didn’t commission you to take a specific shot for their campaign? Had they done so I have no doubt it would have cost them substantially more (and would probably have meant a lot more work for you to do as well).
I reckon a years free cinema visits would probably be a good way to go! :wink:
Allinthemind wrote:
Do you have small claim courts in Ireland?
Sure do. But I’ve only ever heard it being used in consumer related disputes under the Sale of Goods Act. Not sure myself how wide it’s remit is.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
