back alley
IMAGES
this thread is mostly research right now…i don't have an agenda and frankly would be happy to just continue the arrangement as is.
back alley
IMAGES
my guess is they are more interested in the images of 'stuff' more than people…but it's a good point for me to keep in mind.
releases from the sellers should be easy to get…more so than the buyers.
releases from the sellers should be easy to get…more so than the buyers.
Its not like there is a lot of money involved or a big budget.
Just ask them what budget they can afford.
Then its up to you to sell or not.
Simple.
Stephen
Just ask them what budget they can afford.
Then its up to you to sell or not.
Simple.
Stephen
back alley
IMAGES
that's pretty simple!
willie_901
Veteran
Hi Joe,
I don't know anything about Canadian intellectual property or privacy law.
Since you have a verbal agreement and since the photos have been used by the Market for PR purposes, there could be a de facto licensing agreement in place already. That is, the Market has usage rights consistent with social media usage even though there is no written contract. This is not an issue because you are happy (you have access to photograph on their property) and the Market is happy (your photos are used to keep their Social Network presence fresh).
One question is: what is the Market manager thinking when they say they want to buy you photos? Do they want to own the copyright? Do they want an exclusive license? Copyright transfer is typically much more expensive for the client than usage rights, so we can forget about that. Usage licensing costs depend entirely on intended usage. The image size, media and usage duration all affect the price. There are guidelines for commercial usage rates. One simple way to come up with reasonable fees is to visit stock photography sites. These site have list licensing fees for photo buyers.
I realize you just want to keep this as simple as possible. However if the Market wants to use your work for commercial purposes (and I think this is their goal), then there has to be some sort of formal agreement in place. I think you are past the point of simple, but this doesn't mean things have to be complicated.
The issue of modeling releases is always a concern. Canadian law should be clear on this. In the US the photographer is not automatically responsible for privacy issues (advertising use without permission) unless they misrepresent the circumstances. In the end the party that actually uses the images is responsible. This doesn't mean the photographer won't get sued if a client misuses licensed images, but it does meant the the lawsuit against the photographer will likely fail. Including a phrase in the licensing agreement that makes it clear none of the photos have model releases should provide protection, but it doesn't mean you won't get sued.
It is possible the Market already has he right to use customer images commercially. This depends on what rights a patron grants a merchant by being on their property. Or perhaps the Market management has no idea they need model releases. It is also possible the Market will only use photos with vendors in them and ask their vendors to sign a release. I can see where a vendor might welcome their image being used in ads to promote the Market. Maybe the Market will add model release verbiage to their vendor contracts.
I don't think it's bad the market wants to formalize their agreement with you. Perhaps you could trade usage rights for exhibition space? If the Market uses your images for commercial purposes, you need to be compensated to some degree. Maybe all you really need is enough compensation to pay for commercial liability insurance?
Congratulations on being recognized for your work. After all, this situation is much better than showing up one day and finding another photographer doing commercial work for the market.
I don't know anything about Canadian intellectual property or privacy law.
Since you have a verbal agreement and since the photos have been used by the Market for PR purposes, there could be a de facto licensing agreement in place already. That is, the Market has usage rights consistent with social media usage even though there is no written contract. This is not an issue because you are happy (you have access to photograph on their property) and the Market is happy (your photos are used to keep their Social Network presence fresh).
One question is: what is the Market manager thinking when they say they want to buy you photos? Do they want to own the copyright? Do they want an exclusive license? Copyright transfer is typically much more expensive for the client than usage rights, so we can forget about that. Usage licensing costs depend entirely on intended usage. The image size, media and usage duration all affect the price. There are guidelines for commercial usage rates. One simple way to come up with reasonable fees is to visit stock photography sites. These site have list licensing fees for photo buyers.
I realize you just want to keep this as simple as possible. However if the Market wants to use your work for commercial purposes (and I think this is their goal), then there has to be some sort of formal agreement in place. I think you are past the point of simple, but this doesn't mean things have to be complicated.
The issue of modeling releases is always a concern. Canadian law should be clear on this. In the US the photographer is not automatically responsible for privacy issues (advertising use without permission) unless they misrepresent the circumstances. In the end the party that actually uses the images is responsible. This doesn't mean the photographer won't get sued if a client misuses licensed images, but it does meant the the lawsuit against the photographer will likely fail. Including a phrase in the licensing agreement that makes it clear none of the photos have model releases should provide protection, but it doesn't mean you won't get sued.
It is possible the Market already has he right to use customer images commercially. This depends on what rights a patron grants a merchant by being on their property. Or perhaps the Market management has no idea they need model releases. It is also possible the Market will only use photos with vendors in them and ask their vendors to sign a release. I can see where a vendor might welcome their image being used in ads to promote the Market. Maybe the Market will add model release verbiage to their vendor contracts.
I don't think it's bad the market wants to formalize their agreement with you. Perhaps you could trade usage rights for exhibition space? If the Market uses your images for commercial purposes, you need to be compensated to some degree. Maybe all you really need is enough compensation to pay for commercial liability insurance?
Congratulations on being recognized for your work. After all, this situation is much better than showing up one day and finding another photographer doing commercial work for the market.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
That's very good advice.
The first step is to talk to them and find out precisely what they want to do with that hi-res CD. The usage will determine the amount of the fee they will pay for that use. You do not want to agree to any unlimited use, buyout, copyright transfer or work for hire scenario.
They want a hi-res CD, so they apparently have in mind using them for commercial and/or advertising purposes. That brings up an issue: Model releases.
If the use is commercial and/or advertising, you MUST have a signed model release from each recognizable person in the image(s) to be used. Otherwise the farmer's market people are opening themselves AND YOU up to the possibility of being sued by the non-released people in the photos.
In the U.S. (and probably in Canada, depending on Canadian laws), people have no say in preventing you from photographing them in public places.
However: People that you photograph in public DO have a say over how the photos can be used.
They cannot take legal action if the photos are used for documentary puropses, news reporting or editorial use. they CAN take legal action if the photos are used for advertising or commercial purposes without their signature on a model release.
As the photographer, you should write the use agreement rather than allowing the farmer's market people to write it. That way, you control the terms of use. This is (IMHO) a more critical consideration than the amount of payment you receive for the use of your photos.
You may make a few hunderd dollars from the use of your photos; if the use is not properly controlled by you, it could conceivably cost you thousands of dollars. Don't let this scare you off; just make sure everything is specified in writing and signed by all parties involved in the transaction.
Here are two books that are must read books for folks who are just getting started in selling their work on a freelance basis:
http://www.amazon.com/Photographers...s=The+freelance+photographer's+survival+guide
And - http://www.amazon.com/Photography-Q...+photography+q&a+real+questions.+real+answers
These two books are worth their weight in gold to freelancers.
back alley
IMAGES
more to think about…this is why i have never gone into any business venture of my own.
worked in not for profit all my life.
worked in not for profit all my life.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
I can understand your wanting to keep things the way they are right now...
When doing this for free there are no real expectations...if you happen to get a great shot every one's happy, but now if you're getting paid the pressure to deliver could change your whole flow of things and put a dampener on your creativity since NOW you have to produce...
I have two events to shoot on Saturday...in the morning it's a volunteer thing...later in the evening it's a paid thing...I'm more concerned about the paid event...I would prefer to do it for free but hey it's Christmas money...
When doing this for free there are no real expectations...if you happen to get a great shot every one's happy, but now if you're getting paid the pressure to deliver could change your whole flow of things and put a dampener on your creativity since NOW you have to produce...
I have two events to shoot on Saturday...in the morning it's a volunteer thing...later in the evening it's a paid thing...I'm more concerned about the paid event...I would prefer to do it for free but hey it's Christmas money...
rivercityrocker
Well-known
Photography Life isn't exactly well known for factual reporting. I've heard that same urban legend many times involving different professions. Any time you see a "factual" story published with qualifiers like "lets call him, Bill" it's best to take it with a grain of salt.
If "Bill" had his gear stolen and he wants to help people by sharing his story then why is it being told buy a third party with "Bill" hiding his identity? What does "Bill" have to lose by telling his story? He's already lost his gear and his claim was denied, right? The insurance company can't take any legal action against him for telling the truth.
"Bill" isn't real. The author of the "article" is using a scare tactic story that touches on many people's fears so that people start circulating the link to get more clicks. It's a publicity stunt.
Just like the article they published about the D400 not too long ago, and the Nikon "Df" comparisons that they posted before the camera was even released. Click-bait.
Just a tip. Check things out for yourself and don't believe the stories that you read in Photography Life.
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
pls ask for lifetime of fresh produce... 
back alley
IMAGES
pls ask for lifetime of fresh produce...
i don't eat veges…ironic eh?
Sparrow
Veteran
... then give them away, and hope for payment in kind
It's not always about the money
back alley
IMAGES
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
That's true. On the other hand, a bit of money helps to pay for more toys.
back alley
IMAGES
maybe i'll trade them the pics for a new lens...
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
Take what you earn from this arrangement put it in a special account just for photo gear...
back alley
IMAGES
i usually keep my photo budget separate...
jesse1dog
Light Catcher
Read this thread again
Somehow the idea of supplying images on a disc doesn't seem to leave you in any sort of control. For these pictures how about setting up a specific website with restriced access? A pro-site could give you control of sales, and the opportunity to restrict the number of photos available at any one time.
Just a thought - and there is no rush.
Again, wait to see what comes from the meeting. After all a disk might not be what is really required, just something in someone elses head.
jesse
Somehow the idea of supplying images on a disc doesn't seem to leave you in any sort of control. For these pictures how about setting up a specific website with restriced access? A pro-site could give you control of sales, and the opportunity to restrict the number of photos available at any one time.
Just a thought - and there is no rush.
Again, wait to see what comes from the meeting. After all a disk might not be what is really required, just something in someone elses head.
jesse
Out to Lunch
Ventor
My two cents: since you shot the pictures inside the farmers market, you did not shoot them in 'a public place' since most if not all 'markets' are private enterprises. In other words, your 'ownership' of the shots could be contested by the owner of the market. Cheers, Peter
back alley
IMAGES
reprise…
thinking of selling them (for an honorarium) as an electronic copy of the images with the rights to use them for promoting the market while i retain the rights to sell individual images as prints.
this is what i just proposed to the manager of the market. awaiting a reply.
thinking of selling them (for an honorarium) as an electronic copy of the images with the rights to use them for promoting the market while i retain the rights to sell individual images as prints.
this is what i just proposed to the manager of the market. awaiting a reply.