How exactly does licensing photos work?

October 31, 2008 10:06 PM

I've been sent an email from a company producing a calendar. They are interested in using some of my photos from flickr for their calendar - not as main images, but as smaller fill pictures. I've said I'm interested, but I've never done anything like this before and now I'm freaking out a little - am I handling this right?

I wrote back already and said that I was interested, and asked if they had a terms of use agreement. He wrote back and said they are "looking for a 1-time use agreement". They will provide me with a photo credit. It sounds like they are interested in using multiple (three to five!?) photos of mine in the calendar, in "the datepad section of the calendar...in the empty day boxes that often times occur at the beginning of a month or end of a month". He described the calendar as a small run calendar with information about Alaskan tides. I've looked at the company website - they advertise the calendar and it looks nice.

I found one past thread detailing with licensing photos, and reading that made me kind of nervous... should I be actually getting some sort of document that details terms of use from him, or is what was written in the email good enough? Or do I need to be the one sending him something that he agrees to?

I also noticed that people said you should be getting paid for photos... I don't really care about the money (they are offering to send me some copies of the calendar, which would be cool) but am I making it harder for "real" photographers when people can just browse flickr and offer unsuspecting people photo credits?

It's all very confusing. I'm especially wondering about the whole terms of use thing and what constitutes an agreement. Can anybody help me out?

posted by warble to work & money (7 comments total)

IAAL, IANYL.

It's all an agreement - just get something in writing that provides what they agree to do and what uses they are allowed. Send them something like "Hey, sounds great. I agree to your terms of x calendars, plus rights to use digital images of the calendar in my portfolio, plus $y. You agree that you can use my images only in the printed calendars (up to z) and in your online promotion of it. To confirm our agreement, please respond and state "I agree." And please check out my gallery on warble.com as it has a lot of my work you might have some interest in. Regards, warble"

P.S. If people find your art and want to pay you to use it commercially, you are a "real" photographer in my book.
posted by iknowizbirfmark at 11:06 PM on October 31, 2008

I did something similar when someone asked to use this photo in a collage piece for an office building- a one time use. I wrote a quick licensing agreement allowing the use as specified, they agreed, paid my Paypal account the agreed amount, and I emailed them the full-rez JPEG.
posted by pjern at 1:54 AM on November 1, 2008

Please do not buy into the "Flickr kills real photography" line. Using light bulbs steals jobs from lamplighters. Car dealerships steal business from horse drawn carriage makers. Heck, "real" photographers make it harder for portrait painters and sketch artists to get jobs. Find me a photographer who uses gas powered lighting and rides a horse to photoshoots, and I might cry a tear of sympathy. In the meantime, if someone likes your picture, you should let them use it for whatever compensation makes you feel comfortable - if you are happy with some copies of the calendars, that's cool. (Nothing is stopping you from *trying* to negotiate for some cash as well of course, especially if they will be making money from sales.)
posted by mrgoldenbrown at 9:15 AM on November 1, 2008

I wouldn't worry about photographers and Flickr. As a group, they've earned enough negative karma through obscene wedding picture prices to obliterate the entire profession, I say.

Plus, as mrgoldenbrown says, professional photography is on its way out, along with professional calligraphers and oil painters. Fighting the rise of amateurs is a losing cause, and even if you were to stand on behalf of people who earn a living on it, there's plenty of other amateurs who won't, or even license their work as CC-attribution.

As long as you're fine with the compensation, I don't see why you should listen to other people's objections on the subject.
posted by pwnguin at 11:17 AM on November 1, 2008

Totally in agreement with mrgoldenbrown and pwnguin on the compensation angle. If you're happy with getting some calendars as compensation, awesome. You are not obligated to take on ethics or price structures guilt tripped in your direction by the cobbledy "pro photographer" community. Don't waste your time worrying about the theoretical employment that could, in some philosophical ethics scenario, fall to a pro photographer if you were to refuse to provide your photos. Realistically they are asking for your photos because they don't have the budget or internal photo resources to produce the imagery themselves.

If you, random-good-amateur-with-desirable-Alaskan-tidal-photos-found-via-Flickr, were to refuse to allow your photos use in the calendar? To assume that they would then hire a pro at $1200/day to get the same shots is completely illogical. They can buy comparable shots online from any number of stock shops (including National Geographic) for far less.

In one case I sourced photography for publication via Flickr in part to bring a wider community of "regular folks" on the ground near the featured site into the collaborative process, hence increasing the viral network that'll hear about the final product - one example of a not-greedy-corporate-bastards-ruining-photography motivation some may not have considered.

A very very basic agreement can be similar to what iknowizburfmark outlined - an email stating your agreed use, stating that by using your photo(s) they are agreeing to your terms.
posted by Mrs Hilksom at 11:34 AM on November 1, 2008

Thanks, everybody, for both the encouragement and advice. I sent back a version of what iknowizbirfmark suggested and got a good response. I really appreciate the support!
posted by warble at 3:48 PM on November 1, 2008

The reason that the company and others trawl flickr for photos is that it's an easy way to cut out the most significant cost (photo licensing) of producing a photo-driven product. No other reason.

I don't understand why you wouldn't want to be paid. Forget the flickr is killing professional photographers (I'm a professional photographer, and I generally like that line of reasoning, though). If the company is producing a calendar to sell, the only reason that anyone would want to buy this calendar (as opposed to some other calendar) is because of the quality of imagery. That is, your photos (and the others in the calendar) are the only reason anyone will be making money off the calendar.

That is, your photos == money for somebody else.

Everyone else in the chain of the production and distribution of the calendar is getting paid (the copywriters, the designers, the managers, the printers, the distributors, the marketers, the sellers), why shouldn't you?

The response is usually that the next photographer down the line will just agree to give up their photos for free. Sure, fine, whatever. Then they've wasted their time taking the photo, wringing their hands on ask metafilter, reading over a contract, sending off the work, clearing model releases, etc., all so some company can line their pockets. You say that it's enough compensation to get a couple of copies of the calendar and a photo credit, and maybe the thought of your small-printed photos getting seen by the thousands who buy the calendar is cool, but why not just make your own calendar full of your own beautiful photos. Then, you've got something that you know you'll like and you haven't helped fill somebody else's bank account through your goodwill.

If this is a calendar for an all-volunteer charity and the proceeds are going to the people the charity helps, though, go right ahead. No qualms there.
posted by msbrauer at 7:48 PM on November 1, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]