Licensing Agreement question

[domenico Foschi]

I am Posting this for a friend who just registerd on The LFPF and is not being able to post anything yet.
She is in need of some info pretty quick,hence here I am, trying to give her an helping hand.
She has been contacted by a band who wants to use one of her images for a cd cover...
...I am going to copy and paste the rest from the email she sent me.

Thank you folks.


My 3 queries are:

I am in the process of drafting up an agreement proto
type for the following scenario: I am licensing a
photographic image of mine to a music band to use on
their upcoming CD cover. I am not seeking a fee from
them per se,because they are self-promoting BUT once
if they should get picked up by a record label, then I
would be monetarily compensated by the label.

I am not too clear whether this license agreement is
the granting of non-electronic rights AND electronic
rights? I ask this because I am to provide them with a
digital file of my photographic image for eventual
printing and I would imagine electronic usage.

On the side note of fee and payment, what is the
normal going rate or percentage for this type of set
up. For the photographer does this equate to royalties
or is the context more of a one time flat fee payment?

[Daniel Geiger]

I can tell you what my agency, alamy.com, would charge. I made the following assumptions:

Full area CD cover, run up to 10,000, 3 years, world-wide distribution. Price US725.
For 100,000 it would be 1235.
For 10K US only 495.
For 10K US only, half area: 450.

Hope this gives you some idea of market price.

Daniel

[QT Luong]

How you transmit the file is irrelevant. If they use the image only in print, no electronic rights are to be granted. Royalties are troublesome to track, and in general, one is best served with licensing for a set usage (number of copies, territory, duration), and should more rights be needed, a new license. In general, I ask for $150-$500 depending on usage factors for a CD cover.

Tuan.

[QT Luong]

I haven't seen David's reply. Everybody can indeed create an account on alamy, corbis, and gettyimages to check their pricing. It's a good starting point, but some of their calculation methods are not realistic.

[Steven Barall]

A photographer I worked for many years ago always told me that the photographer has to educate the client. These musicians and their people will have no idea how any of this photo stuff works. If they don't understand something and it turns into a problem, it's your fault.

People don't understand that photos are property and that paying for rights is like renting an apartment. The client doesn't own the photos, the photographer owns the photos. That has to be hammered home to the clients every way possible and nothing can be agreed to unlill they are made to understand this.

Also, consider this thought. Once the album cover is made, that is, the text is set and so forth, it then becomes a new and different thing. You should allow the notion that they can take that new image, the square frame with the logo and type and use it as a whole new thing in many ways. They can post "their" album cover to a web site, make posters and leaflets and other things as well. They can not however use the original photo alone in these ways without further financial agreements. Offer them a buy out for a thousand dollars and then they can do what they want to forever.

Good luck

[Ralph Barker]

Steven makes several good points about what they are paying for, and what they get for what they are paying.

The alternative, of course, is for the band to buy the copyright, too. For example, $450 for the image, and $20K for the copyright. Payment for the copyright should be up-front, of course, but they can pay for the image over time.

[QT Luong]

Once the album cover is made, that is, the text is set and so forth, it then becomes a new and different thing. You should allow the notion that they can take that new image, the square frame with the logo and type and use it as a whole new thing in many ways.

Not necessarily. If it is a derivative work (likely), your copyright still applies.