Charging a third party to use our rendering

[rdubrow]

Hi,

 

We have been approached by a third party asking to use a rendering we produced within their marketing brochure (our client was the developer, the third party is the construction company).

 

Are there any standard fees that others have used for these requests? A percentage of the original fee perhaps? I'd love to hear a variety of solutions, for this and future inquiries.

 

Thanks, Richard

 

PS. I should say our standard contract doesn't address third party use or fees.

Edited November 13, 2010 by rdubrow
adding additional info

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

This type of situation is very common in architectural photography. If you have a friend or contact that is a photographer I would call them and ask how they charge it.

 

If you do go that route, please post back and let us know what their opinion was so that we can all learn more.

[Sketchrender]

To be honest .

We never charged as long as they put our company logo and gave us credit in the press release.

Thats was always worth more than the small amount of money.

They don't always ask either, they just print it.

 

phil

[jinsley]

I'm with Philip, your company name and logo on the image is a fare price.

 

I would warn though that in the past I have had an experience where the developer (original client) was non too happy about us letting a contractor use images for their promotion which the developer had paid for...

[BVI]

Depends on your agreement with the original client. Are you sure you still have copyright of the image? If the people who paid for it give it the 'ok' then forward the artwork on. If you have specifically retained ownership of the artwork, then charge a fee to the third party to cover the reuse of the image.

[Iain Denby]

Yeah, no charge as long as you're credited for it.

[kippu]

^ am with dibbers , why charge when you get free advertisement

[Brodie Geers]

I'm surprised so many people recommend not charging. I've never been in this spot before but it seems to me that if you were better off having advertisements than money for an image then you wouldn't have charged the original client either. I'd be rather upset as a client who just spent $1,000 and some amount of back and forth time developing the image for my marketing purposes, only to have someone else use it for free for their marketing purposes (the construction company in this case).

 

I think there's a false dichotomy between suggesting that you can either charge a fee OR require a logo as well. You could tell them that you sell rights to use the image however they want for $1,000 (or whatever the original client paid), but that they can purchase rights to use an image with your logo in the corner for $XXX. Just another option.

 

-Brodie

[1d2d3d4d]

I would use the opportunity to drop a logo or see if the contractors might want renderings or graphic design for their other projects---not a huge tacky logo, but something tasteful...

 

Think of it this way, you want everyone to look good out there so more work keeps coming in---if the developer gives his blessing then you want to please the client as well---

 

if it involves extensive labour on your end you might bill for additional services...but on some level nickle and diming is keeping things more stagnant than they need to be

Edited November 15, 2010 by 1d2d3d4d

[Tommy L]

If it was me I'd tell them to ask the original client.

[BrianKitts]

I think Travis is on the right track with basing this on architectural photography practices.....

 

With our firm we approach all of the consultants that contribute to a job and ask if they would like to participate in the photoshoot. We've been able to make a deal with all of our photographers we use so far that if a consultant contributes somewhere between 10-15% percent of the entire shoot that they get they get to recieve the full shoot of images. If they don't go in on the shoot upfront, then they have to purchase the imagery directly from the photographer afterwards. This is typically going to run the purchaser about $250+ per image.

 

As for credits, you should have it in your original contract with the source client that for major publications and releases to always give proper credit when using your imagery. And by this I mean a footnote, not a logo.... plastering your work with your logo is tacky unless it's in your own brochure. Take a look at any architectural magazine and see if you can find any photo or render with a logo (you won't) So the point is regardless of purchase phase credit is always due.

[jackb602]

As others have said, photographers have very well established standards for selling rights to their images. It's apparently complex enough that you can use this program to calculate fees based on very specific scenarios. When I was in a similar situation a couple of years ago, a photographer friend of mine used this software to give me a range of standard prices.

 

Jack

[rdubrow]

Thanks for all your input, here is an update to my situation (not my abs).

 

I contacted a commercial photographer for their input on contracts. They strictly forbid commercial third party use without written permission. I really don't see that there should be any difference for renderings. Thats the position I took.

 

So I offered the third party use for a small fee ($250 as was suggested here) and image credit next to the image in lieu of adding a large logo. Both points were readily agreed to.

 

Now that this is resolved I will add this to all my future contracts and strictly enforce these copyrights. Also, I have started the process of copyrighting all images with the US copyright office. Its an absolute pain in the ass to set up, but my understanding is once its setup its easy to add to. The copyright fee is about $30 per project.

 

Finally, my studio has been in business doing digital renderings for 18 years...and for that entire time we have operated in a loose "getting image credit is enough" mode and I think, especially given the economy, we as a profession really need to tighten these standards up and enforce them. $250 is not a great deal of money but why shouldn't my firm be entitled to collect money for use of property that is legal mine? I encourage the rest of you following this chat to do the same. Lets stop giving away our work, it erodes the value of all our efforts.

 

Perhaps issues like this are what will make a group like ASAI a value to join, they could both educate our clients and help enforce standards.

 

Richard

[jackb602]

Glad to hear you were able to work something out Richard. Copyrighting your work is a great idea. As I understand it, if someone uses your copyrighted work without permission, you are entitled to several times the original fee. Don't quote me on this—an attorney would know for sure—but I do know of photographers that have been able to take advantage of this.

 

Jack