Image usage

[Stephen Thomas]

We recently had a situation on a job where images were produced for the client in order to get sign-off from their bosses on the design. They were very successful, in fact they loved them so much they have been using them everywhere! Graphic panels on site, promotional leaflets about the refurbishment, invites to the grand opening etc.

 

Some of this is fairly standard I suppose (billboards e.g.) but it got us thinking that they have had a lot of mileage out of these that wasn't really part of the original scope.

 

I work for a design agency doing mostly interiors. Visualisation is an add-on service and we don't have a separate agreement/contract for this. How do you guys handle things? Do you restrict usage of your images? Do you have a standard licence agreement similar to photographers that goes out with your images?

[Francisco Penaloza]

ha ha ha, it sometimes it feels the same to me... "I should charged more for that" type of feeling :)

Sadly there is nothing you can do, unless of course you put it in a contract from the beginning. but here is the deal.

 

Since I been more involved with photography this past years, I feel there is lots of thing we (Arch Viz artist) could learn, such licensing of images.

 

But I don't know why, our profession is looked down up to the level of business card design. You really need it but you don't want to spend money and time on it.

 

Some companies don't mind to pay extra because they know they'll use a lot that image, they really value the product/service, but most of the "regular" clients feel it is too expensive already, and if you add some use restriction such a photographer will do, it get even worse.

 

I really wish, we could license our renderings, in such a way like a pro Arch photographer does, a license for the owner of the project, and separate license for other use, still keep the rights of the image, and if they want the whole ownership they need to pay extra.

 

I guess depending of the client that you deal with it, you could try to apply some extra license options, but I believe this is not normal in this industry.

[inpow watir]

I guess the difference of the business model between the two industry dictates how it goes. Some are in the same sphere for both, some just don't

Edited December 7, 2015 by inpowwatir

[Scott Schroeder]

I don't know of any company that charges more for images that are used extensively. However, I do know that the really smart companies put in their contracts that any use of that image must be done with proper credit. You'll often see an image with "Rendering by Neoscape, Steel Blue, etc". That's free publicity there and you want your image used all over the place.

[Ernest Burden III]

I often see renderings credited to the architect, when obviously a pro did them, or not credited at all. Sometimes those are MY images. Pisses me off.

 

I sell clients usage rights, not all rights. In that, I write very broad rights, so I am not trying to limit the use, really. But there is magic in the term "usage rights granted upon full payment" meaning that if they never fully paid you they never got ANY rights, so any use, even showing their client, is infringement.

 

Also, if a client wants a smaller fee, you can limit the rights to certain limited uses, and further use requires a new fee.

 

Finally, if you sell un-limited rights, you have made the sale subject to sales tax in NY State ( US issue), and most if not all others. Is your company collecting that? If not, you could be in a lot of trouble later.

 

So what do you bill for, exactly?

Edited December 7, 2015 by Ernest Burden

[Stephen Thomas]

I often see renderings credited to the architect, when obviously a pro did them, or not credited at all. Sometimes those are MY images. Pisses me off.

 

I sell clients usage rights, not all rights. In that, I write very broad rights, so I am not trying to limit the use, really. But there is magic in the term "usage rights granted upon full payment" meaning that if they never fully paid you they never got ANY rights, so any use, even showing their client, is infringement.

 

Also, if a client wants a smaller fee, you can limit the rights to certain limited uses, and further use requires a new fee.

 

Finally, if you sell un-limited rights, you have made the sale subject to sales tax in NY State ( US issue), and most if not all others. Is your company collecting that? If not, you could be in a lot of trouble later.

 

So what do you bill for, exactly?

 

We bill for our time, essentially. Fees are agreed based on projected time for each work stage, design input, meetings etc. As I say, the images are usually a by-product of the process rather than the product as such.

 

I doubt we would charge more just because the client wanted to use the images in a promotional leaflet versus an internal presentation in reality. I think this is more about ensuring images are used for the correct purpose and our work is presented in a way we are comfortable with. Including as part of a poor quality display or leaflet might reflect badly on us if people assumed we were responsible for producing the whole thing. Also if the design has moved on and the images no longer represent exactly what is going to be delivered then that could be an issue. Or we produce an image for an A4 document and they blow it up to the size of a house and it looks like crap.

 

Just trying to get a feel for whether this is something we should look at trying to exercise some control over or not. Hopefully that doesn't come across as being too precious

[John Dollus]

It depends mostly on how much you enjoy the legal system. Most large firms receive credit because their legal team doesn't provide an option. You have to be willing to either forego credit or walk away from the projects which will not accommodate.