Photo misappropriated for use on TV

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/21/2013 04:01:55 PM · #1

No. The person I talked to was leaving town for a week...he said we'd talk more when he got back. So up in the air.

I had made him a pretty generous offer last week price wise...this week I discovered five of my pics on a website I am pretty sure they control.

So I'll give him a couple of days grace period to call me next week, then I will send him a bill for the video site and website.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/21/2013 08:21:30 AM · #2

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Any juicy update?

They say that no news is good news... well usually anyways.

Do keep us abreast.

Ray

02/20/2013 08:02:58 PM · #3

Any juicy update?

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

02/13/2013 03:46:01 PM · #4

Thanks.

I use the online price calculator but I didn't see TV in there. Your calculation sounds about right, though I tend to use round numbers (I would call that $250).

The prices I have on the web are based on that. An example of one of the applicable licensing pages is here: //nrshapiro.com/licenseschdy#h301fa502

(that's even on of the images they used.)

You need to use the Buy button to see the price list. Mainly I've made products only for things that have requested (and for the most part sold). Partly because I customize the license for each product.

I definitely need to add the message about "custom products on request". (since I don't want to spend time writing licenses in advance of any request). Good suggestion.

I have given some small discounts off these for direct purchases (not using credit card, buying direct instead of my website where Zenfolio charges me a %) since $250 - $300 seems to be too high for some. (Interestingly, the last inquiry didn't want me to "negotiate" and lower my price...they thought they were fair, just out of their budget.)

Message edited by author 2013-02-13 15:46:20.

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

02/13/2013 03:26:00 PM · #5

excellent advice, through and through. at the risk of being verbose, i'll offer the following.

Usage Details

Usage Type: Editorial
Usage Details: TV - Editorial
Duration: Up To 1 month
Transmissions: Unlimited Transmissions
Placement: Use In Body Of Show
Region of Use: United States

Calculator Price : US$264.90

these were the closest parameters i could figure to plug in using this online stock photo price calculator. i purposefully tried to come up with the lowest possible price so that you won't completely blow them away.

when i wind up in situation like this, i let the "potential client" know that i'm using industry standard pricing tools to come up with a baseline estimate that i will individual tailor to their situation. i've only had one situation where i wasn't able to get something reasonable from the licensee.

ditto the suggestion to always send an invoice showing the full amount of the license value when comping someone usage of an image. this is also another place to stress the usage terms of the comped image. i have to do this with a couple local weeklies when i comp them images from my kid's activities, just to make sure they understand they are not to sell/give away prints or digital copies of the images.

if you have these images available through a website, you will want to make sure that you don't have any low-ball, one-size fits all pricing. make sure your verbiage reflects 1) the prices shown are for personal-use only, and 2) you welcome commercial-use inquiries so that you can provide custom pricing. you don't want someone thinking they can pay some ludicrously low price and then be able to do whatever they want with it...

good luck!

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

02/13/2013 02:30:08 PM · #6

Don't you guys know what happens in Rant stays in Rant? ;)

But we can all revel in this perfect storm of opinion.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/13/2013 02:22:08 PM · #7

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Echo Paul and Spork. +1

I gotta believe this is the only thread where we'll experience this conjunction � we should savor it ... ;-)

Just what I was thinking: sneezy, the hippie, and the eating implement in agreement on something...

Message edited by author 2013-02-13 14:22:38.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/13/2013 02:20:13 PM · #8

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Echo Paul and Spork. +1

I gotta believe this is the only thread where we'll experience this conjunction � we should savor it ... ;-)

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/13/2013 01:24:47 PM · #9

Echo Paul and Spork. +1

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

02/13/2013 01:21:41 PM · #10

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Neil:
I just have to balance the future business opportunities with them versus the penalty for misuse.

I suggest accentuating the former, especially if they were (sincerely) "apologetic" this time. Sounds like you can now have a reasonable negotiation, not a problem ... :-)

Agreed. While the creator's initial reaction to infringement is often a desire to "rain down nuclear fire on those who have done wrong", that's never the best tack. I know of several cases where a reasonable response to infringement has led to long-term, profitable client/artist relationships.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/13/2013 01:10:11 PM · #11

Originally posted by Neil:

I just have to balance the future business opportunities with them versus the penalty for misuse.

I suggest accentuating the former, especially if they were (sincerely) "apologetic" this time. Sounds like you can now have a reasonable negotiation, not a problem ... :-)

02/13/2013 01:04:10 PM · #12

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Neil:
Update: I sent them a note (a hybrid of Alice's and my message) around 10am yesterday morning...the loop was removed (i.e., my photos) by 2:30 pm or so when I checked.

But they haven't got back to them. I'll give them till Thursday I think then I'll send a follow up email, perhaps with an invoice for past use, and options for continued use (at an additional fee).

I'm thinking a fair price (since I don't know how long they were looping) might be in the $600 range...they're public access funded by the county or whatever, and they were using the images because they were of the town. I'd be surprised if they will pay. What do you think (two pictures for $300 each, about what I've charged in the past for licensing for one time print use).

The trick is always to determine the price you think you can get for an amount of work you are willing to put in. The fact that you gave them the pictures for free to start with doesn't give me much hope that they wouldn't fall over dead at an invoice for $600. Also, my first rule of negotiation (given to me by someone else) is always, always attempt to get the other party to name the first price. Finally, as hard as it is these days, I believe you will get much further by talking to someone by voice rather than by email.

EDIT: I just realized that you are dealing with the metroplex people and not the "government". Gives me a bit more hope, but they WILL blanche at $600 when their perceived value for the pictures was previously "zero".

They've always known the pictures weren't free. They were for a powerpoint presentation. Each file I sent them was watermarked (and I required the watermark to be shown, it was just my name and URL at the bottom of each). And each filename included: " - Promotional Image - Not for Printed or Online Use"

(Of course, I didn't think about TV as a use when I wrote those). But I was pretty clear.

And they know I've licensed the images to the the developers and architects for the "revamped" downtown. So they know there's a cost.

In any case, I missed the call but they left a message, it was apologetic and they mentioned compensating me. I just have to balance the future business opportunities with them versus the penalty for misuse.

02/13/2013 12:03:59 PM · #13

Originally posted by Spork99:

I missed the part about their earlier use being free. I know people who do that will go ahead and send an invoice noting the licensing fee that would have originally been paid along with another line item noting the discount for the usage that equals the original fee. I don't think you can claim that as a deductible donation, but it does set the value of the usage.

I would say this is Skip level advice!

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

02/13/2013 12:01:01 PM · #14

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Neil:
Update: I sent them a note (a hybrid of Alice's and my message) around 10am yesterday morning...the loop was removed (i.e., my photos) by 2:30 pm or so when I checked.

But they haven't got back to them. I'll give them till Thursday I think then I'll send a follow up email, perhaps with an invoice for past use, and options for continued use (at an additional fee).

I'm thinking a fair price (since I don't know how long they were looping) might be in the $600 range...they're public access funded by the county or whatever, and they were using the images because they were of the town. I'd be surprised if they will pay. What do you think (two pictures for $300 each, about what I've charged in the past for licensing for one time print use).

The trick is always to determine the price you think you can get for an amount of work you are willing to put in. The fact that you gave them the pictures for free to start with doesn't give me much hope that they wouldn't fall over dead at an invoice for $600. Also, my first rule of negotiation (give to me by someone else) is always, always attempt to get the other party to name the first price. Finally, as hard as it is these days, I believe you will get much further by talking to someone by voice rather than by email.

02/13/2013 11:53:42 AM · #15

Originally posted by Neil:

Update: I sent them a note (a hybrid of Alice's and my message) around 10am yesterday morning...the loop was removed (i.e., my photos) by 2:30 pm or so when I checked.

But they haven't got back to them. I'll give them till Thursday I think then I'll send a follow up email, perhaps with an invoice for past use, and options for continued use (at an additional fee).

I'm thinking a fair price (since I don't know how long they were looping) might be in the $600 range...they're public access funded by the county or whatever, and they were using the images because they were of the town. I'd be surprised if they will pay. What do you think (two pictures for $300 each, about what I've charged in the past for licensing for one time print use).

The trick is always to determine the price you think you can get for an amount of work you are willing to put in. The fact that you gave them the pictures for free to start with doesn't give me much hope that they wouldn't fall over dead at an invoice for $600. Also, my first rule of negotiation (given to me by someone else) is always, always attempt to get the other party to name the first price. Finally, as hard as it is these days, I believe you will get much further by talking to someone by voice rather than by email.

EDIT: I just realized that you are dealing with the metroplex people and not the "government". Gives me a bit more hope, but they WILL blanche at $600 when their perceived value for the pictures was previously "zero".

Message edited by author 2013-02-13 11:57:59.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

02/13/2013 11:51:14 AM · #16

I'd just send an invoice renewing the licensing to cover the infringement and a separate line item covering ongoing usage in the way that they've been using it. I assume that you don't mind them using your images, you just want to get paid for it. I always word the letters I send along with such invoices as an "You must have forgotten to license this..." and negotiate from there.

Message edited by author 2013-02-13 11:51:58.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

02/13/2013 11:00:29 AM · #17

I agree with above - send an invoice not a complaint letter..... Work out the reach of the channel and invoice with a penalty clause. This is not Joe Smoe with a fan web-site... this is a commercial operation and sounds like they deliberately removed the watermarks, so goes to intention.....

mrchhas

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

02/13/2013 10:20:36 AM · #18

semper's got a good idea you could ask for a 15-second commercial spot for a few weeks as compensation... your images with logo and contact info. or make a commercial like those car dealers "everything MUST GO!!!" which would also rock.

citymars

Nikon D700

02/13/2013 09:35:09 AM · #19

I have a friend who works in rights and clearances for a major network. When they accidentally used an image without permission for a TV show, the photographer sued them for many thousands of dollars.

I'm not suggesting you go this route, but don't underestimate the fact that the law is on your side.

sempermarine

Apple iPhone 5s

02/13/2013 09:25:29 AM · #20

Another option might be for them to give on-air credit for the photography. Could generate some business for you. What is the alternative? Lawyer cost? Court cost?

Just a thought. The price sounds resonable.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

02/13/2013 09:11:56 AM · #21

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

02/12/2013 09:06:57 AM · #22

Ouch, cropped out the watermark changing your intended composition, thereby making you look like a poor photogrpaher! It's slander!

Qiki

Fujifilm X100T

Pentax DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited

02/11/2013 11:31:21 PM · #23

Great pics BTW Neil.

sfalice

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

02/11/2013 10:58:47 PM · #24

Originally posted by Neil:

Thanks Jason and Alice.

Alice, I like your wording overall...pretty nice and yet to the point. I'm not sure what one time use means in this case. They are displayed once every 5 minutes or so, continuously! I just checked again, still on. That's 12 times an hour 24 hours a day (I think). 288 impressions a day * 2 photos?

If the images are in a continuous loop, it 'could' count as a 'one time use' - but the price would be (IMO) a stiff one.