I have received a lot of “work for hire” requests this year, giving me no rights to self-promote the images. I wonder if it’s AI-related from legal teams.
Work for hire and not being able to show images from certain types of clients have been around for quite a while. It may happen more nowadays because of AI-related requests, but overall, it’s a topic that should affect your fees. The more usage they are asking for, the higher your rates.
This whole topic seems to be a little contentious, but I’ve been seeing more lately suggesting that companies and brands should not repost images and videos without the artist’s permission. That makes sense to me as they are using the content commercially without permission, compensation, or even proper credit in many cases.
My question is: how would you suggest handling this?
You are the image creator, so you own the copyright. It’s your responsibility to contact whoever used your image without your permission and request to be paid. Unfortunately, IG’s terms don’t support image creators, so if this went to court, there’s a good chance you’d lose. That’s why it’s important to contact them, let them know you own the image, and find out where they are using your image. At the very least, you should have your name tagged to get some PR exposure. In my experience, many clients simply don’t know any better and aren’t aware they need your permission, so they’re often open to negotiation.
What do I do when clients use my photos for marketing before paying me?
A norm I’ve experienced when our images go live before being paid for is one client’s department didn’t communicate with the other department or the client may not be aware of usage ownership rights. This must be spelled out and agreed upon before the job begins. Contracts usually state this, but clients may not be reading our contracts. Make sure the logistics timeline is also communicated verbally. Do your research, and don’t assume they will handle this appropriately.
I’m in the middle of negotiating a contract for a job I really want. The contract gives me no right to use the images for self-promotion, and effectively states that I could be sued for doing so.
Should I take the money and work on building the relationship, or should I fight for my rights at the risk of losing the gig?
I would talk to your contact at the company and gauge their flexibility. Explain why you need to show this work in order to secure future opportunities.
Hopefully, they’ll be receptive to your concerns and willing to work with you on terms that are fair to all parties. At the very least, do your best to advocate what’s fair.
Our industry also benefits when we stand together on issues like this. I understand why you wouldn’t want to walk away from the job over this, but asking for what you need (in a respectful way) shouldn’t cost you the job.
Have you found a way to justify licensing images for social media platforms for small restaurants? Is this even a thing for businesses notorious for thin margins?
Licensing images is needed for any usage, regardless of the budget or size of the business. What if that restaurant grows, or what if they share their images with other restaurants? Always make sure the contract is clear, and specifically show them how they can use the images only on social media (paid or owned platforms). We never know what will happen in the future, so it’s important to always protect yourself.
This may either be controversial or a matter of semantics, but what are your thoughts on photographers being ‘content creators’? It’s always made me feel cheapened, but maybe I’m just being stubborn?
Personally, I see this issue as a financial one. If a client is paying appropriately for quality images you are proud to put your name on, that answers the question for me. “Content” is what most clients need these days, so not wanting to be a part of that could really limit your job opportunities. I’m curious to hear others’ opinions on this in the comments. What do you think?
Any thoughts on what to charge just for a GIF?
Specific negotiation topics to consider when pricing a GIF:
You mentioned the idea of a “Penalty Fee,” and I’ve never priced this before. I price usage fees, so how does that change for a penalty fee when a client has used my images without paying for them?
Fees in our industry are in constant flux, and there is no one standard across the board. I get creative, and as I am not sure this is the same standard for other reps, a “Penalty Fee” has worked well for me. Clients don’t want to use our images illegally; I find they are unaware of this and want to fix the problem. I price this as a one-charge double rate of the original fee.
As times change, we have to accept how our clients will need our still images for all sorts of motion. We must now be aware to add “still photography only” to our licensing terms. Using still images for motion is a large option that should be paid for instead of granted unknowingly.
USAGE RENEWAL prices based on duration options are not split perfectly into divided values.
Two reasons:
1. We prefer the client to choose the more expensive, longer-term option.
2. Images may be more powerful, holding higher value when seen for a shorter time.
I deal with a lot of client requests regarding usage licensing rights, and they often want to know the price difference between various durations. It’s important to understand that the cost for different durations isn’t simply a matter of dividing a longer period by the number of shorter periods within it. For example, the cost for one month isn’t just one-twelfth of the cost for a year.
The impact of using an image for a shorter period, such as one month, can sometimes be greater, so we need to raise the value for shorter periods of time. It doesn’t work to just evenly divide the cost over time, and clients might not realize this. They might expect the price for a shorter duration to fit into the longer duration’s price equally divided, but that’s not the case. It’s important to know this and price your services fairly.
