I've been approached by several local artists who would like to buy my photos with rights to paint from them. Is anyone doing anything like this? I'm not sure how to set up such arrangements and don't have any idea what pricing should be. I would definitely restrict any digital copying or photo manipulation or collage, and would restrict rights to the purchaser only. But I am interested in pursuing this idea. Thanks. Sally
We're pretty militant in our approach and in no way "typical," Sally, but we ask for half the income from the produced works. Pro artists are willing to pay it, but amateurs throw hissy fits and stomp away mad. Suits us just fine.
Posted by Lydia Dotto on April 8, 2010 at 12:50 PM
Hank, does it make a difference in the license if your image is only one of several used or if it's not the main focus of the painting?
There is another thread in here somewhere that I started Sally about the same thing. There were 20+ replies, with many opinions. I've been getting many, many of the same requests--one local gallery owner wanted to simply pass on my electronic file to 20 painters and hang their versions, with my photo orginal in his gallery--after consulting here, and others, I said politely, "No, not without any payment or partial royalties from sales they generate." To this day he is a bit upset about it (a painter himself) though I explained all the points raised.
After sitting down with a local painter who is a copyright specialist as well as teacher, she fully agreed with my decision and we are working on doing something so that I can get compensated, and her students can collectively interpret my photo.
I'm starting to think that saying (for someone like me), if you purchase a small (8 x 10/11 x14) at a reasonable price and wish to display their version locally, so be it. But it gets complicated after that.
Sorry I didn't answer your question, and I'll try to find the other thread with much more informed answers.
Hank, does it make a difference in the license if your image is only one of several used or if it's not the main focus of the painting?
It hasn't come up for us, but my instinct would be to suggest that the photographers split half the income among themselves.
The distinction we've found is that pro painters recognize that we're artists too, and a whole lot of work, creativity and expense went into getting just that one great photo. Amateurs don't recognize that. Our response to the amateurs is direct: "If the photo is so easy to come by, go take your own."
Certainly this is something you can do. Technically, it's called a "derivative use license." When someone asks me to do this, I try to make a clarification as to what their end purpose would be.
Is someone is just looking to make a single personal copy of something that they're going to put on their own home wall, and never to go any further than that, or are they wanting to make something they can display or sell?
If the former, personally I tell them they're welcome to use or print an image from my website, which is usually quite small and low resolution, and they can do that for free. I make sure to tell them that the permission is for a single copy personal use, and may not be displayed at any place that charges admission, or may not be displayed for sale. If they want that same type of use and permission, but one of better quality scans, I will usually sell them a watermarked scan, or simply suggest they buy one of my smaller open edition prints.
If they want to produce multiple copies, or display the print for sale, then I tell them they need to use a derivative use license. I will typically charge them a research free / scan delivery / royalty fee in the range of $75 to $300 depending on the size a number of the prints. I'll then set up a royalty arrangement contract whereby they agreed to remit between 10% and 25% of the sale price. If they're only using a part of my photo, the rate would be less. If they're simply making a full derivative copy in a new media, then I charge more
.
Hope that helps,
Thanks to all for your suggestions, comments, enlightenment. You've given me a lot of options to consider. Bill, thanks for the directions to the comments on your original topic; I did do a search before posting, but obviously wasn't persistent enough. As a former librarian, I'm ashamed of myself Thanks again. Sally
Discussion
8 repliesAfter sitting down with a local painter who is a copyright specialist as well as teacher, she fully agreed with my decision and we are working on doing something so that I can get compensated, and her students can collectively interpret my photo.
I'm starting to think that saying (for someone like me), if you purchase a small (8 x 10/11 x14) at a reasonable price and wish to display their version locally, so be it. But it gets complicated after that.
Sorry I didn't answer your question, and I'll try to find the other thread with much more informed answers.
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=48023&CGISESSID=32c35b1dbadc28cf80ecbf74efcbcd18&u=5764
It hasn't come up for us, but my instinct would be to suggest that the photographers split half the income among themselves.
The distinction we've found is that pro painters recognize that we're artists too, and a whole lot of work, creativity and expense went into getting just that one great photo. Amateurs don't recognize that. Our response to the amateurs is direct: "If the photo is so easy to come by, go take your own."
Is someone is just looking to make a single personal copy of something that they're going to put on their own home wall, and never to go any further than that, or are they wanting to make something they can display or sell?
If the former, personally I tell them they're welcome to use or print an image from my website, which is usually quite small and low resolution, and they can do that for free. I make sure to tell them that the permission is for a single copy personal use, and may not be displayed at any place that charges admission, or may not be displayed for sale. If they want that same type of use and permission, but one of better quality scans, I will usually sell them a watermarked scan, or simply suggest they buy one of my smaller open edition prints.
If they want to produce multiple copies, or display the print for sale, then I tell them they need to use a derivative use license. I will typically charge them a research free / scan delivery / royalty fee in the range of $75 to $300 depending on the size a number of the prints. I'll then set up a royalty arrangement contract whereby they agreed to remit between 10% and 25% of the sale price. If they're only using a part of my photo, the rate would be less. If they're simply making a full derivative copy in a new media, then I charge more
.
Hope that helps,
And it was helpful for me to read and re-read the responses--Gary's above sounds like a good guidline for my use.