January 31, 2005

Curious George: Image permission? A company wants permission to use one of my photos. What's fair?

An "online physian training company" has emailed and asked to use a photo from my website. (It's a picture from a surgery I observed.) Am I a fool if I let them use it for free? That's what I was going to do until I saw that they charge quite a bit for a membership. (But they say they are non-profit.) Any photo monkeys know what's the usual procedure here?

posted by wanderingstan 19 years ago
  • There's no real procedure for it, unless you're registered with a stock photo agency. Just make up a number and see if they go for it. I'd say keep it reasonable - between $200 and $300. You also should require that they give you visible photo credit immediately beneath the photo in a minimum of 10px type. Where I work, we use professional stock photos fairly frequently and it varies between $200 and $500 for stock photography. Occasionally higher for something really special.
  • charge the shit out of them.
  • I always thought that the first question you had to ask was if you had all the required sign-offs. I thought this was especially true for commercial photography, as opposed to editorial (editorial involved some sort of fair use thingy I think).
  • Yes, that's the first thing you should check: do you have permissions from those people in the photos? From the institution/company where they were taken? Should they sue whoever uses the photos comercially, you could end up liable.
  • You will most likely need releases from everyone in the photo (patient, doctor, nurses). Otherwise tyou could get in trouble. I would recommend asking over at photo.net, where they have lots of freelancers. I have allowed a photo of mine to be used by the London Met, but that was a freebie.
  • charge the shit out of them.
  • What warrior said. Twice.
  • how much shit would that be, warrior? more than, say, 8 ounces?
  • I dunno. If it's for their marketing, then charge as you see fit, yeah. If it's useful for training doctors, then maybe a less-rapacious rate is advisable.
  • If letting them use the photo means you have to go back and get releases signed, then I would charge to cover that cost and inconvenience. If not, then I'd let them use it without charge.
  • I have had a few photos published. Some I charged for, others I did not. You did not say whether they were asking for exclusive or non-exclusive use rights. That makes a big difference in the price I charge. If I am a fan of organization or the content of the article (you might want to see that before you agree) I have waived my fee for non-exclusive reproduction rights. For organizations I am indifferent to, I start with $250 for non-exclusive rights and go up depending on the rarity of the shot, and I may, or may not offer, the opportunity for them to buy exclusive rights. The more I personally like the picture, the higher I go for exclusive rights, but I always require that I my name by photo. I have have made as much as $1500 for exclusive rights to reproduce. If I do not like the group, I see how much I can get them to agree to and depending on my pocket money situation, may just say no in the end.

    Fortunately, I practice photography for myself, and getting published in just a nice bonus and getting paid lets me buy my next toy. I shoot mainly animals and plants so I don't have the problem of release forms, but I have a basic form (something like these) that I carry in my bag that I use when I do photograph humans in a place where there is an expectation of privacy. An operating room is likely one of those.
  • I was actually under the impression that model release forms were only necessary if the person's face or recognizable features were in the photo. Am I wrong on that, alumroot?
  • ..... Charge the shit out of them.
  • Thanks for all the great tips and warnings! I really hadn't thought about the legal implications. A little money sounds good to someone living on a student budget, but the thought of getting caught in a legal mess is scary... I'd be really happy if Mr. Hazard was right, because the only things showing in the photo are 3 latex-gloved hands and a few square inches of brain. Hardly "recognizable features." The whole thing is made more complicated by the fact that the hospital is in Germany, but the interested company is US. (But this could be a good thing too, since it'd be tougher for any legal action to happen.) Oh, the photo would only be visible to paid subscribers. Guess the first step would be trying to contact some German photographers who might know EU law about this.
  • I'm not a lawyer, but I think that considering the fact that there is nothing personally identifiable anywhere in the photo, and presumably nothing "locationally" identifiable, that is, no way to prove that you took that photo inside that specific hospital, you're probably free to do as you wish without seeking releases from the doctors, the patient, or the hospital...
  • You might find the answers in this AskMeFi thread useful.