Breach of copyright

[eeyore]

My apologies it seems that i have been underselling

NUJ rates here http://www.londonfreelance.org/feesguide/phonlrat.html

it seems that online use at 600 x 800 would be about £175 for one month circa 300 for 3 months or circa 500 for 6 months.

All i would say in my defence is that these rates are for full time pros - most amateurs and semi pros get less.

so the bottom line for robs image will be how long you can demonstrate they have been using it for - I would suggest invoicing them for a month and including a schedule of rates for future usage.

btw you cant add "damages" to an invoice as if they pay it there would be nothing to claim damages for - if you want damages you would have to sue for breach of copyright which will be both expensive and stressfull

[poschiavanus]

Originally Posted by eeyore

btw you cant add "damages" to an invoice as if they pay it there would be nothing to claim damages for - if you want damages you would have to sue for breach of copyright which will be both expensive and stressfull

Quite agree: I was merely suggesting an additional administrative charge for not seeking copyright clearance first. Hence, my advice to ensure that proper records are kept.

[pressld2]

Yep, that's what I meant too Jerry, but used "damages" as I couldn't think of a better way to phrase it.

Thanks for the NUJ rates link Pete. I've been looking for something along those lines for a while now. Ever since I quoted £250 to a sports equipment company who wanted to use one of my pics of the new Wembley stadium on their web-site and in an email newsletter. I came up with that price using the stock price calculator in my previous post but they ran a mile and I've always wondered if I was being silly. Seems not.

By the way, did you notice the "Notes" section towards the bottom of the page? It says "For home/menu pages add 50%"!

Good idea to use Alamy too Jeff - never thought of doing that even though I'm now an Alamy contributor.

Rob - any news? Have they even acknowledged your email yet?

Dave P.

[eeyore]

With regard to pricing for sale (rather than robs situation) the bottom line is that its worth what the market will pay - so if you have a rare subject , or an exceptional image it is worth more than a run of the mill shot of a common subject - which is why the NUJ and BFP give guidelines rather than a rigid pricing structure.

thus with your wembley stadium shot thats an extremly common subject so they had ample opportunity to go elsewhere , thus 250 may have been optimistic (tho that said i'm suprised they didnt negotiate) - on the otherhand when we had a high pressure water main burst a few years back and geezer as high as the houses raining bricks all over the place , I was the only SLR equiped photographer on the scene (and the only one with a hard hat and brave/stupid enough to go into the fallout radius to get dramatic pics) thus i had a shot that no one else had and could pretty much name my own price to the local press (front page on both local newpapers) - and subsequently to the water company newsletter.

as a matter of interest these are the shots in question




it also depends on how desperate you are to make the sale , and whether they need the pic more than you need the money.

and the third criteria is whether it is worth dropping the price to establish a buisness relationship (for example when i was based in MK i gave non exclusive use free of charge to my local rugby club in exchange for preferential pitchside access - which gives me better photo ops and thus better sales opportunities to the local press)