Concept: Licensing existing images of a television show cast to a TV network
Licensing: Publicity use of five images for two years
Photographer: Portrait specialist based in California
Client: Prominent cable television network
Here is the licensing agreement:
At the beginning of 2011, a regional magazine commissioned the photographer to capture individual seamless portraits and a group shot of four actresses staring in a cable TV comedy. The group shot ultimately landed on the cover of the issue. Since the shoot, the show has gained traction and will soon film its 100th episode. Now looking to promote the success of the show, the network contacted the photographer about using some of his images.
The network originally requested the photographer to compile a quote for using 5 images for a 2-year period. However, since they didn’t specify the exact use, I contacted our contact at their public relations department to discuss the details. She clarified their desire to have the ability to send the photos out whenever a third party was writing an article about the show.
Just like in the commissioning publication, the network requested a total of 5 images. It included an individual portrait of each actress and a group shot. Based on their website content, it appeared the group shot would see more use. Therefore, I figured it was more valuable. There were several factors that drove up the fee. Firstly, the major celebrity status of one of the actresses played a significant role. Additionally, the increasing popularity of the show was expected to boost the exposure of the images. Conversely, several factors put downward pressure on the fee. Firstly, the images were already a few years old. Furthermore, other similar images already existed on the network’s website.
Typically, I’ll start with calculating a one-year price when compiling a quote. I then extrapolate to determine the value of additional years. In this case, I determined that the group shot was worth $750, and the individual portraits were worth $500 each for the first year ($2,750 total). As a very loose rule of thumb, I’ll often add 50% when doubling the licensing duration. So, in this case, that brought me to $4,125. However, based on previous experience, I felt that breaking the $4,000 mark would be a bit too high. That’s why I scaled it back down to $3,750.
I checked my pricing against a few resources and found that Getty doesn’t list a specific “publicity” option. However, they do have “newsletter, press collateral, and event programs” as a licensing option. For two years, the pricing of one image was $680. However, it was based on image size and circulation which is information that was unavailable to us. Corbis did have a “press release” category and suggested a range between $500 and $900 for a single image for two years. BlinkBid has a “public relations” option in their pricing calculator that suggests $350-$500. However, the only option was for regional use as opposed to national. Lastly, Fotoquote suggested a pricing of around $600 for use in up to 10,000 press releases. All of the above suggestions reinforced that I was in the right ballpark with my quote.
When we discussed the fee with our contact, she mentioned that they were hoping to work within a budget of $2,500. That was around the number I was considering when initially compiling a fee for one year. That’s why we decided to supply the network with the following quote that met their budget, but limited the licensing duration to a single year:
Results: The network agreed to the one-year option. However, rather than signing our estimate/terms, they preferred for us to sign a contract they supplied. Based on my experience working with other TV networks, I was pleasantly surprised that their contract didn’t specify a work-made-for-hire agreement or the transfer of copyright. Here is the original version of their contract:
After I took a closer look, there were a few items to clarify and revise:
I made the above edits and sent back this revised version:
They agreed to our changes and sent back a clean version integrating our revisions. Then, the photographer signed and returned them.
Comments: As I mentioned, it’s often the case that TV networks ask photographers to sign work-made-for-hire agreements. While that didn’t apply here, it would make for an interesting situation if this project were for a different network that did present a WMFH agreement.
Can a stock sale be considered a work-made-for-hire? Such an agreement would mean that the client would own the copyright to the image as soon as the picture was created. In this instance, since the image was previously licensed to the magazine that originally commissioned the work, a WMFH agreement between the photographer and the TV network would be illogical. The licensing would instead need to be along the lines of “exclusive unlimited use in perpetuity” or a transfer of copyright. There are subtle differences between a work-made-for-hire, transfer of copyright, and exclusive unlimited use in perpetuity. It’s important to recognize when each term is appropriate to use.
Need help pricing and negotiating a project? Reach out!