Welcome to PhantomPilots.com

Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information

Aerial Image Licensing

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by supertrooper, May 29, 2014.

  1. supertrooper

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2013
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    4
    Hey guys, just want to start a dialogue about image licensing. Now I know that it is legal to sell images that you have already taken for commercial usage as long as your not contracted to fly commercially you should be in the clear. If I'm wrong then please correct me. I have a client that saw some aerials I took and would like unlimited usage to use them. I'm thinking of charging near $800-$1200 for 8-10 images. I am here looking for honesty. I'm sure we all live and work in different places so why not be open about pricing rather then shady. Thanks!
     
  2. sergekouper

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    752
    Likes Received:
    128
    Location:
    London UK
    Sounds like a good price to me. As you mentioned it, I think too that the law says the pictures belong to you, unless you were filming for somebody else, who in that case becomes your employer and owns the copyright on your work.
    Nothing prevents you to sell them the price you want. By the way, on what basis did you calculate it?
     
  3. kydan

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Chattanooga, TN
    Just look at Getty images. They charge awful prices so really your $800 for 8-10 pics is super cheap.
     
  4. supertrooper

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2013
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    4
    I just know that people are always never willing to spend lots of money on images when they ask for full everything. It means that they never wanna deal with negotiating, just easier to throw out a number then loose them. I'm gonna bump it up to $1500 for usage. For a local client I think it will be fair. I'll also drop the # of images down to 3-5 shots. Anyone else have any experiance with this? Selling there phantom images?
     
  5. THIS IS WRONG INFO!
    As a professional photographer who has shot for HUGE companies and organizations around the United States that info is incorrect! The photographer ALWAYS retains the copyright. Doesn't matter what you are shooting or where. It doesn't even matter if you are trespassing or on private property the photographers always retains copyright. The ONLY time the photographer loses copyright is if the photographer themselves signs a contract and gives it away.
     
  6. sergekouper

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    752
    Likes Received:
    128
    Location:
    London UK
    THIS IS RIGHT INFO!
    When you work as a photographer employed by a company, they own the copyright on your work, (unless stated otherwise by contract), which makes sense, or you would start seeing pictures of celebrities, the next plane or car all over the place because since you pressed the button , they're your pictures... Don't think so. I invite you to take a look at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law at the "Copyright" paragraph. This doesn't concern only the UK Laws but also the US ones on copyright. PLease check this link as well: http://www.own-it.org/news/who-owns-the ... the-client
     
  7. derrickduff

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2014
    Messages:
    188
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm new the the professional photography game so I may be wrong but if you're charging $1500 for 4-5 images why wouldn't I just buy my own Phantom and take my own pictures? I could even pay a helicopter pilot a for an hour or so at that rate and snap the pictures myself.

    So I'm curious, what kind of business buy aerial photos for that kind of price? Because I need to find those around me.
     
  8. sergekouper

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    752
    Likes Received:
    128
    Location:
    London UK
    Because this is not only a matter of equipment, but talent, knowledge, and professionalism. Then only comes the equipment... Also bear in mind that these expensive pictures are probably taken with an Hi-end DSLR, installed on a $20000 Hex or Octocopter, not a Phantom and a GoPro...
    Unlike the general public, photographers are not "press button" and think and compose there pictures before taking them. This is a job...

    That said, If we are talking about GoPro pictures from a Phantom as it seems to be the case, personally I wouldn't give much for them, knowing that technically they cannot go very far, ok for the web or 10"X 14" but not much more, unless they are the scoop of the year, which is different.
     
  9. Suwaneeguy

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2014
    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    22
    First, hire a copyright attorney.
    An attorney of anything I am not so this is my opinion.
    Do you know what "Public Domain" means in copyright?
    As they are your photos, they are yours to sell as you wish.
    As I see it, unless there is something discernible and unique to those photos, then they fall under "Public Domain".
    Let's say you take a picture of a car that's parked in a huge parking lot and nothing in that photo makes it unique.
    That is public domain. Anybody could have taken that photo. Not just you.
    Case in point, Ansel Adams took hundreds of photos of national park scenes and sold them.
    While the scenes have been duplicate a million times over, any one else who owns that same photo can sell his photo as well.

    But let's say you have a lovely young lady pose next to that car, or put her in that national park scene.
    Now that photo scene becomes exclusive yours. Anyone else attempting to sell the same photo can be sued for copyright.

    As for "unlimtied usage", I'd toss in a few.
    E.G. If they wanted to use the photo in a tv commercial campaign.
    I'd ask for royalties.

    As for the FAA legal issues, there are none at this moment.
    The NTSB has ruled that the FAA has no jurisdiction and can not fine under a law that does not exist.
     
  10. sergekouper

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    752
    Likes Received:
    128
    Location:
    London UK
    Any legal document to confirm this or is it just your opinion?
     
  11. I reread your original post. It is right that if you are an employee of a business the business owns copyright. But as you stated "unless you were filming for somebody else, who in that case becomes your employer and owns the copyright on your work". This is why I posted what I did. If I client comes to me and hires me for a job I am not their employee. Employees are on payroll and the gov takes taxes and makes the company offer benefits, time off, etc. This is a staff photographer position. Which is very different from a client hiring you.

    Case in point. I worked on a project just last week with Good Housekeeping Magazine. The ad agency is Hurst. We also worked with them a few months ago for Dr Oz magazine. They did not hire us as a employee (nobody does that). They hire your as a contracted photographer. An agreement is ALWAYS signed before the shoot. A contract is agreed upon and then signed. 90% of the time the company gets exclusive rights to the image. ALMOST NEVER does the client get the copyright. Just rights to use the image. Normally as with the case of Good Housekeeping (and all other pubs) the first 90 days AFTER the photo hits the news stand the photographer can post the images on their site or even sale them. Unless stated in the contract. If you are giving your copyright away then you are either stupid or getting paid HUGE money. This happens on occasion of the company wants to pay buku bucks. I have a copyright lawyer as well. Since I have had MANY photos stolen from me and used nationally and infringed on my rights.

    Any good publishing company and ad agency has a good solid contract. In the case of the website you posted "The publishing company later authorized further publication of the photographs in BUPA Health Magazine and on the Celebrity Angels website." As with this example the judge ruled that the copyright was still owned by the photographer. Just as I stated above. The publishing company can publish to other pubs if they write it in the contract. The issue with multiple people helping on a shoot can become complicated. But just as this judge ruled it comes down to the hired photog was, not the helping staff. But I have been on shoots where everyone involved signs contracts and they state that the photographer owns all rights and that by helping they do not own the photos in any way. This is JUST for clarification purposes more then anything. That way when someone sues its an easy outcome. As a full time pro I live this everyday and have dealt with companies ranging from NBA to Good Housekeeping to bands like Ice Cube and Panic at the Disco.
     
  12. So this gets kinda confusing. But really it all comes down to who took the photo. So if one person setup camera in front of a cool tree and another person comes along asks the original photog for the same settings and thus takes the same image, each photographer has their own copyright to their own image, not each others. This law is setup so photogs can sue each other over images that look the same. Imagine if it was that way. Google would own almost everything because of their Google Maps Images.

    Here is the grey area. If the image is very unique then its possible that they photog could sue another photog. So for instance. If you created a photograph like a pile of dirt and flowers in a room with a lady sitting on it http://michaelpsilva.com/blog/wp-conten ... ilight.jpg

    And then someone else took images that looked very very similar to the point were everyone can see that the idea was stolen then maybe the original photographer could sue. But then it gets even more confusing because you have the right to put your own spin on images or videos this is called Appropriation art. http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/mart ... rights.htm

    All in all go make original pieces of art (that is what photography is)
     
  13. ^^^ PS ^^^
    You own the actual piece of art, not what is in the picture. Just like Ansel Adams doesn't own the right to the most majestic places on earth, he does own the actual art pieces such as the negatives and printed images. If you took the exact same image and it looked EXACTLY like Ansel Adams you could sell it if you could prove that you took the image (but it would be illegal to say Adams took the image). This is because the image is not really "one of a kind". Keep in mind Judges have a really hard time defining "one of a kind". So its case by case and a very grey area.
     
  14. sergekouper

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    752
    Likes Received:
    128
    Location:
    London UK
    I believe there is a kind of misunderstanding here. My point, as a freelance cameraman (and filming all sort of news, corporate events, politics, entertainment etc), and owning my own (little) production company, is: If a client approaches me to film some for him, unless stated otherwise and written on a contract, I own the rights and retain all material. However, when I am hired by a TV channel or a another production company, I do not own any material or copyright on my work. It's all theirs.
    This is basically what I understand reading the texts.
     
  15. supertrooper

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2013
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    4
    Hey guys. Just to clear this all up from my end. I do work as a professional photographer and know all I need to about copyright. I shot the images with my Vision 2+. Now granted, I know this isn't a helicopter, I am not shooting with a DSLR, and I know the files are not the best. But I am quite impressed with the files that this little camera is pumping out. I have shot from a helicopter and I know the benefit of having my 70-200 and 16-35 hanging around my neck. So considering a helicopter probably costs $1500 for a few hours and I just shot a bunch of images in 30 mins with a little quad. I don't see how asking half of that price being unreasonable. Especially considering the time that goes into composing the image, flight skill, and post production. I'm sure there are some haters but I'm just hoping that everyone can make some money with these things and make them into tools rather then just toys.