Customer got testy about Copyright notice

[Nikonfreak]

Had a client get a little upset about my having sent him a Copyright Notice via email today.

I'd put some proof sheets in their hands from a recent concert event and they are one of the artists that performed. They've had the proofs for a month and haven't pulled the trigger to purchase the rights to about 150-200 or so images that were on the proofs. Top it off with the fact that I'm giving them a deal since I was paid for shooting the event by another company so I figured "why not" and they may also go ahead with a second purchase as they share mgmt with another artist that performed that day that would be interested in images as well.

Long story short, I emailed saying that I was following up on the purchase request and that if they'd changed their minds I would need the proofs back and sent copyright notice language reminding them that proofs are not permitted to be copied, altered, transmitted, scanned, etc.. Client said there was no need for threats and that they were still interested and would finalize the purchase within a week or so.

Two issues I have is that I obviously gave out proofs and they'd already purchased large prints from me of some of the images. When a client doesn't respond very quickly, to me it means something is up as most of my clients want their concert images ASAP after an event.

Was I jumping the gun? I generally don't have issue with a client reviewing proofs but after a month it seemed unusual for the work I do since the most recent event is the buzz for only a short period of time.

With other proof requests how long do your clients generally take and is a month (closer to two now) customary or does it somewhat depend on the industry you shoot for?

Thoughts?

Julio

[TonyK]

Not sure you did anything really wrong, just a matter of presentation.

Do the proofs themselves have copyright notices on them? Either small in the front or stamped on the back. The few times I've done things for pay most people made up their minds within 2 to 3 weeks. As the people you are dealing with are working professionals they may not have had a lot of time to review your proofs.

One method you could consider is in a cover letter sent with the proofs put a time limit on how long they can keep the proofs. You might even provide return postage or some other means to prompt them to return the proofs.

In the old days of high school photos, the proofs faded after a few weeks and were worthless. It could be a product to be developed for digitial photographers. A spray on that will interact to light and fade the image after some length of time.

Peace,

[Mark McCall]

Proofs leaving the studio have long been known to sink your sales.
If you've ever had your portrait taken at Olan Mills, you know that NOTHING leaves the studio unless it's paid for.
Proofs are viewed when you come back for your sales presentation.
You can purchase them with a qualifying order.

We can learn something from the big guys.

The band has no monetary investment, so the photos have very little value to them. I doubt they would have hired you to come shoot if you hadn't already been there.

People don't eat when they aren't hungry.
Proofs or contact sheets give them just enough to satisfy the hunger for images, and the sale, if any, will be much lower than expected.

My suggestion would be to create a policy of in-studio viewing only.
If you MUST send out proofs, put it on a self-destructing CD that will not work after x number of days, or x number of viewings.
ProShow Gold and PicturestoExe both do this.

Good luck.

[jfrancho]

With the bands I work with, we go over the proofs at my place, on my monitor. They rarely order prints, so this works out well, and eliminates any misunderstandings.

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by Mark McCall

Proofs leaving the studio have long been known to sink your sales.
If you've ever had your portrait taken at Olan Mills, you know that NOTHING leaves the studio unless it's paid for.
Proofs are viewed when you come back for your sales presentation.
You can purchase them with a qualifying order.

We can learn something from the big guys.

The band has no monetary investment, so the photos have very little value to them. I doubt they would have hired you to come shoot if you hadn't already been there.

People don't eat when they aren't hungry.
Proofs or contact sheets give them just enough to satisfy the hunger for images, and the sale, if any, will be much lower than expected.

My suggestion would be to create a policy of in-studio viewing only.
If you MUST send out proofs, put it on a self-destructing CD that will not work after x number of days, or x number of viewings.
ProShow Gold and PicturestoExe both do this.

Good luck.

Thanks Mark. Great info. Appreciate it.

I'm going to look into both of those software packages. That sounds like a great way to go.

Julio

[Mark McCall]

PicturestoExe....www.wnsoft.com
ProShowGold....www.photodex.com (much better than PicturestoExe..also makes DVD's, automatically uploaded webshows, CD's, emailable shows, ect).

[JohnPaul]

From the sound of it,.. I'd say you are in the green..

They have had them, and not contacted you back regarding the purchase of them for a month.. and you are just being "business like".. and some people have problems when others assert themselves in a tactful way.. For some people, the only thing they want to hear is that they can use your property for free..

Heck,...you allowed them to take them with them.. instead of just selecting what they wanted right in your office.. I think they were rude for not getting back to you after a month..Then again,...we are talking "bands".. and I have stopped shooting bands because of the numerous problems I had with bands over the years...(even being a former heavy metal drummer years ago, I know what they are like).. For bands,... they pay in full, upfront, or they don't get squat..(even for highly respected local musicians)..

I have recently stopped providing on-line proofs too.. even with my mark across the middle of them.. People are too cheep to give a darn! I have seen proofs appear on various model's websites, even after I reminded them in person, and on the website or on the top of the CD ROM that I don't want them to post any of the proofs online,...and they always do,...and it makes them look really stupid,..and doesn't reflect my work very well either,...and they are happy with them,..and may not want to buy prints, or high res files....because they have the proofs!



Frustrating!

JP

[Nikonfreak]

Update:

The client actually came in an bought the images today. I'm delivering a disk with the selected images on it along with a limited copyright release agreement this afternoon.

The proofs have been in their hands for over a month. They bought some large prints from me already and paid for them on the spot, but at least I print basic review images as proofs, in like 2X3 at 800X600 resolution so that they can pick the images they like. We then print normal size proofs of selected images for review and final cut (usually 5X7, 8X10 or larger) and then go with them. With 800-1500 images per concert, I do the first cut selection to narrow images down to about 150-200 of the best ones and we start with small proofs.

Amazing.

What prompted it? They have two upcoming concerts outside the US and they want some fresh images for the promotional materials, posters, and such. And, naturally, it's a rush.

Nothing like waiting until the last minute. "A screw up on their part becomes an emergency on my part..."

One other question. How do you guys handle additional copyright issues? My attorney drafted a release agreement for me that I am not ok with, which includes a release from liability for copyright infringement for the use of my images. For concert images or stage type stuff I have some concerns with that as there may need to be additional copyright releases that need to be obtained depending on what else you might have that is identifiable in the shot. For example, if I shot something at let's say, "Office Depot Arena" and their logo happened to be in a shot and it wasn't cloned out or pulled out of the shot, no one caught it, bla bla.... you technically could be liable for copyright infringement of their logo or trademark could you not? I don't want to give anyone a hold harmless agreement for anything depending on how they use my images as well... especially in this lawsuit happy world we live in.

Julio

www.pbase.com/juliosphotography

[Mark McCall]

Julio,
There simply aren't enough hours in the day to police the use of your images.
Even if you found someone using an image without the proper license, it costs money to take 'em to court.
Maybe the judge will award you the court costs, but chances are he won't if you lose the case.

Also, do you have the time to put into taking someone to court?

That's why I'm a proponent of a blanket license.
For one fee, they get total usage....includes any and all usage.


Advantages are:
You get paid up front
No policing, no court because they now own the images
Your free to concentrate you time on other projects

[Nikonfreak]

Mark:

Thanks. I get the point.

It's that old mentality of "Don't give out the negatives". I want to retain certain rights such as 3rd party rights, press rights, promotional rights and such to my images, but don't have any problems passing on images and files these days with digital.

I feel like my concert and band images are almost like a wedding, enough time goes by, you'll never see, hear or get any additional monies out of that show... but occasionally it happens.

This is why I retain copyright and give limited release agreements. I sometimes have a number of acts or bands I shoot at one show and sometimes they all buy rights to use images so I don't want to transfer ownership completely, but I have no problem defining "all uses" as the purpose of the limited release agreement.

I am also thinking of modifying my agreement as it has a time frame (expiration) and a renewal clause (renewal of agreement with a new fee at X period of months / years) and perhaps making it permanent and upping the fee. Chances are that folks always want fresh material so renewal of copyright release is somewhat sketchy in my opinion.

In addition, it's definitely time to update other forms and agreements and I'm in the process of better defining all items that need to be done and obligations of all parties. There are some grey areas right now in the forms I use and I like for things to be buttoned down a tad more.

Julio

[Mark McCall]

Julio,
I hear ya, matter of fact, I agree with you in principle.

Keep in mind this is a different market than it was 5 years ago. Digital has changed everything.

If keeping certain rights to your images is important to you, be prepared to pay a good portion of your profit to police usage, or take it from granted that your not being cheated.
There's many more people who'll use your images illegally, than ones that will be honest and pay your asking fee for desired usage.
You can Digimarc your images in PS, but the subscription rates are high for the service (in my opinion $500 for 5,000 images is a tad steep).

Also, digital has lowered the entry level dollar amount needed to get into the business. Your competition is all the soccer moms with digital cameras willing to shoot these projects "just for the exposure". Some newbies are doing some outstanding work. Photoshop is the great equalizer. They're even teaching it in all the high schools.

If you have the time, effort and money available to police you image usage, then I wouldn't change anything.

But I have noticed a rise in the number of companies we shoot for who want full access to the* licensed images.
No doubt they've spoken to photographers willing to hand it over for a flat fee.

Bottom line is....what makes you the most money with the least amount of effort?

For me, the flat fee deal is perfect.
$650 per hour, all images on CD.
Shoot, download, burn. We're on the clock during the entire process. Easy.

[TonyK]

After reading the two posts I find I agree with Mark's stance on providing a CD of images. In the negative days, I held the negatives. Yet as Mark has pointed out, and as we have seen, these are not the negative days. Doing business as if it were only sets up false expectations. Being able to be on the clock for post processing also is a benefit.

Peace,

[jfrancho]

It depends on the arrangement. The Christmas party I did recently would not work if the client took the images with them. The client payed to have me photograph their employees, and provide two prints each, as their present to the employees. If the employees wanted more prints, they could order them from me. Why would the client pay more for the image files? If I keep the images, then each employee can contact me separately with their print order. Not every situation is like this, but digital allows some flexibility in how you handle each customer. So far the reorders have now hit half of the original shoot in revenue.

[Mark McCall]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

It depends on the arrangement.

I think your right...we're comparing apples to oranges, though. (event work vs. commercial imaging)

I do my event work just like you do, only it's all prepaid.
They buy the packages that night, pay upfront, get the photos by mail in about 2 weeks.