copyright..

hello, someone (a hair salon) would like to use one of my shots - I am very happy for them to use my work, but wondering about copyright - does it matter? what can happen? what's the point to register?

should i just not bother? not sure exactly what it'll be used for, apparently for a "book", maybe a website -

thanks!

You have the copyright. You can sell the right to a single use, multiple uses or whatever else you wish.

I would find out what it's needed for and quote them a price for the single use for that purpose.

You need to price for a licence for usage, this varies from a book to an advertising campaign.

Register with alamy & use their calculator to work out cost of a licence for your client...

thanks guys. This looks pretty expensive. I am actually not charging (trying to help their business), but thought maybe I should protect myself..? although it doesnt matter that much I guess - I guess there is no risk of them making money out of the shot or am I missing something?

If you are not charging and want to help them then do so with a clear conscience! You own the copyright and will always do so unless you give or sell it to someone else.

You don't need to register with anyone.

thanks

I'd just ask for a credit wherever the image is used. I'm quite happy to let non-profit groups use anything of mine they fancy with that proviso. Only seems fair!

that's what i told him, to put my name on it if he uses it. thanks for your help!

OK here are my thoughts on this, today I have had an email from my agency telling me they are cutting back on concert photography because they can no longer sell it. The reason they can no longer sell is because magazines are snowed under with images from amateurs willing to give their work away for a bye line.

I usually cover 5 to 10 shows a month for them, next month I have been given just two assignments. I post some of my work on this forum to show what Pentax system is capable of & have to put huge copyright watermarks on them which upsets people yet my work is repeatedly stolen over & over again....

Every time someone gives an image away to a business or a charity they are destroying this business, much of which has already been destroyed. The BBC, the local press are always asking for free imagery, even Sky tv owned by billionaire asks for free imagery.

Now a hair salon is a business, would you expect the hair salon to give away haircuts on the grounds of exposure & it will bring you more work??? No because everyone else would want a free hair cut on the grounds it is good for exposure.

Does the hair salon get free rates, free power, free staff even??? No so why should you give your work away??? Charge them, charge them anything, just charge them something, put some value to your work, hey even if its some hair cuts...

The business obviously recognises value in your work or they wouldn't be asking you.

Please please do not give your work away to a business..

That would explain the irrelevant or just plain appalling images turning up on various news sites.

Sadly, until everyone (and I mean Josh with his iphone who's just chuffed to get his photo on the telly) understands that images have a value and some people make their living that way the media outlets will carry on exploiting them. I find the sources asking people to text or email their photos particularly unfair - they're effectively putting both their researchers (who would previously have to go in search of the required images) and photojournalists out of work. If people text, they actually make money from people sending them free content!

My view: If they're going to be making money on the back of my work then I want a cut. Getting decent images is a business expense. Don't like it? Buy a DSLR with company funds and add it to someone's job description along with a training course. Enjoy your industry standard images which conform to all the rules but lack much in the way of imagination or originality...

This could equally apply to volunteering. If people will work for nothing, then nobody will want to pay anyone.

There has to be a balance, be it a charity like the National Trust or a wedding photography business.

Unfortunately the balance is under severe pressure these days as cash is short.

Cabstar, my thoughts entirely. Thanks for voicing that opinion.

This morning BBC Scotland showed pictures of York to illustrate the weather bulletin. Evidence of free pics no doubt as well as sloppy and ignorant editorial judgement.

I'm so angry about what is going on that I would almost like to see a return to '70s closed shops and demarcation!

I think it has to be considered case by case really. I know of a very small charity which doesn't have paid staff and funnels every donated penny straight into their projects, in their case I'd consider images a donation, just as their entire organisational team donates time and other expenses to keep things running.

However, when dealing with someone like the National Trust who have paid staff and a tidy annual turnover? They can clearly afford a professional, so why give them your work for nothing?

I quite agree. I happily do stuff for a charity I support FOC but the BBC take the biscuit

I couldn't agree more ! NO free pics !

But then the same could be said of charities, the more we put our hands in our pockets the less the government provides !?

But we still end up paying either way