Philips wants to use my image ...

the_monkey

I was wondering what I should charge for this image, Philips want to use it


This is the edited message i got from them :

Hi ,

My name is Romy and I work for Philips Design. We are making a trend book and we really like this image. We would like to use it in our publication.
Please let me know if you own the rights to this image and under what conditions we could use it.

Here is some links to work we do:

www.youtube.com/user/PhilipsDesign
designprobes.ning.com/

Please let me know if you are interested.

Kind regards,

Also, allthough I took this picture, I don't have a model release form,
but this is a Himba girl - I'm not sure how the law works with them
we could take as many photos as we wanted to that day as we gave them gifts, but don't know how to proove this ....

Ballyman

If you don't have a release then technically you can't and they shouldn't use it for commercial purposes.

Effects

I doubt not having a release would be that big a deal. Is she lawyered up?

Charge them through the nose! They're a big company. :P

That's one situation where I wouldn't mind just being credited, actually. Lots of average people will see that. Everyone looks at TVs. Imagine flicking through a Harvey Hemroids catalogue and seeing your image on all the Philips TVs.

Doubt that's what they want it for, and I'm not actually sure who designs those leaflets, but still, it'd be good to be involved with such a large company. Get back to them, but be honest about the model release I'd say, and make sure you get a few Euro or a 56" ambilight HD 3D TV. Sure they've loads of them!

Ballyman

Deleted User wrote: »

That's one situation where I wouldn't mind just being credited, actually. Lots of average people will see that.

Absolutely nobody will even see or care about your name being credited. Nobody, bar you, your mother and whatever mates who you've told about it.

A credit is absolutely worthless. Always was and always will be.

If you want to find out how much they may pay you then find out what they want to use the photo for, for how long, what kind of print run and what territories it will be used in. Then go to Alamy and use their calculator and subtract 20% and let them know the figure. It won't be an issue what it is as they will have a proper budget for this.

Then tell them you do not have a model release and see what happens then

DaireQuinlan

The legal position is one thing, but what about the ethical one ? You've established a kind of trust with this girl in taking her picture. I think you're abusing that trust by hawking it to the highest bidder without her consent or knowledge.
I don't think there's anything wrong or exploititive in taking these kind of pictures and enjoying them for what they are, I do think you're treading on morally dubious ground selling them on to some electronics giant so that they can sell 40 inch plasma screens using some utopian ethnic ideal. I'd just say no.

Ballyman

Thats what I meant by my last line.
They will say no to using the image when you tell them you do not have a model release.

smelltheglove

Its a lovely picture. Isnt there something about reasonable lengths of model release or something..... Im not sure on the law on that side of things but I thought that if it was impossible to get the model release then you can go ahead after making some reasonable attempt or something?

Hugh_C

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

The legal position is one thing, but what about the ethical one ? You've established a kind of trust with this girl in taking her picture. I think you're abusing that trust by hawking it to the highest bidder without her consent or knowledge.

I'm with Daire all the way on this, I've photographed people up and down East Africa and in West Africa and have had a few enquiries about using images. My position is that any revenue goes to my charity of choice - www.selfhelpafrica.org - so my guilt is assuaged. The lack of model release has been an issue (on publisher's side) in all but one case.

sunny2004

I also shoot worldwide, spending 6 months of the year travelling, the model release will be an issue in my opinion.. best of luck ..

Ballyman

Ballyman wrote: »

Absolutely nobody will even see or care about your name being credited. Nobody, bar you, your mother and whatever mates who you've told about it.

A credit is absolutely worthless. Always was and always will be.

Throwing out as an option, and something to consider, incase Philips decide to go the formal route and want a self employed phtographer with Tax number and stuff. I think there's a gray area there, and i wouldn't say no to being credited if Philips said "we won't pay you".

I'd rather have my image on Philips' publicity stuff with my name alongside it, rather than have my image on my hard drive where no one except myself, my mother and whatever mates i've shown it to will see it.

magicbastarder

Effects wrote: »

I doubt not having a release would be that big a deal. Is she lawyered up?

i was going to post a quite sarcastic remark in response to this, but thought better of it.

lee_

Sunny2004 wrote: »

i also shoot worldwide, spending 6 months of the year travelling, the model release will be an issue in my opinion.. best of luck ..

How do you manage that? (Jealous)

sunny2004

lee_ wrote: »

How do you manage that? (Jealous)

Good contacts

AnCatDubh

Hold on a minute - I often wondered about this kinda thing, McCurry's Afgan Girl, Kevin Carter's Ethiopian Child, Oded Balilty's Power of One - did all these and a gazillion other examples have model releases? Granted National Geographic has a different focus than Phillips Inc's Product Brochure, but....

On a related theme, Jim Fitzpatrick's Che Guevara never earned him a cent apparently but used the world over - heard something on the radio the other day about an effort to be recognised as the legitimate owner of the copyright to the image. If an artist sketches the Himba Girl, are they not morally bound to be as concerned as a photographer should be, or should a photographer be as little concerned as an artist may be as to if there are any moral implications to someone's image.

Agreed its a different story if you actually shoot one of those cameras which does actually take someone's spirit - then, definately in moral territory there

(last statement may be in jest )

Ballyman

Deleted User wrote: »

Throwing out as an option, and something to consider, incase Philips decide to go the formal route and want a self employed phtographer with Tax number and stuff. I think there's a gray area there, and i wouldn't say no to being credited if Philips said "we won't pay you".

There is no such thing as a tax number and stuff. You charge the company and they pay you. It's up to you to pay your taxes after that, not Philips.

If Philips say "we won't pay you" (which they wont) then you should tell them to politely F off. Companies have budgets for this kind of thing so charge them accordingly. They expect to be charged. Maybe you should ask them for a tv but tell them "we won't pay you" but I'll credit your company for giving it to me to everyone that asks. They would definitely give it to you then.

The flight to Africa cost money. The camera and lens cost money. The computer you uploaded the image to the internet on cost money. Don't allow yourself to be taken advantage of with the promise of a worthless credit. They are laughing at you if you do this. The designer will be paid, the printer will be paid, the marketing department will be paid, the advertisers will be paid and the photographer will be at home looking at his credit.

If it means that much to you to see it in print then print the thing out good and big and hang it on your wall.

And tell your printer and framer that "we won't pay you" but you will credit them.

Thecageyone

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Hold on a minute - I often wondered about this kinda thing, McCurry's Afgan Girl, Kevin Carter's Ethiopian Child, Oded Balilty's Power of One - did all these and a gazillion other examples have model releases? Granted National Geographic has a different focus than Phillips Inc's Product Brochure, but....

Exactly. I'm sure a tonne of tribes have been used for commercial purposes and they knew sweet FA about it. Not that it's right, but here, if they don't use your image they will find another just like it and someone else will get the readies.

All this about morality! I've seen images of homeless people in Dublin stuck up around here to great compliment. Ok, there was no money made, but you would if you could!

magicbastarder

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Hold on a minute - I often wondered about this kinda thing, McCurry's Afgan Girl

national geographic is editorial, not marketing or advertising.
they are not using the images to hawk consumer goods, so it's a very different issue. if they use an image, the story is about that person or the context that person is in, not about using that person for the purpose of selling goods.
anyway, they didn't need model releases because of the above.

as regards jim fitzpatrick's attempt to assert copyright, IMHO that should fail as it's not different enough from the korda image (the use of which he never sought permission for himself, so seeking copyright is kinda ironic) to be classed as a derivative work, or whatever the terminology is to define the adaptation of an original work sufficiently to be considered an original work in its own right. it's basically just a lith print of the image.

magicbastarder

Thecageyone wrote: »

All this about morality! I've seen images of homeless people in Dublin stuck up around here to great compliment.

and criticism too. exploitative images of homeless people is one of my pet hates in photography.

Thecageyone

I don't like them either, just a personal thing. I wouldn't go yelling at someone about the humanity of it though. I'd just skip over it. It'll be done no matter.

AnCatDubh

magicbastarder wrote: »

national geographic is editorial, not marketing or advertising.
they are not using the images to hawk consumer goods, so it's a very different issue. if they use an image, the story is about that person or the context that person is in, not about using that person for the purpose of selling goods.
anyway, they didn't need model releases because of the above.

Ok, I understand this much, but where this point breaks down is that I can go to McCurry's site and purchase a fine art print of this and an awful lot more besides. I can go to the magnum site and purchase it from a third party or I can get a book with it. I'm nearly certain that this particular image has been used in Sky TV advertising. So at this stage, it certainly isn't reportage or journalistic endeavour.

I don't know - perhaps the guy has signed model releases for every individual he shoots, but i'd doubt it, plus I wouldn't particularly expect it. Has the individual a legitimate right to subsequently feel aggrieved? Perhaps so. Or is the individual fair game in a public place.

This, by the way, isn't a criticism of McCurry - I think it happens everywhere, so I'm just wondering about when you actually need model releases and when you don't.

Should it be as simple as model releases required from models (sounds simple) - ie. someone who you pay to model their image. The same person walking down the street gets snapped by a casual individual who happens to be in the right place/right time and should that same individual want / need the same model release if it ends up being desired by the media or a corporate.

Is it different if you are in the United States for example - but then again, photographic work is available worldwide.

magicbastarder

AnCatDubh wrote: »

The same person walking down the street gets snapped by a casual individual who happens to be in the right place/right time and should that same individual want / need the same model release if it ends up being desired by the media or a corporate.

ohmy****inggod yes you should still need a model release. can you imagine if you opened up a glossy magazine and found your image was being used - without your knowledge or consent - to sell coca cola?
you could theoretically end up being the 'face' of a multinational, without consenting or profiting from it, and also one whose operations you have moral qualms about.

a model release form gives you the chance to make the choice whether you will risk this happening.

magicbastarder

every identifiable person in an image used for advertising or marketing purposes should have signed a model release, or else the picture should not be used.

Germag

As a troll on this thread, might I ask a question? Can this photo be used by the public for free as it has appeared on Boards.ie which is a public place. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

magicbastarder

if you park your car on a public road, does it become public property?

charybdis

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Ok, I understand this much, but where this point breaks down is that I can go to McCurry's site and purchase a fine art print of this and an awful lot more besides. I can go to the magnum site and purchase it from a third party or I can get a book with it. I'm nearly certain that this particular image has been used in Sky TV advertising. So at this stage, it certainly isn't reportage or journalistic endeavour.

I don't know - perhaps the guy has signed model releases for every individual he shoots, but i'd doubt it, plus I wouldn't particularly expect it. Has the individual a legitimate right to subsequently feel aggrieved? Perhaps so. Or is the individual fair game in a public place.

This, by the way, isn't a criticism of McCurry - I think it happens everywhere, so I'm just wondering about when you actually need model releases and when you don't.

There is a significant legal distinction between the use of someone's likeness to create a work of art that can be profited from as such and its use in commercial or advertising contexts.

As regards McCurry's work being used to advertise television or similar: the advertisement is (probably) advertising the presence of the work of a noted photographer, not using a piece of art as stock photography. If Sky were using the image and there was no relation to the work of Steve McCurry but they wanted to advertise a sense of quiet, restrained terror they felt Sky should be associated with, they might have a problem.

Model releases don't apply to the use of photographs, they apply to the use of likenesses. You can photograph whomever (within reason) and profit from it in a fine art context, you cannot sell rights of use for that person's likeness to corporations for the purposes of advertising or branding without explicit consent.

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Should it be as simple as model releases required from models (sounds simple) - ie. someone who you pay to model their image. The same person walking down the street gets snapped by a casual individual who happens to be in the right place/right time and should that same individual want / need the same model release if it ends up being desired by the media or a corporate.

Again, model releases apply to likenesses, not photographs. If you want to trade in someone's likeness, you need their permission to do so.

Germag wrote: »

As a troll on this thread, might I ask a question? Can this photo be used by the public for free as it has appeared on Boards.ie which is a public place. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong. Consider yourself corrected.

cena

How did they even cone across the photo. Is it on some site.

Hugh_C

flickr

melekalikimaka

Thecageyone wrote: »

Exactly. I'm sure a tonne of tribes have been used for commercial purposes and they knew sweet FA about it.

Just because a few photographers act unethically, doesnt mean we all should. I would have issues with not getting paid for one, thats a definite no no, and the model release is a tough one too, its risky. If the girl was made aware of the potential usage I'd be more inclined to accept money from its use.

magicbastarder

just give phillips the name of her village, and tell them that if they can track her down and get her consent, you'll talk then.

positivenote

charybdis wrote: »

There is a significant legal distinction between the use of someone's likeness to create a work of art that can be profited from as such and its use in commercial or advertising contexts.

As regards McCurry's work being used to advertise television or similar: the advertisement is (probably) advertising the presence of the work of a noted photographer, not using a piece of art as stock photography. If Sky were using the image and there was no relation to the work of Steve McCurry but they wanted to advertise a sense of quiet, restrained terror they felt Sky should be associated with, they might have a problem.

Model releases don't apply to the use of photographs, they apply to the use of likenesses. You can photograph whomever (within reason) and profit from it in a fine art context, you cannot sell rights of use for that person's likeness to corporations for the purposes of advertising or branding without explicit consent.



Again, model releases apply to likenesses, not photographs. If you want to trade in someone's likeness, you need their permission to do so.



You are wrong. Consider yourself corrected.

any chance of a link to where this information on 'likeness' etc. is available, as it would be great to get an official source for it.
thanks

Paulw

Germag wrote: »

As a troll on this thread, might I ask a question? Can this photo be used by the public for free as it has appeared on Boards.ie which is a public place. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The photographer would retain copyright of the image, so no, it can't just be used for free, no matter where it appears.

SetOverSet

Havent read the whole thread, but (IMO) this case bears no resemblence to the McCurry Afghan Girl or the other examples posted. Ask yourself, does the photgraph imply that the subject is advocating, recommending or sponsoring the product, idea or whatever in question? The stronger the implication of this association the stronger the need for a model release IMO. In this case, it's a no-brainer and for a tog or commercial entity to think otherwise is just plain unenthical...

Effects

AnCatDubh wrote: »

On a related theme, Jim Fitzpatrick's Che Guevara never earned him a cent apparently but used the world over - heard something on the radio the other day about an effort to be recognised as the legitimate owner of the copyright to the image.

It's based on a French photographers image so I doubt Jim Fitz can claim copyright. Shepard Fairey just settled a court case with Associated Press for something similar recently. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aLD3ob_Bd1Oc

magicbastarder

Effects wrote: »

It's based on a French photographers image so I doubt Jim Fitz can claim copyright.

korda was cuban.

Effects

magicbastarder wrote: »

korda was cuban.

Cool, I wasn't sure but thought he was French. In a lazy mood.

the_monkey

The philips guy responded saying it is for an internal and external publication on healthcare and taboos - what Philips has to do with this ??

anyway, I wonder what price I should quoute him ?

Would it be a few hundred ?? a 1000 ??? im thinking half should go to this Himba village too , so I won't take all the monies...

magicbastarder

the_monkey wrote: »

anyway, I wonder what price I should quoute him ?

depends - how much of that should go to the 'model'?

DaireQuinlan

the_monkey wrote: »

The philips guy responded saying it is for an internal and external publication on healthcare and taboos - what Philips has to do with this ??

anyway, I wonder what price I should quoute him ?

Would it be a few hundred ?? a 1000 ??? im thinking half should go to this Himba village too , so I won't take all the monies...

So essentially what the publication is probably going to be about (I'm theorising here but it's likely) is AIDS, and the difficulty in treating it or addressing it because of the cultural taboos surrounding discussing it, and the Phillips guy saw your picture, went "cool, a black chick, that'll illustrate the article nicely" and wants to slap that picture into the publication .... annnnd, you still don't see any problem with this ?

DutchGuy

the_monkey wrote: »

The philips guy responded saying it is for an internal and external publication on healthcare and taboos - what Philips has to do with this ??

Philips has a very large Healthcare/medical equipment division, so it's probably in relation to advertising that.

I couldn't imagine a company the size of Philips agreeing to use a photo without getting a model release though... but then again I suppose you never know with big companies. You would think they'd be able to get a photo of the same style with a model release really as I remember reading advice from travel photographers before saying to always bring a stack of model releases with you if you're photographing people on a trip... (though the ethics of putting a piece of paper filled with Legalese in front of someone who probably barely speaks English is dubious at best and I wouldn't feel comfortable doing it)

PCPhoto

chances are if there are any legal issues Philips would pass the blame squarely on the photographer.

if you are supplying the image OP - ensure they know that the image does not have a model release form.

jaybeeveedub

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Agreed its a different story if you actually shoot one of those cameras which does actually take someone's spirit - then, definately in moral territory there

(last statement may be in jest )

apparently the new infinite points af on the 5d mkIX will have this option available through the custom functions... it writes the soul to a separate card

jaybeeveedub

DutchGuy wrote: »

Philips has a very large Healthcare/medical equipment division, so it's probably in relation to advertising that.

I couldn't imagine a company the size of Philips agreeing to use a photo without getting a model release though... but then again I suppose you never know with big companies. You would think they'd be able to get a photo of the same style with a model release really as I remember reading advice from travel photographers before saying to always bring a stack of model releases with you if you're photographing people on a trip... (though the ethics of putting a piece of paper filled with Legalese in front of someone who probably barely speaks English is dubious at best and I wouldn't feel comfortable doing it)

not to mention that it could be invalid if the model did/could not understand the contract they were signing..???

Romy PD

This is Romy - I am the person who wrote the initial e-mail about the possible use of the photo of the Himba girl. Seeing all the discussion maybe it is good to clarify what we intend with the photo.

I am part of a team of designers working on a project exploring how we should look more to nature to learn new, innovative ways which will also help the planet. Next to concepts we are creating a booklet to communicate these ideas (which will not be sold to create profit). The inspiration for this project comes from nature and from different cultures and ways of living. That is why we want to include an image of a Himba girl.

Of course requesting the photo was never meant to be disrespectful to either the photographer or the girl. And though I was surprised to see my e-mail on the internet, it is good to be part of the discussion.

Borderfox

Thanks for adding to the discussion Romy

FoxyVixen

Hope this doesn't come across as silly, but didn't the OP say that they could take photos of the people after having given them gifts (gifts which might seem irrelevant to Westerners but classed as highly significant and valuable to the Himba people) - therefore having "paid" the "model"?! Granted the model release would still be an issue.

Not a professional photographer (though am interested in photography and have been trolling here a while), but I have been curious to know how photographers go about getting a model release form signed by someone who mightn't be able to write, never mind understand what's written in the contract.

Curious newbie is all