Trend Info Website wants to use my image for a moodboard

Adriatic

I got this message sent via flickr and I am wondering what this is exactly, it appears to be legitimate and I am most likely willing to agree to it but I would like some outside advice on this.

On 7 Dec 12, 5.11PM GMT greer mcnally said:
Dear Adrian

I work for WGSN, we are a trend information website for the fashion and style industries. We are currently putting together our moodboards for the autumn/winter 2014/15 season and would very much like to use your image 54th Venice Biennale 2011: DAS INSTITUT and Kerstin Brätsch - Blocked Radiants (for Ioana), 2011 as part of our research.

We would of course credit you fully and link to your website, as well as sending you through a pdf of the finished moodboard.

Our offices are in London, so if you have any questions, please contact me at greer.mcnally@4c.wgsn.com or on 0207 715 6222.

Thanks and best wishes

Greer

---

Greer McNally
Chief Sub-Editor
WGSN
4C Group
2nd Floor
20 Air Street
London W1B 5RP
Tel: 0207 715 6222
Greer.mcnally@4c.wgsn.com

The image is here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/adriatic22/7595535962/

DaireQuinlan

say sure, for €x (for some value of x). Commercial concern wants to use your shot to generate revenue ? Make sure you get a slice of the pie. No-one will ever ever read that credit or click through to your flickr stream.

dirtyghettokid

companies are chancers. ask them to pay you or GTFO!

mdebets

Do you have a model release for the person in the picture and a property release for the artwork (probably one from the museum/Biennale, but I'm not sure about this). If not, you can't use it for commercial use.

If you have the releases, look here for what you can charge.

Adriatic

The person in the picture is my friend, I've never gotten involved with model release forms before nor do I have one for the artwork although photography was permitted.

DaireQuinlan

Adriatic wrote: »

The person in the picture is my friend, I've never gotten involved with model release forms before nor do I have one for the artwork although photography was permitted.

Photography permitted doesn't mean that commercial use of the shots is permitted...

AnCatDubh

are the moodboards an online publication or going on billboards somewhere or print brochures or something like that? I don't see too many links to photographer's flickr from their web site at the moment.

re: the model release.... not based on any legal specific knowledge but the individual is not identifiable and I thought that thus a model release wasn't required (open to correction of course).

mdebets

AnCatDubh wrote: »

re: the model release.... not based on any legal specific knowledge but the individual is not identifiable and I thought that thus a model release wasn't required (open to correction of course).

I think he is very well identifiable (that's more than just being able to see the face). I thought the principle were: If you knew him, you would be able to say that is him.
But besides this, I would always go for a model release, if I were to sell a picture with a person on it (however small the part of him is in the picture) for commercial use.It's just too risky otherwise. you'll never know, what the person is going to do, if he sees himself in an advertisement, without having consented to it.

sineadw

I'd be concerned with copyright for the artwork tbh. As someone said, allowing photography doesn't mean allowing commercial photography.

PopeBuckfastXVI

I may be way off base here but I thought that it was up to the commercial entity to ensure they had a valid model release, not the photographer.

He can sell them the rights to use the image, it's up to them to ensure they use it in a legal way.

Corkbah

but they're not offering money !

mdebets

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I may be way off base here but I thought that it was up to the commercial entity to ensure they had a valid model release, not the photographer.

He can sell them the rights to use the image, it's up to them to ensure they use it in a legal way.

True, but normally, they let the photographer sign something, to indemnify them against this, so they can pass any cost related to it to the photographer.
And I also think the creator of the artwork can still sue the photographer (not sure about that).