Selling some prints. Have some newbie questions, please!

[sienarot]

Someone came across some of my work and contacted me, expressing that he was very interested in purchasing some of my work to display in his local cafe. For two of the photos he likes, I'm just wondering if I'm allowed to sell them without having to worry about any legal implications.

First photo, I never got any got any releases for, but I'm wondering if I'm in the clear as any features that may identify the individuals in the shot are almost indistiguishable:

I do a lot of night time photography around buildings because I find the lighting appealing. Well, another photo that sparked a lot of interest was this one

Would I be allowed to sell this one? I'm wondering if the partial company name and building numbers (possibly indicating their address?) is keeping me from legally being able to sell it.

Secondly, (and I'm sure this gets asked a lot) what would be a reasonable asking price for my prints? It's looking like each of the photos may need to be printed 24"x24" to fill up some space in his cafe and I'll probably be selling him 4 different prints. He finds my work appealing because 1) he's tired of going to places like Ikea and getting posters everyone else has and wants original work, and 2) it's not the type of photos he or his patrons are exposed to often and he really likes it as it suits the atmosphere he's trying to create. Keeping in mind photography is a hobby to me and not a source of financial income, what would be a reasonable price to ask for? I don't want to scare off a potential sale, but at the same time I don't want to cut myself (or the industry) short.

From the sounds of it, he will be purchasing prints from me regularly as he likes to change the decore often. He's even given me the option of either flat out selling the prints to him or giving me his walls to display my photos for free and selling the prints to anyone who has interest. Since these are my first prints and I have no idea what sort of interest it would spark, I simply said I'd sell him the prints but may take up his offer to display my photos for free in the future. In addition, he will be hiring me for contract work (product advertising, sporting events, possible clothing line).

He also expressed interest in getting the photos matted. He has friends that can get the photos printed and matted, however being that I barely know the guy, I'm a little uncomfortable with providing him full sized scanned digital files and considered getting them printed myself and let him do the matting. Am I just being paranoid about him possibly mass printing my work or should I stop being so anal and let his friends take care of the printing/matting/framing?

 

[roteague]

So far, I think you have handled the situation correctly. Don't depend upon others to sell your work for you, unless they are a gallery. Second, don't give him your transparencies/negatives or a full resolution scan. Have the images printed yourself, and possibly matted as well. He can then choose how to frame it.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

To answer one part of your question, certainly you'd be in no trouble with the group shot as nobody is identifiable. The buildings, well... that's on somewhat shakier ground. If there is a Lawyers for The Arts group in your area, I'd place a call and ask one of them if you would need a property release for it.

For the pricing issue, I'd be inclined to cut this guy a good deal on the price, if he is actually going to give you significant ongoing work. To determine a price for the work, find out the local cost of reproducing the images in the size he is looking for, then add in YOUR cost for your time to take the image to the printers, proof the print they give you, pick it up when it is done, get any matting/framing done, the cost of said matting/framing, your time to drop off/pick up from the framers, and finally deliver the finished product to the customer. That time adds up to a LOT, which is something most people forget to account for. Toss in another amount for your creative effort in taking the image in the first place. What those numbers are worth to you is up to you. Come up with a base value, and then discount off that if you see fit.

 

[juan]

Canadian law may be different than US law on this subject, so take what I say accordingly. You are displaying these as art prints rather than advertising. As a general rule, no release is necessary. The first print is probably OK for any purpose as I doubt anyone is recognizible.

As for the second, where were you when you shot the picture? If on public property, or a place that the public can freely go, you most likely don't need any kind of property release. In the US the copyright law specifically prohibits claiming any rights to a compleated building. Canadian law may be different. If you were on private property when you took the photo, you may well need a property release.

As I say, these are general rules. You need to find out specifically what law is applicable where you are.
juan

 

[SteveH]

As far as the building goes, as long as it is in 'fair view' of public land, then you can sell the photograph. A copywrite issue would come into play, if say you took a photograph of a coca-cola truck, and put it on your own brand of cola. So, as Juan said, you're selling it as art, not advertising.

 

[sienarot]

Regarding the building shot, it was shot in the parking lot (not sure if that's considered private property?) but it's definitely viewable on public property.

Thank you everyone for your help! That's what I love about this place!

 

[Sparky]

Regarding the building shot, it was shot in the parking lot (not sure if that's considered private property?) but it's definitely viewable on public property.

A parking lot is private property. But you're probably in the clear if it's a different landlord than the building IN the shot. But this only matters if ALL of the following conditions occur;

1. the building is unique and thus clearly recognizable.
2. the owner of the building is made aware of the fact that his bldg is in your photo.
3. the owner wants you to reimburse them (wants a royalty).
4. the single photo sells for more than several thousand dollars*.
5. the photo clearly delineates the camera being on the lot where the building is situated.

This is because a fair (determined by ASMP) royalty for property usage would be a small percentage of the sale price of the photo. The likelihood that this amount is going to be worth legally contesting is pretty low... at best.

Given all this, I wouldn't worry too much about it...!

 

[Monophoto]

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV - - -

but I think that you need to apply a bit of common sense to the situation.

If you were talking about having posters made from your work, and then selling them through a franchised chain of poster shops, then you definitely would need to make sure that you have appropriate legal clearance. That's industrial-strength commercial use and (potentially) big money is involved.

But if you are talking about individual original photographic prints (this is APUG, so by definition, that must be the topic), then I don't think that there is any concern.

The one potential modification to that view is that I don't think you would want to include images of recognizable people in which the people are depicted in a less than complementary fashion. The key question is whether the subjects would want the image shown to their friends and family. If it doesn't pass this test, and it you don't have a model release, then don't include the image in a public show. Diane Arbus got away with making people look ugly, but that doesn't make it right.

Last summer I did a series of images of a nude model. I don't have a model release so I won't show any images that show the model's face - but I have such concerns about either nude images that don't include the model's face, or images of the model's face that don't show recognizable body parts.

 

[frugal]

Last summer I did a series of images of a nude model. I don't have a model release so I won't show any images that show the model's face - but I have such concerns about either nude images that don't include the model's face, or images of the model's face that don't show recognizable body parts.

I'm not a lawyer either but I think you might have an issue if you were showing the sequence of images in such a way that it's fairly clear that the shots are all of the same person. Not 100% sure of that but it might be something to be aware of. For instance, if the shots appear to be shot around the same time at the same location then it would be pretty obvious that the nudes are a picture of the model even though you only see the body in some shots and the face in others. If you're not showing the images together then I don't think that's as much of an issue.