What would you do?

[Karl K]

I photographed an athlete during competition shortly before he suffered a stroke, which has ended his career.
He has no financial resources, so the president of a T-shirt company is marketing a T-shirt with the athlete's image to raise money for the rehab and medical expenses.
My photo was selected for the shirt and I agreed to donate the photo for the cause.
After I agreed, the president of the T-shirt company explained to me that the profits were to be split 60/40% between him and the athlete, a split to which the athlete agreed.
I withdrew my photo for use because I'm uncomfortable with profit being made as a result of someone's misfortune.
On the other hand, I could be costing the athlete some money.

 

[faberryman]

I would not let them use my image for free unless 100% of the profits went to the charitable cause. The president of the t-shirt company wants to make money on someone else's tragedy? I can understand recouping his costs, but 60% of the profits on top?

 

[Kino]

Seems the T-shirt company could have been more generous than taking 60% of the profits; something like actual cost of the shirt +10% or so.

I think you did the right thing...

 

[Eric Rose]

That's pretty standard for fundraising suppliers. It sucks but that the way it is.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would not let them use my image for free unless 100% of the profits went to the charitable cause. The president of the t-shirt company wants to make money on someone else's tragedy?

+1

 

[Chan Tran]

You could ask for 50% of the profit and then give it to the athelete.

 

[Arklatexian]

I photographed an athlete during competition shortly before he suffered a stroke, which has ended his career.
He has no financial resources, so the president of a T-shirt company is marketing a T-shirt with the athlete's image to raise money for the rehab and medical expenses.
My photo was selected for the shirt and I agreed to donate the photo for the cause.
After I agreed, the president of the T-shirt company explained to me that the profits were to be split 60/40% between him and the athlete, a split to which the athlete agreed.
I withdrew my photo for use because I'm uncomfortable with profit being made as a result of someone's misfortune.
On the other hand, I could be costing the athlete some money.[/QUOTE
Have you signed anything yet? If you feel strong enough about this, see a lawyer. I'll almost bet the "T" shirt manufacturer has seen his. But first be sure that the 60% is "profit" (a dirty word to some in this group), or includes the cost of marketing the T-shirt which could mean that the athlete might be getting ALL of the "profit" on this item. I should also point out that if no one BUYS the T-shirt, no one gets anything........Regards!

 

[Karl K]

No.
I signed nothing and immediately withdrew my photo from consideration, via an email to the company president.
He responded that his T-shirt company had already designed the shirt using my photo, but actual production never happened.

 

[guangong]

Anything in writing or just gentleman’s agreement?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Now this athlete has nothing for sure instead of possible 40%.

It is manufacturing company. Not charity. If you check how much some well known charities are keeping, you might change your opinion on manufacturing company donating from its profit.

 

[pbromaghin]

Are you sure it's "profits" and not "proceeds"? Big difference.

 

[Karl K]

Now this athlete has nothing for sure instead of possible 40%.

It is manufacturing company. Not charity. If you check how much some well known charities are keeping, you might change your opinion on manufacturing company donating from its profit.

The T-shirt company president will reach out to other photographers and select a different photo.
My photo was the best shot for the T-shirt, according to the manufacturer, but I feel confident that the project will go ahead without my assistance.
So the athlete will still benefit, but not from my work.
That's why I began this conversation...because I'm not sure that I did the right thing.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/american-red-cross/360
Red Cross takes 30$ from every 100$.

 

[MattKing]

Are you sure it's "profits" and not "proceeds"? Big difference.

+1
If it were me, I would discuss the matter with everyone, including the T-shirt company.
If the reality is that the T-shirt company is making, at most, a small profit and they are lending their distribution and promotional services to the endeavour, then the arrangement may be both fair and advantageous to everyone.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

The manufacture of the product requires materials and machinery, transportation, maintenance & repair, investment, labor and all of the costs involved; overhead. The manufacturer has to pay to keep the lights on, so to speak. They need to "make" something just to keep afloat.

If you want to donate, that is up to you. Be mindful, though, that shooters giving away their images is a huge issue as it relates to the viability of shooters making a buck these days.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I'm with you KarlK. The greed of these "charitable" activities is depressing at best.

I lost most of my care for charity with the Red Cross debacle over money for New Orleans after Katrina. And then Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood. Pseudo charities if you ask me. When a "charity" hold hundreds of millions in liquid assets and donates about 10% to research/treatment they're thieves and charlatans in my opinion.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The T-shirt company president will reach out to other photographers and select a different photo.
My photo was the best shot for the T-shirt, according to the manufacturer, but I feel confident that the project will go ahead without my assistance.
So the athlete will still benefit, but not from my work.
That's why I began this conversation...because I'm not sure that I did the right thing.

You did.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm with you KarlK. The greed of these "charitable" activities is depressing at best.

I lost most of my care for charity with the Red Cross debacle over money for New Orleans after Katrina. And then Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood. Pseudo charities if you ask me. When a "charity" hold hundreds of millions in liquid assets and donates about 10% to research/treatment they're thieves and charlatans in my opinion.

I agree with you. It is morally incumbent for one to research and verify that the charity one is considering will spend the money in the manner that meets with ones approval.

 

[Rick A]

Maybe you could renegotiate the split to 50/50 for the athlete on his behest. 60/40 on profit is a bit slanted the wrong way for my taste.

 

[removed account4]

That's pretty standard for fundraising suppliers. It sucks but that the way it is.

yup

hi karlK
i can see why you feel uncomfortable but it is standard operating procedure when it comes to charity work.
a couple of other ways to think about it you are donating your photograph for the greater good
anohter is there are online services that help you design t shirts
you could design a shirt yourself with your photo and try to sell it.
you might not sell many, the tshirt company has avenues, designs great shirts, knows
the business and expertise that regular folks ( like you or me ) might not have and 60% really isn't much ot pay
for the stuff that he will / may / would have been doing...

sorry to hear of your athlete friend. i hope he has s speedy recovery !

ps. there are restaurants that sometimes team up with charity events... the ones near us might have a specific night and a school drama club
or choir or girl scout troop or ?????? is doing a fund raiser the restaurant will give X% of the meal cost to whatever charity it is if the people say
its for xyz charity / event ... i don't know the % but it might be worth looking into if you want to jump in ... and have an event to help raise $$ for his medical costs...

 

[warden]

I photographed an athlete during competition shortly before he suffered a stroke, which has ended his career.
He has no financial resources, so the president of a T-shirt company is marketing a T-shirt with the athlete's image to raise money for the rehab and medical expenses.
My photo was selected for the shirt and I agreed to donate the photo for the cause.
After I agreed, the president of the T-shirt company explained to me that the profits were to be split 60/40% between him and the athlete, a split to which the athlete agreed.
I withdrew my photo for use because I'm uncomfortable with profit being made as a result of someone's misfortune.
On the other hand, I could be costing the athlete some money.

I think if the athlete is happy and the T-shirt guy is happy that's the main thing, and I would donate the image and be satisfied knowing I was helping, however imperfect the giving situation might be.

 

[John Koehrer]

Here's an interesting table of percentages used for works. It's only fifty but provides some useful information if you want your $$$ to work
for whichever cause not salaries or bonuses.

https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Guide-to-Giving/America-s-Top-50-charities-How-well-do-they-rate

 

[slackercrurster]

I'd go with the donation as long as the company was just receiving a break even portion of any profits to cover costs

 

[jtk]

I think if the athlete is happy and the T-shirt guy is happy that's the main thing, and I would donate the image and be satisfied knowing I was helping, however imperfect the giving situation might be.

Absolutely. T-shirt isn't a great way for your work to be seen, but the potential squabble is a quick way to lose further photo opportunities from these folks.

 

[btaylor]

I think if we’re me I would be happy to help the athlete regardless of how I felt about the business deal the athlete negotiated.