[themok13]

So I recently did a print job that has been contracted and paid for. The Client returned to me and now wants the image to appear on the website. I'm not exactly sure how to price this. What is a typical (if there is one because I know it will vary) price to charge for a 1 year license for a website?

[Ira]

If you expect more print work from them, I wouldn't even charge.

[Sparkle]

Unless you put conditions on the print in the first place it is your client's. You can't charge and the client can do whatever with it. At least that is my opinion. Check with an attorney before you get into trouble. Most people wait until it is too late.

[alohadave]

Unless you put conditions on the print in the first place it is your client's. You can't charge and the client can do whatever with it. At least that is my opinion. Check with an attorney before you get into trouble. Most people wait until it is too late.

Your opinion is wrong (in the US).

[Sparkle]

Well tell me why it is wrong. I said get in touch with an attorney. But please tell me the situation.

[Voytech]

Sparkle, I was under the impression that the same client he sold the print to, now wants to use the image on their website. I doubt there was any talk about that before.

I second Ira's idea to include the image in your "marketing" costs, perhaps charge something marginal to cover your time spend on adapting for web.

[alohadave]

Well tell me why it is wrong. I said get in touch with an attorney. But please tell me the situation.

This part is what is wrong:

Unless you put conditions on the print in the first place it is your client's. You can't charge and the client can do whatever with it.

The client is asking for additional usage. In the US, unless both the client and photographer specifically signed a work-for-hire contract, the copyright stays with the photographer.

Since the client now wants to use the work on their website, which is a separate usage, the photographer can decide to sell a second license to the client for that specific usage.

The rules are different in Canada which is where your confusion is coming from.

[Ira]

In the absence of a detailed written contract regarding exact usage, you have little recourse if the client wanted to use it on their website anyway. Good luck suing.

Give 'em the shot, and the next job you do for them, either get that contract, or price yourself higher for unlimited usage.

[Sparkle]

Thanks for the explanation. Does it matter if, as the poster stated , "... I recently did a print job as opposed to creating a photograph. I thought that the client simply wanted a medium which could best be applied to a website rather that a print that the client may be unable to scan or desired a better quality output for such use.

[alohadave]

Thanks for the explanation. Does it matter if, as the poster stated , "... I recently did a print job as opposed to creating a photograph. I thought that the client simply wanted a medium which could best be applied to a website rather that a print that the client may be unable to scan or desired a better quality output for such use.

That doesn't matter. Ideally, you should explain to your client exactly what they are paying for and what the allowed usage is. Extra usage may be charged for more or not, depending on the photographer and the relationship with the client.

The business of photography is about selling services and access, not for physical items. You sell a print, that is the client's access to the information that you've created. You sell a license for web usage, that is the client's access to use the information. It really isn't that much different than software or music licensing (they just have better lawyers and the desire to use them).

It's impossible for any of us to say whether it is worth it to the OP to charge for that extra usage.

[eddie1960]

boy we're all so touchy about unlicensed use we jumped all over this

what i see the op asking is how much should he charge (as in he doesn't know what the going market rate is)
I say sell them a license for a year for around $100 or less (not sure what you sold the print at but it needs to be relative) better to give them a good price now if you think you will work together in future. just make sure they understand it's not your regular price and you are doing it because you enjoyed working with them on the project and it doesn't require a lot of extra work or you may find them asking for new work at the same price
And Dave you are wrong copyright also resides with the photographer here in Canada unless there is a written agreement otherwise (ie salaried journalist positions may have the copyright reside with the newspaper, but then they usually supply some equipment etc)

[Sparkle]

Well I find that hard to believe. If printing a picture from someone else's negative gives the printer copyright protection then every camera shop that develops and/or prints from a negative or digital image would hold the copyright. That does not make sense. If true it is no wonder Billy Shakespeare said words to the effect, "First we must get rid of all the lawyers"!
I have never looked into that aspect, never sold or tried to sell a picture although I took many courses and taught a bit.
It seems more logical, IMO, that the copyright remains with the first maker of the image unless there is a contract to the contrary.

[alohadave]

Well I find that hard to believe. If printing a picture from someone else's negative gives the printer copyright protection then every camera shop that develops and/or prints from a negative or digital image would hold the copyright. That does not make sense. If true it is no wonder Billy Shakespeare said words to the effect, "First we must get rid of all the lawyers"!
I have never looked into that aspect, never sold or tried to sell a picture although I took many courses and taught a bit.
It seems more logical, IMO, that the copyright remains with the first maker of the image unless there is a contract to the contrary.

I'm not quite sure why you would think that the printer gets any kind of copyright protection for printing someone else's pictures. If you look at the TOS of any printing service, you'll see that you are essentially granting them a license to print the pictures that you submit, and that you are the copyright holder, or have authorization to print from the copyright holder. No rights are transferred.

And Dave you are wrong copyright also resides with the photographer here in Canada unless there is a written agreement otherwise (ie salaried journalist positions may have the copyright reside with the newspaper, but then they usually supply some equipment etc)

Thanks for the clarification. From what other Canadians have stated, in cases like wedding photography, the copyright automatically goes to the client, but I don't know all the ins-and-outs of Canadian law.

[Sparkle]

I think what I think because I started my input by stating that the guy was hired "to do a print job". I explained that he may only have printed from the client's negative or image. The responses that were received were that, regardless, the "Printer" then held the copyright. That is to which I took exception. It appears you now confirm my understanding that in such circumstances copyright remains with the original maker of the image. It has not been made clear if the client's new request was to improve the quality by PP or to convert to jpeg or some other format for use in a Web design. Thanks.

[alohadave]

I think what I think because I started my input by stating that the guy was hired "to do a print job". I explained that he may only have printed from the client's negative or image. The responses that were received were that, regardless, the "Printer" then held the copyright. That is to which I took exception. It appears you now confirm my understanding that in such circumstances copyright remains with the original maker of the image. It has not been made clear if the client's new request was to improve the quality by PP or to convert to jpeg or some other format for use in a Web design. Thanks.

Ahh, I see your point now. I figured the OP had taken a picture and had it printed for a customer that now wants to use the picture on the web.