So I actually looked up the NatGeo shot submission for my last shot posted in ESS. Reading though, apparently I have a lot to lose. Any thoughts on this, since it is NatGeo?
"You grant to National Geographic Society and its subsidiaries and licensees ("NGS") the following rights: a royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual license to display, distribute, reproduce and create derivatives of the Photograph, in whole or in part, without further review or participation from you, in any medium now existing or subsequently developed, in editorial, commercial, promotional and trade uses in connection with NGS Products. An NGS Product is defined as "a product of NGS, a corporate subsidiary, affiliate, joint venturer or licensee of NGS, in any language, which is associated with an NGS trademark and over which NGS has Editorial Control." For the purposes of this Agreement, "Editorial Control" means the right to review, consult regarding, formulate standards for, or to exercise a veto over the appearance, text, use, or promotion of the product. This license includes the nonexclusive right to make the Photograph available to third parties (i) for library or other research uses through microfiche, microfilm, or any other archival storage and retrieval form, including but not limited to electronic databases and document delivery services; and (ii) for distribution in connection with an NGS press conference or press release."
Paul, I see your concern. Normally I want to get paid when I see my photo in a magazine or a book. However, the pros are that they are not taking away your right to market and sell the photograph independently so you can continue to get paid on the photo from other sources. And more importantly, having your photo carried by National Geographic will provide you with a certain level of exposure and recognition that many photographers would kill for. In the long run this could benefit you more than a check in hand today.
"You grant to National Geographic Society and its subsidiaries and licensees ("NGS") the following rights: a royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual license to display, distribute, reproduce and create derivatives of the Photograph, in whole or in part, without further review or participation from you...
Do you think that NG would command this of Joel Sartore or Nick Nichols for use of their photographs? I would never submit to these conditions, but I guess it depends upon how badly you'd like to [possibly] see your name in National Geographic print. The "perpetual" part is of particular concern to me.
NG stands to profit from the free use of your photograph. Why shouldn't you be paid?
Looking at the wording, if you choose to market the image in the future, you will be marketing the image against National Geographic. Also, if you go the traditional stock agency route, you may not be able to place those particular images with the agency (that will depend on the contributer agreement).
For one or two very good but more or less repeatable images (no Bigfoot dining with Elvis images), it might be be good promotion *IF* they publish it. If they don't you've pretty much lost the images.
Realistically, this is a rights grab and nothing more. It is also disappointing from NG, especially given their history of supporting high level nature photography.
Paul,
the image is so good that it is your right to get something for it. If it was mine I would not have submitted it. You can instead send it to some prestigious competitions.
The NGS has it's own internal stock agency, and it sounds like the request for library rights will mean that your image will get placed into that collection without any further payment to you from third party use of that image. And to disagree slightly with Martin, while an NGS credit line is nice, the recognition factor is a bit of a myth. It's more of a bragging right for photographers, and the credit line *may* have some value when contacting potential clients, but recognition and exposure factor I wouldn't count on doing very much; it's like smelling a paper rose.
Is this a contest submission? If it's a regular image submission, you can try blacking out all the terms you don't like. If they really want to use your image, they might agree. However, I've seen a number of very similar - also very killer shots like yours, so you need to decide how far you want to push. I should let you know that for a really successful image, you can make thousands of dollars from all the ancillary and foreign language uses, if you don't give up those rights on the front side.
If it's for a regular NGS pub, you can choose to stick with only offering one-time non-exclusive use rights. IOW - Don't let them bully you to give away value you're not comfortable giving away. However, you need to be OK with the risk of losing the sale if you stick to your core values.
Along with what other's have said, I picked up two, very important statements: "Perpetual," and "nonexclusive right to make the Photograph available to third parties..." This basically means they can and probably would profit from your image.... forever.
From the response you got here on NPN, I would say that this image would have GREAT marketability. Now it sounds like you wouldn't lose your status as the original copyright holder, but you'll basically lose almost all the potential revenue.
From what I can gather, you're offering workshops and I'm assuming trying to market your work. Personally, I would retain your images marketability over a potential tagline from NG.
I don't think you are likely to persuade NGS to change its basic rules for you. What NGS's agreement does is force you to value the price you might get elsewhere for your image with the credibility bump you get on your résumé for a sale to NGS. Martin and Gary have given you two different views on that.
In response to Michael Gordon's comment, Joel Sartore spoke at UAF last year, and I had a chance to talk with him afterwards. Very nice guy, by the way; generous with his time and help. He told me he gets the same deal when he works independently; when he works for NGS, it gets all his rights.
Thanks guys, yes right now my main photo income is print sales(fine art shows) and tours/workshops. I've never considered natgeo before but enough mentioned i figured I'd look into it. I haven't taken any action, but here is where I went: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/your-shot/your-shot
I appreciate everyone's comments and help, I think I will look into other routes for the time being. Perpetual is a word I won't have in any contracts I sign.
The link you provide is basically a "readers image" and not something a pro would usually agree to. Thousands of people license NGS one time rights when they want something for a story or product, not that's going in via the "viewer mail" door. As for Joel, that's correct, for images shot while on assignment for NGS. If Joel had a personal shot that NGS wanted, he could license it to them however he wanted.
Cheers, & Again, good luck with your considerations.
What have you got to lose? Your photo--probably one of your best, which is what one normally submits in highly competitive markets. Want to later submit the same image to a calendar that requires exclusivity? You can't guarantee exclusivity, because NGS might use the image in a calendar the same year or license it for use in some other publisher's calendar. And the value of a NGS credit line? Minimal, especially as it becomes known that NGS acquires photos this way. Even winning Wildlife Photographer of the Year doesn't guarantee future success, so a single use (especially unpaid) surely can't. And think of the disappointment if a buyer sees your photo at NGS and contacts you to use it for a high-paying ad that requires exclusivity, only to learn you can't provide it?
While I have never had a problem, I have learned to read the contest and hosting contracts carefully. If similar language to this exists I pass. I recently removed images from my Face Book page due to the language regarding granting Face Book the rights to the images as long as they are on the page. Since I removed them the license is now revoked.
NG has been doing this image rights grabbing for some time. I wouldn't place anything with them.
Paul - I agree with everyone that those license words are not desireable for your image.
With regard to the similar wording of the rights on facebook - if they want to use a 720 px highly compressed watermarked web image, they can go right ahead, that's honestly not going to make them a penny. But if you submit a print worthy tif to NG because you won, then they have everything... and they can milk it for all it's worth without you seeing a penny, or from the wording it seems, even a photo credit (doesn't seem like they explicitly state they will give you visible credit where it's due... so people won't even know it's yours, beyond the first publishing in the magazine). Instead I'd submit it to some big competitions like wildlife photog of the year - in 'animals in their environment' I think you'd have a decent shot, though it's always a crapshoot.
Floris, that's the plan I think. Obviously, Nature'sBest and wildlife photog of the year just ended, but I'm going to look and see if either exclude previously published photos, etc. This year I was planning to try and create a bit more presence in magazines, and this image may be the ticket. Just don't want to lose an opportunity because I let Joe Blow Magazine run it for $200 or something. =)
In response to Michael Gordon's comment, Joel Sartore spoke at UAF last year, and I had a chance to talk with him afterwards. Very nice guy, by the way; generous with his time and help. He told me he gets the same deal when he works independently; when he works for NGS, it gets all his rights.
Most likely because he is working for Nat Geo as "Work for Hire".
Posted by Richard Wong on May 13, 2009 at 11:46 PM
I'm not sure that Joel Sartore gave up his rights because he licenses his own stuff. It clearly shows that in his documentary. I did read on David Alan Harvey's blog though that the reason why he became a freelancer is so he could have the rights to his images after shooting on assignment for them. His buddy, Bill Allard on the other hand doesn't own the rights because he was a staff photographer for many of his working years.
Paul - most of those competitions (including wildlife photog of the year) require that it's never been published/won a contest before. I just saw you submitted it to the OP contest, good luck! I think your welcome to the jungle would be a great submission to WPotY plantlife too.
Paul, I'm with the group that says just say NO to NG.
Here's why. Exposure in NG IS is myth. No one who is interested in your photography cares that it has appeared in NG. I've had a photo in NG, and it meant absolutely nothing for my business. Like you, I offer guided photo excursions, and like you, my photography is the underpinning of that excursion business. In other words, people hire me to teach and guide them because they are inspired by my photographs and the locations around Ely. So I say don't give up ANY right to your photographs, particularly one as good as this, without meaningful and ongoing compensation. And this photograph, prominently displayed in association with your tours, will be a great draw.
Floris, yeah I just realized I submitted it right after I got back from Africa. I checked and I didn't put welcome to the jungle in the bbc so I must have taken it after the deadline. Good luck to you as well.
Thanks for weighing Steve. I'm going to go about it a different way with NatGeo and see if they will accept my terms. I guess I need to wait on the OP contest now, and see how that turns out.
Just to prove this point, last night I was on the NGS site, and there was an ad for a Toyota vehicle and a link to best drives photo gallery within the body of the ad; every images was credited "photographer name / My Shot." This means Toyota got a dozen free images to use as part of their advertising on NGS, and not a dime went to the photographers - thanks to that wonderful Terms of Agreement License you noted.
Discussion
21 replies"You grant to National Geographic Society and its subsidiaries and licensees ("NGS") the following rights: a royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual license to display, distribute, reproduce and create derivatives of the Photograph, in whole or in part, without further review or participation from you, in any medium now existing or subsequently developed, in editorial, commercial, promotional and trade uses in connection with NGS Products. An NGS Product is defined as "a product of NGS, a corporate subsidiary, affiliate, joint venturer or licensee of NGS, in any language, which is associated with an NGS trademark and over which NGS has Editorial Control." For the purposes of this Agreement, "Editorial Control" means the right to review, consult regarding, formulate standards for, or to exercise a veto over the appearance, text, use, or promotion of the product. This license includes the nonexclusive right to make the Photograph available to third parties (i) for library or other research uses through microfiche, microfilm, or any other archival storage and retrieval form, including but not limited to electronic databases and document delivery services; and (ii) for distribution in connection with an NGS press conference or press release."
Do you think that NG would command this of Joel Sartore or Nick Nichols for use of their photographs? I would never submit to these conditions, but I guess it depends upon how badly you'd like to [possibly] see your name in National Geographic print. The "perpetual" part is of particular concern to me.
NG stands to profit from the free use of your photograph. Why shouldn't you be paid?
For one or two very good but more or less repeatable images (no Bigfoot dining with Elvis images), it might be be good promotion *IF* they publish it. If they don't you've pretty much lost the images.
Realistically, this is a rights grab and nothing more. It is also disappointing from NG, especially given their history of supporting high level nature photography.
the image is so good that it is your right to get something for it. If it was mine I would not have submitted it. You can instead send it to some prestigious competitions.
The NGS has it's own internal stock agency, and it sounds like the request for library rights will mean that your image will get placed into that collection without any further payment to you from third party use of that image. And to disagree slightly with Martin, while an NGS credit line is nice, the recognition factor is a bit of a myth. It's more of a bragging right for photographers, and the credit line *may* have some value when contacting potential clients, but recognition and exposure factor I wouldn't count on doing very much; it's like smelling a paper rose.
Is this a contest submission? If it's a regular image submission, you can try blacking out all the terms you don't like. If they really want to use your image, they might agree. However, I've seen a number of very similar - also very killer shots like yours, so you need to decide how far you want to push. I should let you know that for a really successful image, you can make thousands of dollars from all the ancillary and foreign language uses, if you don't give up those rights on the front side.
If it's for a regular NGS pub, you can choose to stick with only offering one-time non-exclusive use rights. IOW - Don't let them bully you to give away value you're not comfortable giving away. However, you need to be OK with the risk of losing the sale if you stick to your core values.
Hope that helps.
Good Luck, and let us know how it turns out.
Along with what other's have said, I picked up two, very important statements: "Perpetual," and "nonexclusive right to make the Photograph available to third parties..." This basically means they can and probably would profit from your image.... forever.
From the response you got here on NPN, I would say that this image would have GREAT marketability. Now it sounds like you wouldn't lose your status as the original copyright holder, but you'll basically lose almost all the potential revenue.
From what I can gather, you're offering workshops and I'm assuming trying to market your work. Personally, I would retain your images marketability over a potential tagline from NG.
Good luck,
Lon
In response to Michael Gordon's comment, Joel Sartore spoke at UAF last year, and I had a chance to talk with him afterwards. Very nice guy, by the way; generous with his time and help. He told me he gets the same deal when he works independently; when he works for NGS, it gets all his rights.
I appreciate everyone's comments and help, I think I will look into other routes for the time being. Perpetual is a word I won't have in any contracts I sign.
Thanks again,
Paul
The link you provide is basically a "readers image" and not something a pro would usually agree to. Thousands of people license NGS one time rights when they want something for a story or product, not that's going in via the "viewer mail" door. As for Joel, that's correct, for images shot while on assignment for NGS. If Joel had a personal shot that NGS wanted, he could license it to them however he wanted.
Cheers, & Again, good luck with your considerations.
NG has been doing this image rights grabbing for some time. I wouldn't place anything with them.
With regard to the similar wording of the rights on facebook - if they want to use a 720 px highly compressed watermarked web image, they can go right ahead, that's honestly not going to make them a penny. But if you submit a print worthy tif to NG because you won, then they have everything... and they can milk it for all it's worth without you seeing a penny, or from the wording it seems, even a photo credit (doesn't seem like they explicitly state they will give you visible credit where it's due... so people won't even know it's yours, beyond the first publishing in the magazine). Instead I'd submit it to some big competitions like wildlife photog of the year - in 'animals in their environment' I think you'd have a decent shot, though it's always a crapshoot.
Floris, that's the plan I think. Obviously, Nature'sBest and wildlife photog of the year just ended, but I'm going to look and see if either exclude previously published photos, etc. This year I was planning to try and create a bit more presence in magazines, and this image may be the ticket. Just don't want to lose an opportunity because I let Joe Blow Magazine run it for $200 or something. =)
Most likely because he is working for Nat Geo as "Work for Hire".
Here's why. Exposure in NG IS is myth. No one who is interested in your photography cares that it has appeared in NG. I've had a photo in NG, and it meant absolutely nothing for my business. Like you, I offer guided photo excursions, and like you, my photography is the underpinning of that excursion business. In other words, people hire me to teach and guide them because they are inspired by my photographs and the locations around Ely. So I say don't give up ANY right to your photographs, particularly one as good as this, without meaningful and ongoing compensation. And this photograph, prominently displayed in association with your tours, will be a great draw.
Just my thoughts, nothing more.
Thanks for weighing Steve. I'm going to go about it a different way with NatGeo and see if they will accept my terms. I guess I need to wait on the OP contest now, and see how that turns out.
Regardless of being NG, it is a rights grab, don't go there
Just to prove this point, last night I was on the NGS site, and there was an ad for a Toyota vehicle and a link to best drives photo gallery within the body of the ad; every images was credited "photographer name / My Shot." This means Toyota got a dozen free images to use as part of their advertising on NGS, and not a dime went to the photographers - thanks to that wonderful Terms of Agreement License you noted.
Cheers, (and submitted FYI)
Gary