Licensing Images for Use: The Royalty-Free Model.

Online September 1, 1998 | Berinstein, Paula A reader of my book, Finding Images Online, recently wrote to corn plain that a Web site I’d listed as royalty-free wasn’t free at all. The site’s owner was actually charging fees for images! I can understand the reader’s outrage. After all, “free” means “no charge,” or certainly ought to. Unfortunately, in the context of royalty-free, it doesn’t.

But royalty-free images are still well worth your attention. This column explains what royalty-free means and offers insight into how picture licensing works.

You may have purchased some of those nifty CD-ROM’s featuring royalty-free images or clip art for presentations, reports, and Web sites. Or you may have been tempted to. You usually can’t beat the prices, and while some pictures look canned many are attractive and can be used artistically. Such discs and similar online digital images are distributed under agreements that give the buyer more rights than with custom (one-of-a-kind) or stock photography (off-the-shelf pictures, charged for per use and by type of use). In fact, royalty-free licensing terms can appear so liberal that your rights as a buyer and publisher can seem unlimited-rights to use the image whenever, however, and wherever you like. However, such freedom is often as illusory as a free lunch. Royalty-free may also mean lower quality, non-exclusive rights to publish (which may not matter for your purpose), and some legal risk. This is not to say that royalty-free means “bad,” rather it’s a distinct business model appropriate for certain situati ons.

Disappointing? Sure. But when you consider what’s involved for the producers, sympathy is justified for creators and distributors. Comprehending licensing and fee issues requires familiarity with the image creation and distribution process, so let’s take a look at it. While this process somewhat resembles that for text, it involves more players and can be more complicated. Images involve different types of participants, and the economics of images diverge somewhat from those for text.

THE PLAYERS The participants affect the license acquisition process in two ways-cost and permissions. Creators and distributors want payment for their work, while models and trademark owners care about the use of their likeness and symbols and may reserve the right to grant permission. Even museums that own a depicted work get into the act. The more players, the more obstacles to obtaining a license. Fortunately, many vendors have streamlined the process by offering pre-cleared material, some of which falls in the category of “royalty-free.” The cooks contributing to the image broth are:

* Creator (photographer or artist) This person might be the rights holder, if only one exists. If the work was made for hire, the employer who commissioned the work holds the rights. It’s possible to have two creators-an artist and a photographer who snaps a picture of the artist’s work. The creator brings artistic skill, technical knowledge, and labor to the process and depends on fair payment for his or her efforts. Whether a photographer who takes a picture of an artistic work merits creator status depends on the individual case-the issue engenders much debate.

* Distributor (stock photography agency, library, photographer, museum, government agency, etc.) This entity may represent and collect royalties for the creator, may have purchased full rights to the work for a one-time fee to the creator, may commission works for hire, or may own the physical work but not sole rights to it. Distributors may also make public domain images available. Distributors must locate quality work, negotiate with creators, digitize and catalog images, administer sales and financial details, and so on. They expect fair compensation for all of this, even if only for costs incurred when duplicating and sending out public domain material. this web site public domain images

* Model (person in picture) Legal rights of privacy and publicity govern whether and how a person’s image can be used. In non-news photographs (news photos being those that educate or inform), depicted individuals can sue for invasion of privacy unless they’ve signed a model release waiving those rights. Famous people possess rights of publicity, which in certain circumstances let them control the use of their image. (Rights of privacy for public figures is one of the issues pervading the paparazzi hubbub.) A model may be paid for posing or may simply be concerned with how his or her likeness is used. The model’s pay does not enter into the image acquisition process, but his or her permission does. Creators and/or distributors often arrange for model releases, but buyers should be sure such releases exist and pay special attention to wording.

* Owner of trademarked property in the picture, or owner of the work of art depicted A photographer or a publisher can get into big trouble by, for example, snapping and distributing pictures of Coca Cola signs for non-news purposes. A property release protects the photographer and publisher from lawsuits. As with models, permission is the issue-not payment. Creators and/or distributors may or may not arrange for such permissions, so buyers need to follow up on this issue. In some cases, ownership of the item depicted, not trademarking, is the issue, as when a museum owns a work of art shown in a photograph.

THE ECONOMICS OF PHOTOGRAPHY You might be thinking that with all those cooks a-stirring, you’re going to have to pay through the nose to make sure each gets a fair cut. Not necessarily. What’s more likely than having to spend big bucks is that you’re going to spend some time tracking down rights-holders at various levels-but that depends on whom you purchase from.

The economics involved in image creation and distribution are changing. While photography has never been a career for the materialistic, mere survival is becoming even more difficult. To make money, a creator has to perform one or more of the following:

1. Do custom work for publications, advertising agencies, individuals, movie studios, etc. Custom work means one picture, one payment. Thus, a photographer must get good money for the job, lots of work, or both. Sometimes he can retain rights to the images so he can sell them elsewhere, and sometimes he can sell his out-takes, but often the commissioner desires exclusive rights. Fees for custom work vary. Both portrait and National Geographic photographers perform custom work.

2. Work on a payroll. Payroll photographers work on salary and retain no rights to their photographs.

3. Publish collections of his or her work in books, or perform fine-art photography. Neither of these options generates much income unless you’re Annie Liebovitz or team up with Madonna.

4. Do speculative work. Stock photography is almost always work done on spec. There are two types of stock photography-commercial and editorial. Commercial represents the market for advertising and promotional material, while editorial focuses on books, magazines, and educational materials. Commercial stock photography is a gamble–one requiring substantial time, investment, travel, and equipment. The way to make money is to offer works that will appeal to many people. In so doing, a photographer can sell the same work over and over, leveraging the labor and materials that went into its creation. The need to appeal to lots of people may sometimes, but not always, result in Muzak-like work.

5. Market his or her wares on the Web. This method bypasses employers and agencies and goes straight to buyers. However, as ONLINE readers know, maintaining an effective Web presence requires time, time, time.

To maximize income, not only can the photographer sell the same work to different people, but he can sell the same work more than once to the same person-for different uses. And he can charge more for uses that generate income for the buyer than for those that don’t. That’s why a picture that’s used for advertising costs more than one to be used in a non-profit organization’s newsletter.

However, whether the photographer or his representative charges for every separate use, or offers the buyer a one-time fee that covers multiple uses, depends on his business model. If he thinks he can get away with demanding payment for each distinct use, he’ll try that. If not, he may sell all rights for two to three times the price and be done with it. If he thinks such a practice will alienate buyers, he may opt for a more generous licensing model designed to attract more buyers. Or, if he’s going after a high-end market, he might set his prices high, target tightly, and not worry about a broad market made up of price-sensitive buyers. Many photographers mix and match business models.

Most photographers represent themselves (a practice that’s becoming more common thanks to the Web), while many contract with agencies that package, market, and distribute their work. It used to be that each sale by the agent resulted in a royalty for the photographer. With the advent of digital images, however, a new “clip art” model is emerging in which the CD-ROM publisher pays the photographer a one-time sum rather than a royalty each time someone licenses the picture. This model, which represents one definition of “royalty-free,” results in lower fees for buyers like you and me, but less income for the creator, unless the publisher aggressively markets the discs. Sometimes the photographer independently markets the same photos himself, leveraging his investment.

In addition to the one-shot, up-front fee, there are other definitions of royalty-free. Royalty-free may mean that no royalty is paid to the photographer if the buyer uses the picture in certain pre-defined ways. If the buyer wants to use a picture for some other purpose, a special higher license fee will apply, and the photographer receives a royalty. Royalty-free may also flat out mean the opposite. In some models, distributors of CD-ROMs pay photographers an up-front fee, then a royalty for each disc sold. (If my correspondent was confused before, let him try to figure all that out!) However, according to Rohn Engh, publisher of the industry newsletter Photo Stock Notes, the term “royalty-free” generally applies to the buyer, not the photographer. It means that the buyer doesn’t have to pay extra reuse royalties, as is the case with managed photos (those where usage is tracked). In other words, there are no more hoops to jump through as in traditional stock photography, where each use is negotiated separately.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR IMAGE BUYERS?

Why should you, the buyer, care about all this esoterica? Because it affects what you’ll pay, how you can use the images you purchase, and the quality of the images you acquire. It may also affect you legally. You should also be aware that you’re probably going to have to spend some money even to acquire public domain images, and I want you to know why.

Here are some cautions and truths about buying and using royalty-free images:

Caution: Royalty-free does not mean “no cost,” nor does it mean “public domain.” Truth: Royalty-free images generally carry reasonable prices. You can purchase a CD-ROM containing 100 images for anywhere from $35 to $250 per disc. Whether you find the $1.50 to $2.50 per image price reasonable, of course, depends on whether you use a substantial number of the images on the disc, or if those you do use are worth it for you. A single digital image may run you $10-$20 for low resolution (Publishers Depot charges $10 for a 300K file not for resale, PhotoDisc’s 600K 72dpi image costs $19.95), $70 for medium resolution (Publishers Depot charges $60 for a 12-18 megabyte file not for resale, PhotoDisc’s 10MB 300dpi image runs $69.95), or $130 for high resolution (PhotoDisc’s 28MB 300dpi image costs $129.95).

Caution: Royalty-free does not necessarily mean you can do anything you want with the picture. Check the license. You may be surprised to find that your purchase price affords you some rights, but not others. Double-check the model release if you plan to use the photo in a sensitive situation, such as drug abuse or mental retardation. Be wary of royalty-free companies with no track record. They may not possess the proper releases. (You may be able to identify such companies by looking at their packaging and advertising materials. According to Rohn Engh, established companies look it, “fly-by-nights” don’t.) Truth: Traditional stock agencies guarantee “managed rights” and exclusivity, but royalty-free agencies do not. Stock agencies track usage of their images to make sure your use doesn’t conflict with that of a competitor or other undesirable buyer. They will also, for a fee, guarantee that you are the only authorized user of a particular image and/or provide you with the photo’s history. web site public domain images

Caution: Royalty-free images from different vendors carry different rights. This is a real stinker, but not unfamiliar to those of us who deal with information vendors.

Truth: Royalty-free pricing depends on the quality, range, and breadth of images offered by the agency, and business model. Sometimes royalty-free images simply represent a different product line from traditional stock photos, not an inferior product. To check image quality, see if the specs tell what type of scanner has been used. Drum-scanned images usually represent higher technical quality than images produced with a flatbed scanner.

Caution: Royalty-free images claim to carry model releases, but you can still potentially violate a model’s rights if you use a picture in a negative or defamatory way.

Caution: Watch out for the term “moral rights” in image licenses. Even if you see no such terminology, be careful about using images of people in depictions of controversial issues like abortion and politics.

Truth: Despite the pitfalls, royalty-free agencies generally streamline the image licensing process for purchasers.

Caution: The quality of royalty-free images varies, just as does the quality of merchandise you buy in a discount store. (Discount merchandiser Sears sells great tools, does it not?) Caution: Don’t go by what customer service people tell you. Go by the printed license.

Truth: When you purchase photographs, don’t resent the money you are paying. Realize that you’re contributing to someone’s honest living.

Truth: Royalty-free can be fun. You can afford to spice up your presentations and promotional material, and you’ll have a ball exploring the offerings.

LOG ON TO IMAGES Now that you know a little about the ins and outs of royalty-free images, check out some of the great online resources listed in the sidebar with this column.

Finding Royalty-Free Images Paula Berinstein Here are some online resources for royalty-free images. Some offer single images, some CD-ROMs by theme, and others both. One last caveat–while most Web vendors make it clear where to find technical specs and ordering information, almost all hide their pricing well. Sometimes you have to go to the page for a particular CD to find the price. Sometimes the FAQ provides it. Almost never is the location logical, i.e., a link that says Pricing. I’m not sure why–their prices are nothing to be embarrassed about.

Berinstein, Paula

Kaiser Permanente and Goodwill Southern California Sponsor E-Waste Collection from Kern to San Diego.

Computer Weekly News May 6, 2010 Celebrating a four-year Earth Day partnership, Kaiser Permanente and Goodwill Southern California are anticipating that, with this year’s expansion to six days and 20 Southern California sites, the Kaiser Permanente Southern California response to the e-waste campaign may hit a new record and prove to be the largest and most successful collection by a Goodwill corporate partner in California this year. go to web site kaiser permanente locations

“Every year our physicians and employees bring in obsolete computers, monitors, cast-off cell phones, and other outdated electronic home equipment and hazardous e-waste that might otherwise have ended up in area landfills,” says Benjamin Chu, MD, MPH, MACP, president of the Kaiser Permanente Southern California Region. “We are leaders in green design, building and purchasing, so partnering with Goodwill in their Earth Day E-Waste collection is a natural for us. It just makes sense to do what we can to keep the environment as healthy as our communities,” adds Dr. Chu.

“The Kaiser Permanente and Goodwill Earth Day program is one of the most successful corporate partnerships we’ve ever had,” said Goodwill Southern California President and CEO, Doug Barr. “This year we have 20 collection sites on Kaiser Permanente locations, and we can’t say enough about the enthusiasm and energy that Kaiser Permanente has put behind this region-wide effort.” Kaiser Permanente’s e-waste collection began in Fontana on April 15 and rolled out in Downey, Panorama City, San Diego-San Marcos, and Woodland Hills through April 20. website kaiser permanente locations

Today, April 22, e-waste collection continues at the Kaiser Permanente corporate headquarters in Pasadena (393 East Walnut Street, 91188), and the Los Angeles, South Bay, Riverside, Anaheim and Irvine medical centers, as well as the Kern County-Ming Avenue and East Hills locations.

This year’s campaign will conclude with collections at the Baldwin Park and West Los Angeles medical centers and the San Diego-Otay Mesa site on April 23. Some locations will collect donated clothes or personal documents for shredding. Goodwill representatives will assist with heavy items, and will provide receipts for all donated e-waste goods they accept.

Kaiser Permanente is America’s leading integrated health plan. Founded in 1945, it is a nonprofit, group practice prepayment program with Southern California headquarters in Pasadena, California. Kaiser Permanente serves the health care needs of 3.3 million members in Southern California. Today it encompasses the nonprofit Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and their subsidiaries, and the for-profit Southern California Permanente Medical Group. Kaiser Permanente’s Southern California Region includes more than 49,919 technical, administrative and clerical employees and caregivers, and more than 6,000 physicians representing all specialties. More information about Kaiser Permanente can be found at www.kaiserpermanente.org. About Goodwill Southern California: GSC operates 63 retail stores, 41 attended donation centers, three campuses and 24 workforce/training centers in the counties of Los Angeles (north of Rosecrans Ave.), Riverside and San Bernardino. Charity Navigator, an independent charity evaluator, gave GSC its highest four-star ranking for eight consecutive years, because GSC spends 91 percent of its budget on programs that transform lives through the power of work. For more information about GSC and its programs, visit www.goodwillsocal.org.

Great white sharks in United States museums.(Brief article)(Book review)

SciTech Book News December 1, 2009 9780786441839 Great white sharks in United States museums.

De Maddalena, Alessandro.

McFarland & Co.

2009 214 pages $49.95 Paperback QL638 This work catalogs whole and partial great white shark specimens and live sharks in 26 museums and aquariums in the US. State-by-state entries describe each specimen in a collection and give details on date of capture, size, methods of preservation, and status of the specimen or live shark. A general introduction details the biology, ethology, and ecology of the great white shark. Methods for capturing, preserving, and reconstructing great white sharks are described in detail and illustrated with b&w photos and images on every page. De Maddalena, president of the Italian Ichthyological Society, is the curator of the Italian Great White Shark Data Bank. Photographer Walter Helm, a mechanical engineer, has been photographing sharks since 2001. in our site great white sharks in our site great white sharks

([c]2009 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR)

In Brief: Amex Touting Its Online Tax Service.(Brief Article)

American Banker February 9, 2004 | Kuykendall, Lavonne American Express Co. said it has begun intensively promoting its year-old online tax preparation business for the first time, mainly through cardholder statements and mailings.

Last year’s offering was a pilot test, a spokeswoman said Wednesday. She would not say how many customers used the service and would not detail this year’s marketing plan. americanexpressonlinenow.net american express online

Intuit Inc. of Mountain View, Calif., which sells the popular tax preparation software TurboTax, is the largest online tax preparer. Scott Gulbransen, an Intuit spokesman, expressed skepticism about Amex’s prospects in the market. this web site american express online

Intuit has been offering a Web-based tax service since 1998. Years of research and development have made it easier to use than rival services, he said.

The 2.4 million Americans who used Intuit’s online service last year gave it a 71% market share, Mr. Gulbransen said. H&R Block Inc. was No. 2 — its TaxCut had about 28% — and smaller providers divided the rest, he said.

Amex said it will charge $34.95 until March 31 and $39.95 thereafter for American Express Online Tax to calculate state and local taxes and file electronically. The TurboTax service charges $19.95 for a federal return and an additional $19.95 for a state return.

A Merrill Lynch & Co. analyst, Gregory Smith, said the Amex entry is not a significant threat to Intuit’s “large and lucrative tax business.” The Amex service is “much more rudimentary” than Intuit’s and H&R Block’s, he wrote in research note on Intuit issued Wednesday.

CCH Inc., a tax and accounting technology company in Riverwoods, Ill., developed the Amex service.

Kuykendall, Lavonne

Domino’s is about to grow;Pizza chain plans 400-store expansion in coming year. go to site dominos coupon codes

Crain’s Detroit Business December 6, 1999 | KOSDROSKY, TERRY The corporate reshuffling last week at Domino’s Pizza Inc. that led to about 100 administrative layoffs is the precursor to a 400-store growth plan in 2000, double its current growth rate.

Domino’s also plans to invest more in franchise development, marketing and in-store computers.

The goal is to increase systemwide sales by 5 percent next year, said Tim McIntyre, vice president of communications for Domino’s. The Ann Arbor Township-based company typically has opened between 150 and 200 stores a year since 1995. Domino’s reported systemwide sales of $3.2 billion in 1998. There are about 6,400 worldwide stores, with 4,563 in the United States.

Though the No. 2 pizza company reported same-store sales growth in its last 25 quarters, its domestic market share declined slightly between 1997 and 1998, from 11.7 percent to 11.3 percent, according to Technomic Inc., a Chicago-based restaurant industry research and consulting firm.

The pizza industry has been slow-growing for the past several years. Last year’s top three companies, Pizza Hut Inc., Domino’s and Detroit-based Little Caesar Enterprises Inc., all lost market share in 1998, according to Technomic. But Domino’s wants to make a move, McIntyre said.

To achieve its projections, Domino’s last week overhauled its franchise-service and franchise-marketing operations. The company used to have 55 franchise consultants who worked with franchisees on business plans, new products, operations and marketing. Now Domino’s will use 51 franchise consultants to work on stores with sagging sales and small markets, while 19 operations consultants will work with franchisees on operations and new products.

Marketing development managers will work with franchisees on promotions and advertising targeted at more specific markets. this web site dominos coupon codes

As a result, Domino’s needs fewer administrators and more marketing and brand-management specialists, McIntyre said. That’s why about 100 corporate employees, including about 40 in its Ann Arbor Township headquarters, were laid off. Domino’s has about 3,000 salaried employees.

One franchisee said he thinks the decision to market promotions in smaller areas is a good idea and can increase unit sales.

“Before, they would make a decision for a six- or seven-state area. Now they’re targeting it for specific states and county areas, and we think that’s better,” said Joe Manuszak, who owns seven Domino’s stores in western Michigan. “The old way would be like me trying to develop a marketing plan for Indianapolis, which I know nothing about. The differences in each area are huge. In some markets, they don’t care about price, and in others, it’s more competitive.” Manuszak said franchisees are getting a different tone from the company.

“The regional offices are saying, `What can you do?’ instead of saying, `This is what you can’t do,’ ” he said.

But the transition won’t happen without some rough spots, Manuszak said.

“I think it’s positive, but there is a sense of loss and regret for the people that have gone. Some good people have gone, and some relationships with the parent company are lost,” he said. “It may cause some problems with contracts that are in the midst of completion, but life doesn’t come to an end.” An independent franchise analyst said the changes should benefit franchisees, who make up the bulk of Domino’s system.

“You should have consultants by function, but you also need someone in marketing on the local level who really understands the region,” said Geoffrey Stebbins, president of Southfield-based World Franchise Consultants Inc. “You really need a two-pronged answer, and Domino’s is large enough to afford that.” Stebbins said Domino’s growth projections are realistic but that the company should focus more on increasing same-store sales in order to attract more franchisees. But he said that because Domino’s carries a lot of debt because of its recapitalization by Bain Capital Inc., Brandon has pressure to expand the system.

Domino’s reported total long-term liabilities of $745 million for the third quarter, which ended Sept. 12. Boston-based Bain, which purchased Domino’s in December 1998 in a $1.05 billion deal, funded the recapitalization with $425 million in loans and $275 million in public security bonds.

Terry Kosdrosky covers the food industry, transportation, steel, international and Downriver. He can be reached at (313) 446-1626 or at TKosdros@crain.com.

KOSDROSKY, TERRY