Contract Terms Photographers Should Review Closely

In this month’s PDN, licensing agent Lori Horne, co-founder of Heritage Graphics International, talks about how she

selects the images she licenses on behalf of publishers, greeting card and poster makers, and home décor specialists. 

Horne, who is also an attorney, also advises photographers who want to license their  images that many contracts contain

clauses and limitations that can be detrimental to photographers. These are the clauses regarding the length of time the

contract is in effect, and whether or not the photographer is allowed to approve the quality of the reproduction and the

medium in which the image is reproduced.

What can you tell photographers about how a home décor retailer licenses photos?
LH: Retailers I work with have recently been requesting limited editions. The editions are typically 100 to 200 [prints],

occasionally it’s an edition of 50. The retailer will buy the rights to an edition of an image for a period of time,

usually one to two years. The images will be printed digitally from scans of 300 dpi, and the prints can range in size

from 10 x 10, for example, up to very large sizes-- that could be 30 x 40 inches. Prints in the edition are printed 10 or

15 at a time. The retailer doesn’t print the whole edition at once, they’ll see how they’re selling and they order

prints as needed.

With a publisher of a poster, the license could be for three years.  But [whether the contract is] with a retailer or a

publisher, it’s a very specific license, stating that they’re licensing this particular image, in this particular size.

There are limitations on what the retailer or the publisher can or cannot do with the image.

What limitations are put on the photographer?
The photographer would not be able to sell the licensed image in the licensed size through any other source, such as via

their web site or gallery, for the period of the contract. - not more than two years, generally.

At Heritage Graphics, we represent the photographer, and our contracts are no more restrictive on the photographer than

that.  But we know there are many more contracts out there where publishers are trying to get as much as they can. For

example, the publisher demands the right of first refusal to all other images by the photographer.  This is very bad for

the photographer.   Something else we try to warn photographers about is never to allow the contract to be renewed

automatically without it being signed by both sides. You would be amazed how many photographers want to license an image

in their collection but then find out that they can't because the publisher from a previous license automatically renewed

the contract for additional years without needing the approval of the photographer. 

Photographers have to be really careful about what they sign. I’m an attorney and I always encourage photographers to

show contracts to their own lawyers.

You’re an attorney? How did you get involved in photo licensing?
LH: After a time being a DA, I decided to stop working for the state. I’d run a business before but I wanted a small

business without the rent of large office space. I have a partner, Howard Greenberg who owns the Howard Greenberg Gallery

[in New York], which represents many great photographers. We started in 2000, and our niche initially was handling fine

art by photographers like Cartier-Bresson, Steichen, Bill Brandt. Publishers came to us to license work for calendars and

note cards. That was our primary business up until about 2006.

By luck, I was introduced to people in home décor who wanted to do something different than posters or what’s come to be

called “open edition prints.” They didn’t want images that other retailers were selling and they asked, “What ideas

do you have?” I suggested limited editions, images that were digitally printed, signed and numbered.

I started working with home decor retailers in 2007, and limited edition prints for wall décor have become very popular. 

Initially my biggest market was photographers who worked in film and had never had their work printed and sold digitally.

It was not a conflict with their galleries who sold their gelatin silver prints if we licensed only digital prints. It’s

still true that I’ll have greater ease working with photographers who sell their work in galleries as silver gelatin and

platinum prints.

The retailers’ interest [in limited editions] wasn’t driven by the [digital] technology, it was a desire to offer

customers something special and exclusive.

Can photographers be sure of the quality of their prints?
LH:  Retailers have a two-step process. The first is to go through me to get the photographer to send a scan and a

matchprint, and then they make a sampling of their images. There’s a failsafe that I insist on: We require that the

photographer approve the print of the image that will be sold. A lot of photographers don’t think about it, and then a

print comes out and it’s hideous.  In working with publishers, we’ll also insist that the print can only be on paper.

If not, it’ll go on canvas and it’s got glop on it to look like an oil painting.

What I like about limited editions is that if the photographer has to actually sign and number them, then the

photographer gets to see every one of his/her prints that will be sold.