tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2941976044448685733.post4949616943961318545..comments2023-06-20T13:09:56.441+01:00Comments on Art and Artifice: He who D.A.R.E.’s infringe copyright fails… but what’s the damage?Mollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13355163599192206484noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2941976044448685733.post-37858090263552113262012-02-12T15:10:19.276+00:002012-02-12T15:10:19.276+00:00I don't do much commercial work these days so ...I don't do much commercial work these days so I'm pretty out of touch with current rates. Thus I would always check the <a href="http://www.londonfreelance.org/feesguide/index.php?&section=Photography&subsect=Online+use+of+photos" rel="nofollow">NUJ suggested rates</a> as a starting point and then modify them up or down much as Tom Ang mentioned.Andy Jnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2941976044448685733.post-28816260524463316852012-02-05T23:53:34.792+00:002012-02-05T23:53:34.792+00:00If the judge calculated quantum from what he consi...If the judge calculated quantum from what he considered might have been agreed between photographer and client, does it mean that the sum he arrived at is thereby set a standard for a reasonable fee for similar transactions? <br /><br />The figure seems high and one unlikely to have been agreed to by a small charity. But I think it's fair to take it that DARE used as many pictures as it did for as long as it did only because it thought it could do so for free. If DARE had had to pay, it's likely they would have used fewer images for a shorter time. So it's misleading to refer to what a 'willing user in DARE's position would have agreed upon'. The quantum (rightly, IMO) reflects what DARE used when it thought it was in a position to use the images freely rather than what DARE would have agreed on if it knew it had to pay for rights.<br /><br />From the awarded sum, the cost per image per annum per site comes out to about £66. That the kind of sum that I, as a photographer, would agree to. But if it was to a charity I'd personally support I may charge less or not charge at all. If it was a charity I did not care for, I'd charge them like any other commercial client. I guess, in David Hoffman's case DARE fell in the latter category; hence his large (but not commercially unreasonable) claim. If so, the quantum is aruably calculated too low.TOM ANGhttp://www.tomang.comnoreply@blogger.com