And from the client’s point of view that is exactly what you’d want. But again, we aren’t really sure we’re talking about a logo. And that’s a distinction Debbie would need to know before entering into an agreement.
But just for fun, what would most probably happen in your scenario is that the court would rule that Debbie is acting in bad faith because she is leveraging her power to give her an advantage. It’s weird to actually put this precedent on Debbie because mostly this rule will apply to large companies taking advantage of small ones in contract negotiations.
To be clear, it is totally legal to negotiate a contract from a point of power. It is not however legal to use that power to coerce the other party into an “unreasonable condition” or “condition that is detrimental to the second party”.
Additionally, since the logo has been used for 10 years by the company, they can make a claim to ownership after the 7 year copyright restriction on logos has past.
A copyright attorney isn’t a person to call to get an answer about whether or not to sell usage rights to a logo or brand icon. That’s a decision to be made between the buyer and seller.
As PrintDriver said, the original poster was asking what the usual procedure was in these instances, and the usual procedure is to sell these kinds of logo-like things outright. There’s no reason to waste money by consulting an attorney over something like that.
Now if there’s a couple million dollars at stake or there’s something truly out of the ordinary going on with all kinds of legal ramifications, yeah, sure. There’s a small chance I’m wrong, but I think it’s safe to assume the original poster is not working on something that warrants this kind of thing.
You’re obfuscating the point in disagreement, which isn’t about legal minutia — it’s about your suggestion that the original poster contact an attorney to answer a simple matter regarding usual business practices in selling her logo-like brand icon illustration (whatever it might be) to her client.
The answer to that question doesn’t require an attorney’s opinion. Barring exceptional circumstances, usage licenses for these kinds of things are not the way to go for several reasons — the standard practice is to just sell it, along with the copyright.
I think you may be right. I think I was stuck on the definition of the job too much, but I think we agree about a lot.
I also want to mention that the 7 year copyright restriction is not civil (USA) law. I mixed it up with some common law. That is not applicable here in the USA.
Maybe I can break it down to a few points that I think we all agree on? And if you all want to correct / amend / edit if necessary.
If this is a simple logo, as most here believe, then it should be sold outright.
If it is a piece of branding, the price might be a little higher dependent on it’s usage as the foundation for the brand.
If it is unknown what the art is categorically, and we don’t know how it will be used, get more info from your client.
If still unclear on what to charge, there are better places to ask than an attorney: (professionals, teachers, colleagues)
If all else fails, and you have to talk to an attorney for information only - here’ a cheap way start. (ABA site)
Imo, it was a good exercise to work through. If the mods don’t like the posts, they are free to delete them if they are too far off subject.
P.S. The reason I pop in and out of the site is because I am either hopelessly busy or completely free. Our sales team and half of management were at a trade show last week, so I was doing some outreach to other designers.
I apologize when it seems like I’m monopolizing the posts. Its just I only have time once in a while.-
I’m a little late to the party, but if it is not a logo nor will it be used as a logo. I would make certain I knew every application for the illustration (current and potential future). This would inform my decision.
"How would YOU format pricing for this illustration job?"I would give them 2 options in the contract.
I would find out exactly what application they will be using it on (website, poster, etc.) and in the contract say you can use it for those specified applications. If later they want to use it on merchandise, I would figure a cost based on researching their brand and the potential profits and sell them the rights to use it for that purpose.
Transfer full ownership at a price (based on your research of their company and that market) higher than the first option.
Pick which ever option your comfortable with and go with it. These posts are difficult, because there is not enough context on your business model, or their business plan.
A lot about pricing has to do with how YOU position yourself. It’s the reason why some designers can get away with charging a client more (which is different topic all together).
They want a line drawing representing all of them to use not as a logo, but as a brand icon. It’ll be everywhere (where all, they’re not sure yet), but website, posters, etc.
This is fairly specific.
It is an intensely personalized bit of branding, of no use to anyone else, including the designer, and has no aftermarket. Its use is “all encompassing” ie all marketing collateral in any form for this brand.
Since it has no further value to the artist (ransom is not an option,) I’d cut any future losses and sell it outright for fair market value as a commissioned illustration. It’s basically the same as a commissioned portrait.
But we commission art here so often where I work, maybe it’s just a more obvious choice to me as a purchaser not to want to have to go back to the artist in order to use the art we purchase.
@PrintDriver I don’t disagree with that. Full transfer is less headache on both sides and 9/10 times makes the most sense. I merely broached it because it was asked.
Where I mean more context is in Collettes business model as–I’m assuming a freelancer.
Thats a lot of design collateral, which equals more work for the designer, if they can strategically position themselves. I’m not saying capitalize on work that hasn’t been done, or hold design hostage, thats not good business. I don’t know exactly what Collettes relationship is with the client (context) or more of the situation than is written (context).
That said, again, I don’t disagree with you. But, if they were thinking of charging a fee with usage rights, that’s how I’d have done it.
That’s a lot of design collateral, some of which the illustrator may not be skilled enough to handle. Charging usage rights on a brand icon is charging ransom. The client has to find you and cut you a check every time they want to use their own likenesses in a branded piece?
Charging usage rights implies also that you would sell the image to anyone else that wanted to use it, unless explicitly written as exclusive use and the term of use specified. Either way, any client would have to be out of their mind to allow that to happen. Or even have it implied. The image is of no use to you if they don’t pay you.
In fact, I wouldn’t only sell it to them outright, I’d point them in the direction of having their brand icon trademarked under their company name so no one else could legally use it.
This is a person-specific illustration being used as part of a brand. What part of “likeness of client belongs to client” aren’t people getting here?