How would you read this?

[tilley441]

In talks with a website after they used my image without permission, this is the response I had back.


"To be clear, we will pay you $250 (USD) in exchange for your grant of a retroactive and prospective license for the image in this publication: (website removed) We do this on your representation that you have full ownership and authority to grant such a license"

this bit has lost me completely "grant of a retroactive and prospective license" will this mean they own the rights to the image after they pay me? or will they just be licensed to use the image after? if the later will they be able to do what they want with it?

[singlecoil]

I read it as meaning that they can use the image in the past and in the future. Rather awkwardly worded I agree.

[Ed_P]

I think they're after a "royalty free" type licence. They pay once, but can use the image on future occasions without having to pay an additional fee. You retain copyright of the image.

[Europa1]

You will still own the rights - you are giving them a licence (I assume they haven't used the word "exclusive" anywhere), not an assignment. However, it is a (badly worded, as another poster said) perpetual licence.

[marshalla]

I'd want to see a bit more about the nature of the licence - i.e. what it does permit them to do ? What limits are imposed on them ? (do you really want them using it over and over again on other sites and publications? ) Do they have to give you credit for it each time it is used ?

[tilley441]

marshalla said:

I'd want to see a bit more about the nature of the licence - i.e. what it does permit them to do ? What limits are imposed on them ? (do you really want them using it over and over again on other sites and publications? ) Do they have to give you credit for it each time it is used ?

The image license is the Creative Commons 2.0 which states that attribution needs to be made. This is what the website had failed to do and that's what the $250 is for (11 months of unlicensed use)

I have asked them to clarify what they mean, so will hopefully hear back soon

[marshalla]

tilley441 said:

The image license is the Creative Commons 2.0 which states that attribution needs to be made. This is what the website had failed to do and that's what the $250 is for (11 months of unlicensed use)

I have asked them to clarify what they mean, so will hopefully hear back soon

They're offering the $250 for past and future use, not as compensation for breach of the licence. Sounds like they're negotiating a new licence to me.

[GetCarter]

I would ask them to clarify exactly what they mean, as "My lawyer wants more detailed information as to your admitted illegal usage so far and your possible future use".

The more info you get from them, the stronger your position.