Photo Credit Only
- This topic has 45 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated Jun 18, 2008 at 1:59 am by
.
-
Posts
-
Anyone have any experiences they can share about someone asking to use their photos for photo credit only (good or bad)? I have been contacted by a gentleman who would like to do just that with several of my photos and am stuck somewhere between “I am flattered and would have no problem with that” to wondering what is the norm and am I being scammed. I have suggested that perhaps the company that the work is being done for could trade product or discounts for the photo instead of payment. Any advice? Thanks…
Scott, think you are on the right track. If you are developing a writing/photography business, don’t give your stuff away. Learn to negotiate as you are inclined.
I was contacted by a publisher this spring wanting to use two of my photos. When I quoted her $175 per photo based on the magazine’s circulation, size of the photos and model release (which I had), she said her budget was not that big. But she was using them in a story in a travel magazine and would include a mention of my business in the article along with contact info. I agreed to a $50 per photo deal. Not great, but it included a plug in the article.
She later emailed and said her customer was wanting full rights to the photos and cancelled the deal (if that’s true, her client was looking for microstock and he probably found it elsewhere, which is fine with me). I still got mentioned in the article. So long and short of it, I got some published acknowledgement and made an editorial contact without giving anything away.
Reputable editors and publishers will pay for material. Scoundrels will not.
Scott
Hey, Zach. I like your distinction between commerical and non-commercial uses. I was speaking of the former.
Further thought. I would encourage everyone to use licenses for each specific use for their photos so the terms of use are spelled out. If you agree to exchange a photo for credit line, spell it out and limit it to a one time occurence.
I’ve sent photos to game department biologists or university researchers before for use in their powerpoints or research article, and I include a personal use/research publication/presentation license specifically for them so when they leave that position the photo is not free legally to still circulate around in use.
Scott
Guys, thanks for the responses! To clarify a little, the request is to commercially use the photos in a brochure for a fly fishing manufacturer. Zach, I couldn’t agree more with what you had to say, just wanted to see what the norm was.
This is an interesting debate…
I think it depends on where you are in your career, business and life…
It is difficult to get your name out there without publicity, which sometimes means you have to sacrifice profit for progress. But then you still need to own the rights to that work, without the ownership of the picture you defeating you goals…
I think the two well educated guys, either by being a Lawyer, or by in business… (guys great comments) have made some very valid points, I would manage the opportunity… if it not from someone you know is reputable, then take decisive action.
I gave away all my pictures from my last trip to a magazine, to use as they please, I know them all well, they are good friends and stuff, but they signed a little document that entitles me to have my name associated to every photo, and in the unlikely event that they would be sold, to any royalties.
I got some of them published…Remember that we (in South Africa) are seldom paid for photo, article or submissions to any of the local magazines, well unsolicited ones. So how do become a solicited write or photographer, if you don’t get out there and get publicity. Lets see what happens…
What a wonderful and terrifying thread. I have a little different perspective on this matter of Rights Managed vs Royalty free vs By Line vs compensation
Having a photo printed in a brochure for a manufacturer is a commercial job. Trading for gear is often seen as a way for companies to get photos at a much lower cost than actually paying for them. A lot of Action Sports companies are bad about doing this and a lot of photographers are wising up to the tactics. Here’s the truth, gear doesn’t pay the bills.
Here is some more insight, the cost of a photo running 1/4 page in a brochure with a circulation of 50k would typically cost between $350-500. That’s on the low end. Now I’m not telling you what to charge but take rates like that in to consideration of what the typical cost would be for a company. This is a photo selling their product (just because it’s not a product shot doesn’t mean you’re not selling it). Figure out what is best for you, and best for the company and reach an agreement for what is fair for both you and your customer.
If you do trade for product, make sure you’re being compensated fairly. MSRP does not = cost to the company!http://society6.com/grainfarmer Fly Fishing and Landscape open edition Photography prints.
http://grainfarmer.vsco.co/ iPhone photos
http://instagram.com/chad_simcox InstagramChad you have it pretty much right! Its not good professional business practice to give photography or art away to commercial companies. Bartering is selling you photography at probably half price. It cheapens the perception of the value of images. If somebody needs a image for a commercial job they should have a budget and pony up some money.
I have, in the past, provided photos for a credit line. The only reason I would ever do that now is for non-profits and then only if they gave me a receipt for an amount equal to the going rate so that it would be a donation.
By giving away free photos, especially to any, ANY, publication that collects advertising revenue, or to a company that is using the photos to advertise or otherwise generate sales, you are adding to the never ending cycle of lower photography rates.This way of purchasing content hurts the overall design of our fly fishing magazines – but it also keeps the cost down and within budget.
Kevin, I don’t think you would find an editor in the business who disagrees with you.
All great responses guys! Thanks. It is really a lot to think about.
What are the going rates for stock photos for something like this from an amateur photographer (me)? How are the prices set? How about for field assignments? I really do appreciate the feedback and from the variety of responses can see that I hit on something interesting.
Zach,
Trust me… I am grateful. But I have contacted 4 other magazines and they all do the same deal. My wife says that I am bad about giving ME away…. so…. I will be doing the by line deal.
BUT… Here is the issue.
Commercial Illustration is (or can be) different than FINE ART. Different processes to create a color correct work that is easy to scan and print. This is becoming a lost art within itself. In the 90s we use to classify Illustrators and Photographers in the same scale. Digital photography has screwed that up. BUT… I also know that there is much more involved than that one second shot… On average, how many photos do you shoot before ever selling a photo and how much time does a professional shoot take? How much time archiving… color correcting… retouching… The time involved for the illustration is the same – actually less with a good illustrator – and he CAN make prints of the work but with many commercial illustrations – The original is like holding a negative… kind of useless.
All great responses guys! Thanks. It is really a lot to think about.
What are the going rates for stock photos for something like this from an amateur photographer (me)? How are the prices set? How about for field assignments? I really do appreciate the feedback and from the variety of responses can see that I hit on something interesting.
This little link might help answer your question:
What are the going rates for stock photos for something like this from an amateur photographer (me)?
It doesn’t matter what your level of expertise is really. If it’s a good photo, then it’s a good photo. Just because you don’t shoot full time doesn’t mean your shot is any less valuable.
The price guideline I mentioned in my previous post is for stock in this case. If you’re doing an assignment for a project like this there are many more factors like creative fees that go in to the overall pricing for the series of shots. At that point, the per-image price will become lower but the over all pricehttp://society6.com/grainfarmer Fly Fishing and Landscape open edition Photography prints.
http://grainfarmer.vsco.co/ iPhone photos
http://instagram.com/chad_simcox InstagramGGreat question and concerns, truth of the matter; these same questions have been asked far before digital came along. With the proliferation of digital, the questions have just become more common and the concerns far greater.
My take on it may not be a popular one but it is one of reality. As a new photographer, in respect to publishing, your first concerns are for you and what your goals are. If you plan on going full time pro, your concerns have to be focused on achieving these goals. If you are a family person, your focus has to be on your family and how your photography will support your family while allowing you to advance in your profession. No matter what profession, we are talking about, a professional is the same in nature. Professional athletes are the same in principal and we must consider that their amateur comparative pay, college career, is peanuts compared to what they receive as a pro. It is just a part of the growing cure to becoming a full time pro. In my old business intelligence days, we referred to this as the “loss leader”.
For the sake of my argument, I refer to a professional as one who shoots full time, as their primary source of income. I have learned that I have a difficult time writing what I mean and that my words may come across as demeaning so, please know that I do not mean this in a way that is meant to insult anyone at all! In essence I meant that there are many amateur/semi pro photographers that should be shooting full time but they just haven’t made the contacts that would allow them to do this. It is hard to get published but even harder to keep getting published. In order to do this, we all have taken a lower fee to facilitate this. Again, your first obligation is to yourself and your goals but don’t give stuff away. Sometimes, just a credit and print of your name may be all that you can get but don’t give the copyright away, someone has already said this. When proper, (this is not an always proposition for new photographers), offer warrants of licensed use with restrictions on it, you have to do this as you truly owe it to yourself! If you have plans on using your image as commercial use, don’t extend unlimited use to a publisher that intends to use it more as a documentary piece, they could then also resell it for commercial use and it would be in your best interest to be able to renegotiate.
Know the true category of your image. It is so easy to fall in love with our own work but we have to separate ourselves from the images and force reality into it. If it is a documentary piece, it will serve only as a documentary piece and retaining the copyright is good enough, as the magazine will, most likely, only use it for documentary pieces. The main objective here is to get published and paid, according to their pay scales; you always reserve the right to just say no. For smaller magazines, you can protect yourself into a “forget about it” from the publisher and end up holding a bunch of images that you should have had published. How does this effect your future plans? The odds of you ever being able to do a larger assignment or even finding your way into the door of another publisher goes down drastically to impossible. The first thing that a larger magazine or client wants is to see your book, “published images”. So, here is where you must answer your own questions of how much is it worth.
90% of my published work would fall into the category of fashion, street fashion, fine art and two product labeling (as a paid favor to get a larger assignment, the company needed a fast turn around on this so, I took a smaller fee to help them out of a bind) so, I am not an authority in the realm of the outdoor magazine/commercial sector. As a matter of fact, I have no hesitation in saying that many of you are far better at this than I am. What is similar is the fact that a commercial shoot is still a commercial shoot. Not all clients needs require expensive equipment and complicated shots; it depends on the size and circulation assessments of the company. Some of those low budget images could have easily been done with a point and shoot and I have even seen some great images that were shot with a cell phone camera, they all served the needs and do look great. If it is a small company and a small circulation, the fees are going to be small and no effort of price fixing is going to change that. Trust me, as a full time freelance photographer, I do not get hired because of my equipment or knowledge of cameras and the fees are never based on that as anyone can learn how to use a camera or purchase expensive equipment.
If I were still starting out, yes, I would of probably been very upset to find out that someone was giving free images to one of my potential clients. Like in Zach’s case, of building a relationship and then getting paid: One would have to consider the source of anger. I would have to say that the anger would have to be because he had a much better business plan, which worked great! It does not have a damaging effect of hurting the fee structure of the larger industries.
Professional photography is a business first and once we loose site of talent facts, we are only protecting something that many others could do and can do for less. There are many professionals here that really have nothing to worry about. David King is a full time staff photographer and what someone excepts from a very small company would not effect him as it is not in his value to take that assignment, that and an amateur would not be able to get the shots the same way that he does. David Anderson has nothing to fear as even if we all had his same equipment, we would not be able to get the same shots that he does. I always have something to fear but it is not from competition as it is much more of a fear of myself loosing creative thought and not continuing to my goal, macro stock prices has nothing to do with my fear nor does a photographer taking small assignments for low fees. If we were so afraid of what a documentary image may bring in fees, a lot of news paper photographers would fear for their lives. Some of the best professional photographers got their starts with very low paying newspaper fees but are now making the big bucks with much larger clients.
It is all stepping stones and each person must do what they have to do to grow their own business, none of the other professional photographers will pay you for passing on a potential low paying job that gets you published. In closing, just remember to keep your copyrights and register your important images as the proposed Orphan Act may hurt you, if passed. I do not and will not post my best images on the net as I have seen first hand the pirating that goes on. I have seen one of my images published in Eastern Europe, without my knowledge. Again though, sometimes you have to take risks for exposure but for now, I am ok on that front. In today’s world, photography is about taking risks and knowing that they are there. One can protect themselves into never getting published but if that is your goal, to get published, just know that the risks are great and that you have to take them and work yourself to the point that you can limit the risks, with future work.
This whole subject can go round and round. Basically folks should get paid… taxes for the tax man.
This subject is close to me on many fronts. I purchase images daily and it is a main part of my job.
I was “written up” on Friday for not using a rights managed picasso on a design project we are working on (managed through super stock). We had not paid for it and I was told to use the lo-res off the web. “It is running small – they’ll never know”. I let the client know that I would run the design if the image were paid for and they said that it was not in budget.
This whole subject can go round and round. Basically folks should get paid… taxes for the tax man.
This subject is close to me on many fronts. I purchase images daily and it is a main part of my job.
I was “written up” on Friday for not using a rights managed picasso on a design project we are working on (managed through super stock). We had not paid for it and I was told to use the lo-res off the web. “It is running small – they’ll never know”. I let the client know that I would run the design if the image were paid for and they said that it was not in budget.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.