I’ve been getting more and more emails and messages from people wanting to buy or pay me to use my photos, and though some have set rates (e.g. I sold a picture to Picador Books for a cover of a book they’re publishing and they paid me what they said was a set rate of US$700), many ask me what my rates are or tell me to give them a quote. In this age of digital photography, are the usual standard rates still applicable, or is there somewhere I can find more realistic guidelines for this kind of thing?
(I didn’t know if this should be in A&E or B&M forums, so mods: put it wherever you think is appropriate)
Most stock agencies have pricing calculators, but you need to register to use them. Registering as a photographer also means you can sell through them. I’ve got some stuff with an agency in Singapore that is priced anywhere between US$200 and US$2000 depending on the intended use (the agency sets the price, not me).
I think it’s a good formula, but I wonder how many companies are just browsing Flickr and, when they find something they like, they ask to use it for cheap. If the photographer wants too much money, they just keep browsing. It’s not like there’s a lack of decent photography out there online these days, and most flickr users aren’t professional, i.e. have agents.
There are many debates and discussions going on about this now. The whole industry is going through some rapid changes and where it ends up is anyones guess. Flickr has 1000s of great amateur photographers (as in they don’t make a living from photography), but most are unproven as to whether they can produce publication quality photos. In a lot of cases they can’t, as they’ve shot in jpg, or radically Photoshopped the photo etc. What looks good online at 800x600 may not work at 4000x3000.
As well, if something is destined for advertising or commercial use, it needs the necessary model and/or property releases, which I’d say only the pros can provide.
Virgin phones steals pic from flickr for ad campaign: switched.com/2007/09/21/virg … to-for-ad/
If you put something on someone else’s site, you usually sign over all rights.
[quote=“Big Fluffy Matthew”]Virgin phones steals pic from flickr for ad campaign: switched.com/2007/09/21/virg … to-for-ad/
If you put something on someone else’s site, you usually sign over all rights.[/quote]
Here’s the stolen photo.
And here’s an excerpt from that article.
[quote]the ad contains what Chang and her family feel are defamatory statements not only about her virginity but also about her race. Oops!
The ad’s caption, “Dump Your Pen Friend”, is a sideways remark about her race, while “Free Text Virgin to Virgin” makes certain assumptions about her sexual activities (or lack thereof). [/quote]
I can understand how one might be insulted to be labeled a virgin (ha, ha, loooooser), but how is “Dump your pen friend” a racial insult? I don’t understand.
The original story I saw on the BBC, which I couldn’t find, didn’t mention that, only mentioned that her picture was used without their permission and without payment, which is what I am commenting on here, and is what this thread is about.
Maybe they added the sexual/racist thing later to strengthen their case.
I think these companies are going through the photos and looking for the odd one that already meets their criteria regardless of whether or not that photographer is capable of consistently producing such work; they don’t have to if they already have the picture they’re looking for, and for other cases they can simply search flickr again for another one. With today’s cameras, more and more photos are available online that meet their needs, many taken by “amateurs”. My point is that, in these case, the photographer in question is much more likely to be surprised and flattered by the attention and willing to give up their work for next to nothing, and it seems to me that such companies would be willing to take advantage of that.
Interesting viewpoint. But as millions and millions of high-resolution photos are uploaded and made available, chances are that “just the right picture” is going to be available somewhere, and photo websites like Flickr are making it easier for companies to find such pictures without having to pay or go through an agent, and chances are also increasing that the photographer will not be a professional and thus want less. I wonder if some kind of equilibrium is going to be reached at some point, or is this going to precipitate a re-thinking of what professional photography means.
Good point. I think professional photographers (except for the famous ones) are going to be best served by shooting for niche and specialized markets where there’s a lack of general content, or in areas where access is difficult/impossible to get for the average person. There’s also a large number of pro’s who earn part of their income through giving workshops and leading photo-tours, neither of which are cheap.
Personally, I prefer to aim for the higher-priced market because I’d rather license one photo for $1000 than 1000 photos for $1. It means I can spend more time shooting and less time on preparing/uploading photos.
I wouldn’t be surprised if photo editors end up amassing a database of Flickr etc users that can produce good work and use them as a first port of call when they need photos, rather than having to search each and every time. It’s a lot easier to send an email to their database asking for a particular shot than it is having to contact new people every time. But that’s just my guess, who knows if it’ll end up like that.
There’s also video to consider. If DV cameras get to a point where they can produce still’s to the same quality as an average DSLR (maybe they can already, I don’t know much about video), we may see photographers increasingly being called on to shoot video and any still’s needed can be taken from that.
