Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Quote: Someone knows I'm a photographer and asked me if I could do some photos for a guy;
Sounds like more trouble and confusion than its worth. The time you've spent questioning and trying to find out has cost you more than the pictures will probably earn you.
Seriously, If I were you I'd either give them the pictures and be done with it or just say they can't have them. So much trouble for a few quid - it just ain't worth the trouble.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Quote: What's the best to it next time?
Not to go out shooting pictures to order for a Del Trotter-type middle man would be one thing to consider. You're being asked to license photos at very low [micro]stock prices whilst effectively being very vaguely commissioned - none of that adds up from your perspective.
Get the terms of usage down in writing clearly and concisely somewhere - maybe on the invoice.
Look, we all think our photos are worth something - fact is they are not. We are not all photographers. Some of us are just people who own a camera. If I help a neighbour fix his car, I don't charge him because I own a set of spanners.
Quote: Look, we all think our photos are worth something - fact is they are not.
So just let the website owner take his own photos - presumably he owns a camera.
Or just give them to him.
Quote: Look, we all think our photos are worth something - fact is they are not. We are not all photographers. Some of us are just people who own a camera. If I help a neighbour fix his car, I don't charge him because I own a set of spanners.
I think I've learnt my lesson!
Thank you guys!
As a matter of fact, I do consider myself a photographer as many of you here do. I'm not just the guy next door who happens to own a point and shoot camera.
And photos, of many people who post here, I think do worth a lot. it's up to the viewer, I think.
Quote: And photos, of many people who post here, I think do worth a lot. it's up to the viewer, I think.
I'm not quite sure what that sentence means. The problem is, when someone views pictures they may think they're worth a lot. However, when they decide they want them and so become a buyer, the value immediately goes down. That's negotiating.
The reason that photographs are often worth so little is that they are common, easily taken and many photographers are desperate to see their pictures used. Everything is on the side of they buyer.
The ideal situation is with like the one with one of my pix which my agent sells several times a year for several hundred quid and has for the past 34 years. I fixed up a studio session with The Who. Three weeks later Keith Moon died (a really lovely man, by the way) and my pic was the last taken of the original band all together. When someone wants that pic, they only have one place to buy it and they pay the price asked. Or not, of course. Everything is on the side of the seller.
Most cases are between those two extremes but I am afraid that many people who have very ordinary pictures over-value what they have. It is disappointing but I am in the same position now I'm retired. I take ordinary pictures and they get flogged for ordinary prices.
In my view, an agent is well worth having. They take the flak of any disagreement but they are not emotionally involved and are willing to tell a buyer no if he is not willing to pay a fair price. If you are going to spend an anguished time worrying over how much to charge and feeling hard done by, it's better just not to sell your stuff at all.
If you are going to spend an anguished time worrying over how much to charge and feeling hard done by, it's better just not to sell your stuff at all.
Quote: I agree!
Me, I hate negotiating prices. Years ago I had a business partner in a photographic agency who preferred selling pictures to taking them. There was never any dispute between us about who was the better photographer of the two of us. Nor any over who was the best salesman.
I may have been the better photographer but his pictures made much more money than mine. We agreed in the end that he would flog my stuff as well.
After a bit we employed a highly experienced (and rather gorgeous) blonde picture saleswoman to flog the pictures for both us. Talk about money well spent!
I think photography, as oppose to any other form of art, is taken for granted. Anyone can buy a camera and take photo.
What is the difference between a snap shot and a photograph taken artistically, so to say.
if there's no difference, what's the point of university running undergraduate and post graduate courses in photography; in additions there a multitude of 'professional' photographers running workshop at a considerable cost.
What is the point of camera manufacturers developing high end camera (I understand that it's not the camera that makes the photographer).
is photography just point and shoot and get lucky?
Don't open that can of worms again. Because people are so used to imagery, using phones and point'n'shoot cameras, the whole thing is devalued because anyone can create a photographic image with little effort..therefore it must be easy for the masses, and thus financially worthless.
"Why would I pay for a professional when I can do it myself" is the modern ethos. Despite the fact that some are good, and some not so. Getting paint, canvas, brushes and painting is not so immediate, so it is still regarded as the preserve of "artists" because it is more hassle.
It is no harder to paint than photograph, and variation in results varies just as much, but the difference is seen in the marketplace, where cheap is nearly as good, so it will do, at the expense of exponents who really are good at what they do.
Quote: is photography just point and shoot and get lucky?
No, but even the good and the great will tell you that it partly relies on probability. The more objective you get about your photos the more you realise the limited worth of many of them, but more positively you might also see occasionally that you've produced something difficult to replicate. A glass-half-empty approach can be useful, providing you're driven and not consumed by it.
Quote: Sorry poor choice of words by iPhone! The commissioner will own the rights to use the photographs if the photos were taken at their request. If there is no written contract, there will still be an implied or verbal one, which is legally binding, but might require a court to decide on the usage allowed.
Simply, the middle man (and commissioner in this case) could use the photos as they see fit, and it would be up to the photographer to prove any ownership of intellectual rights. They aren't actually stealing the pictures if they commissioned them in the first place, but if there was an agreement to pay for any used, then maybe the OP should have specified the cost and conditions before starting.
Easy to say in hindsight, but taking pictures for someone on a loose promise is asking for confusion and possible exploitation.
Errrr no. A rather emphatic NO to most of what you said.
They certainly cannot "use the photos as they see fit" and this bit is totally wrong in the UK "The commissioner will own the rights to use the photographs if the photos were taken at their request."
They OWN whatever rights the copyright owner (the photographer) sells to them. Commissioning a photograph does NOT automatically confer any rights on the commissioner except that they might own the print or file. They DO NOT have the right to do anything with that print/file except look at it UNTIL they are expressly given usage rights by the copyright owner.
With no written agreement/license then yes, there could be an argument about "implied" usage but courts would err on the side of the photographer if the commissioner were to sell those photos onto or allow them to be used by a third party.
Quote: Hi fellow photographers,
Some is interesting in buying some of my photos to be used on his website.
How much would you sell your photos?
What resolution would you convert it before you sell them?
Is the limitation as to how long and for what purpose he can use the photos. Since he wants to use it on his website can he also use it on print, on leaflets, posters etc?
Congrats on getting interest in your work.
How much - how long is a piece of string. If they are "stock" images purely for website then 50-100 per image per year non-exclusive would be my estimate without knowing more.
Resolution - web res is normally 72 but I would discuss with the client - I would not supply anything over 150 for web only use
Limitations - are whatever you and the client discuss. They CANNOT, without your permission, use them for anything else. If they ask for web use only and you quote and give a license for that they if they use for anything else it is a copyright infringement.
If they want to use for print use etc then the price goes up accordingly (based on print run, size etc) and your license should reflect that.
Quote: Thanks guys,
A middle man asking me to sell my photos for £1 each. What do you think?
I think you should tell the middle man "thanks but no thanks".
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
This month's sponsor
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
30th April 2013 - 31st May 2013
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View May's Photo Month Calendar