Photo copyrights [Archive] - Chronicle Forums

ise@ssl

Oct. 14, 2004, 04:54 AM

We've discussed this before and find the extra charges that "show" photographers want to be so expensive that it isn't feasible for most horse owners.

Where the real issue lies is that many of these photographers are the EXCLUSIVE photographer for a show. So the horse owners have NO choice and that's where I have a problem. Too often the photographers are chosen, the fees are not made available ahead of the shows and/or they will even charge people to even shoot proofs (if you buy any or not).

If I take a horse to a show and have someone else that I use available to shoot photos - I feel I should have that choice. Afterall - the consumer (in this case the horse owner) has absolutely no ability to negotiate the fees for the product relating to quality as the system exists now. BUT - that photographer can use a photo of your horse for their own purposes!! Seems pretty one sided to me!

For our inspections here at our farm - we always use people who just SELL people the photograph and they can use it as many times as they want - but have to give the photographer credit.

We are building our website now and most of the photographs are ours, some professional which we have permission to use. It's sad that so many people cannot even advertise their own horses with huge additional fees to photographers on a yearly basis.

camohn

Oct. 14, 2004, 05:09 AM

I have found what the photographer will allow really is individual. The Big Name Photgrapher that took Boomer's pic at Devon: buying the photo for a big price included NO usage rates and the usage rates they wanted were absolutely insane (hundreds PER ad it was used in plus hundreds more for website use. I could buy ALL the rights for the bargain price of a couple thousand bucks. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif. It's hanging on my wall. That's IT. It is NOT worth 2 thousand bucks! Before even paying for the ads!) Another pro photographer just getting started was willing to trade an internet link on my site for the advertising value. Yet another small time a photographer was willing to let me use it for a hundred bucks in print and no fee on my website as long as her name was easily visible. Generally the bigger the photographer the more it will cost you. Find a nice small local photographer. It will cost me less to pay someone to go to a show to take pics than to buy them from a "show" sponsored photographer.

ise@ssl

Oct. 14, 2004, 07:08 AM

The unfortunate part of your situation with your horse at DAD is that you HAD NO CHOICE!! Quite honestly - I feel the competitors should be NOTIFIED what the fees will be before the show and if it's as ridiculously expensive as you've just indicated - YOU as the owner of the horse should be able to say to the photographer - YOU CANNOT PHOTOGRAPH MY HORSE!!
If you aren't going to purchase and/or use the photos - why should the photographer have them to use for profit??

I still can't get over the $2000 - GOOD GOD. You could have hired your own personal photographer to be there for the day for about 1/4 the price!

shadytrake

Oct. 14, 2004, 03:54 PM

ise@ssl,

You have every right to request "no photos please" Just put it on your entry and advise the in-gate person. They should announce it when you go into the arena. If not, let the horse show mgmt know.

This is done quite often at many of the shows I have attended.

Rainbow Farm Unltd.

Oct. 14, 2004, 04:51 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ise@ssl:
The unfortunate part of your situation with your horse at DAD is that you HAD NO CHOICE!! Quite honestly - I feel the competitors should be NOTIFIED what the fees will be before the show and if it's as ridiculously expensive as you've just indicated - YOU as the owner of the horse should be able to say to the photographer - YOU CANNOT PHOTOGRAPH MY HORSE!!
If you aren't going to purchase and/or use the photos - why should the photographer have them to use for profit?? [ENDQUOTE]

The Official Show Photographer is just that, the Official Photographer. He/she/they have a contract with the show management to be there. No other photographer is allowed to shoot photographs for sale in most of the Official Photographer agreements, and the show management will back this up. There are, of course, variations everywhere, but what i'm saying is that most ethical photographers will not go to someone else's show and shoot your horse. And whether the photographer shoots you and your horse or not, you are never obligated to buy a photo, unless you completed and signed something where you agreed to a purchase.

For photographers to use your photograph (this only applies to people) for something else, they must get a written release from you, so you definitely have control over this situation.

Photo credits on websites do not pay the rent, so your experienced pros won't usually do this. There are enormous expenses involved in shooting big shows, and most of you would not be happy with inferior photos.

You always have a choice of mentioning this sort of thing to the show management, however show management usually bow to their competitor majority.

I am not saying this to start anything - this discussion has been on these forums a few times before, and some have been most unpleasant. I am simply pointing out some simple facts from a show photographer's point of view. And I will add that shooting horse shows is unbelievably long, grueling and incredibly hard work. So please don't be too hard on us until you've been in our shoes.

Thanks for listening,
Barb Young Photography

Oct. 14, 2004, 08:08 PM

Boy, having spent 6 days at DAD that averaged 13 hours each, on my feet, carrying heavy cameras, only getting a chance to sit down when I went to the loo, dodging rain drops and projectile baby horses; having flowing myself, Susan Sexton and my assistant a total of 14,000 miles to be there, and now today having spent my tenth 12-hour day in a row sitting in front of this darned computer to get the 12,000 photos we shot ready for posting, I am feeling a bit unloved.

Not to mention that the prices being thrown about here have no basis in my reality. Let me make this clear, so there is no confusion among my clients: those are not MY prices you are quoting.

You can always go to my website and download whatever pricing information that you require. Or pick price sheets up at my stand, before you sign up for photos. I don't like surprises, and I don't expect that you do, either.

That's all I've got time for. I have another few hours of work, then I have to get on a plane to my next show in the morning.

Sheesh.

ise@ssl

Oct. 14, 2004, 10:05 PM

The reality of being a photographer is that you have to be on your feet and putting in a lot of hours on specific days at horse shows. Not wanting to sound hard hearted here - but if I have a friend who is willing to take photos of my horse or if I want to myself when someone else is handling the horse - why can't that be allowed?

And the reality of the prices quoted on here do seem to be for more photographers than most people realize!! Why someone should be pay a huge fee to use a photo they have paid for once makes no sense to me. And I'm not so sure it holds true that people have to give permission for photos of their horses to be used by the photographer or the "show" in publications, etc.

Competition is what keeps pricing down - with exclusives there are always problems with pricing. Yes - I understand at smaller shows it's hard to find photographers but we've found for our inspections we either use people who are not pros or pros that just sell the rights with the photo for a reasonable price and pay them a per diam fee to be there. Most people showing horses - especially at breed shows are NOT the big named farms who can absorb such huge prices.

Rainbow Farm Unltd.

Oct. 15, 2004, 04:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> ...but if I have a friend who is willing to take photos of my horse or if I want to myself when someone else is handling the horse - why can't that be allowed? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is allowed, of course. What is not allowed (usually - always check with the show management or the Official) is other photographers selling their photos from that particular show. If you take photos of your own horses (I do frequently) or a friend takes photos for you, but doesn't SELL them to you, there is no problem. It's other photographers making money from a show where there is an Official Photographer that is a problem.

I was recently at a Welsh show in Tulsa where there was an Official Photographer. I went and introduced myself and was sure to tell him I would only be shooting my own ponies from the sidelines, and made sure he shot the win shots (Grand Champion Half Welsh http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) To me this is a courtesy from pro to pro, but there were many moms and dads with cameras, snapping away.

hth,
Barb Young Photography

ThreeCorgis

Oct. 15, 2004, 06:06 AM

Not too much to add as I agree with Ilona 100%.
I can say that I applaud the photographers that have proofs online available to download! At our inspections last year I had to pay $60 just to get proof sheets which took weeks to receive!
On those proof sheets, much to my dismay, I had many shots of Karsten examining my babies' mouths/bites, a few very nice shots of my back and parts of my babies....and some shots taken at moments that made me wonder how this particular photographer has become one of the biggest and stayed in business all these years....granted out inspection was not Madison Square Garden but truly there were maybe 2 moments captured worthy of paying $100s for http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Rainbow Farm Unltd.

Oct. 15, 2004, 06:33 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>....and some shots taken at moments that made me wonder how this particular photographer has become one of the biggest and stayed in business all these years....granted out inspection was not Madison Square Garden but truly there were maybe 2 moments captured worthy of paying $100s for. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Specific photographer complaints might be better served by talking to your inspection host and perhaps getting another photographer next year, if you're not happy. There is a very helpful members directory at EquinePhotographers.net.

Barb Young Photography

Cartier

Oct. 15, 2004, 06:44 AM

To echo what Three Corgis said… I am more than happy to use the official photographer (whether with the dogs or the horses). A good photographer is worth their weight in gold and the images they can capture can be priceless. (We once built an entire website around Susan Sexton photos which were absolutely stunning and worth every cent. And I’ve seen Terri Miller photos that could make you cry they are so beautiful.)

But it can be very disappointing to receive back photos that were all taken a moment too soon or a moment too late, reflecting that the photographer hadn’t a clue when to snap the shot. Moments in competition are just that… moments… and one has only a very brief opportunity to capture something useful on film. When the moment is gone… it’s gone forever.

In the best of all worlds it’d be nice to have an interested third party with a good camera capturing shots so at least you’d have something from the event just in case the official photographer screwed up.

jumpgirl

Oct. 15, 2004, 07:02 AM

I think many photographers have gotten out of hand with their "usage" fees. Terri and Susan, in my experience, are very professional and their pricing is right up front. They are tops in their field and charge a top quality fee.

However, the average horse show photographer is completely out of control. I personally will not buy any photo that has a usage fee and make myself clear with any event I attend that they should only use photographers who sell the photos "royalty free".

In addition, I have brought my own photographers to major shows as well as my own videographers without any problems. These professionals are hired on a "work for hire" basis and I own all rights - as it should be. My people can not go into the ring with the official show photographers but have never had any trouble getting the shots I need from outside the ring.

As far as working hard, most of us work hard for our professions.

Oct. 15, 2004, 07:51 AM

Thanks, JumpGirl & Cartier for the kind words!

You know, I expect to work hard. I love my work, and I wouldn't know what to do with myself if I wasn't working my tail off at my art & photography! But when I'm in the middle of working at my absolute hardest, on getting the DAD images ready, it's really difficult to read a statement like this:

>>The unfortunate part of your situation with your horse at DAD is that you HAD NO CHOICE!! Quite honestly - I feel the competitors should be NOTIFIED what the fees will be before the show >>

...which, when read after the post previous, implied that I was overcharging, and that I hadn't been up front with my clients, neither of which I believe is true.

I try always to do the fair thing, both for my clients and for myself. Fair to you so you'll not only have photos that you treasure, but so you'll have an enjoyable experience in getting them. Fair to myself so I can stay in business to keep getting the photos for you!

And as Barbara has mentioned, if you have a complaint about a specific photographer, bring that up with the management of the show or inspection.

Off to the airport.

Fairview Horse Center

Oct. 15, 2004, 08:19 AM

I have on quite a few occasions, brought my own "amateur" photographer to Devon. I pay for her days time, I buy the film, and I take the film and pay for the processing. There has never been a problem of her shooting for me there. In most cases, she has gotten the "better shot", but then she has been told to waste LOTS of film, so she just keeps snapping. The "better shot", however often comes with some baggage that the "pros" shots dont. Sometimes that "shot" is just a bit fuzzy. I truly don't care, as I would rather have a shot that is slightly fuzzy, than one that is not just what I am looking for. There has been no problem with her going into the ring either, but she does have to sign a handlers release, and get an armband.

I have also paid for usage fees for Terri Miller, Susan Sexton, and Peggy Smith when they have gotten "the" shot. I don't have a problem with that. I had also always purchased all (or at least most) of the photo proofs I was sent as well. I just felt that is was a courtesy of them taking the shot, and I wanted it to remain "worth their while" to shoot my horses so in case they had something I wanted, I could use it. I did stop purchasing however, when the proofs went to being printed on the cardboard type paper. I don't mind paying for their time, but I did want at least a nice glossy to look at, and use in my farm album, even if small.

A group of shots taken at Devon by my "amateur" (Thanks Michelle Dykhuizen http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif) is attached. A few are not sharp, but still have been fine even for magazines in smaller size - a good excuse for me not to have to pay for that full page ad http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

Cartier

Oct. 15, 2004, 08:48 AM

Your "amateur" shots are very nice.. I agree they are not as sharp and clear as those I’ve seen of Terri’s and Susan’s … but they are more than sufficient to convey a sense of your lovely horse and the event… they get the job done… and frankly I’d kill for shots of their quality from the last event we attended (which I will not name for fear of offending anyone).

camohn

Oct. 15, 2004, 12:24 PM

I do understand how hard phtographers work and have no gripe with paying them something. The photo from photographer X (this was last year, BTW) at the Devon show was 60.00 for a 5 x 7. I am OK with that. It was a very nice picture. It came with the notice that NO usage of the photo was included in the purchase and that had to be purchased separately. I am still OK with that. No rates were included and I had to get those sent to me. I was a bit disappointed when the usage fee ran a couple hundred bucks but am still OK with paying that until I read that it is a couple hundred PER print publication PER issue run. Plus an additional 300.00 per year for website usage. Now for one photo that gets seriously unaffordable. (It was not Terri or Susan). I went so far as to write back to the photographer and tell them that. Offered to negotiate on the usage rates. They told me "too bad. rates are non negotiable." For this person they had an opportunity to make some additional money and chose no money over less money http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif. I can't speak for all show photographers by a long shot. Just my personal scary rate experience with this one.

ljshorses

Oct. 15, 2004, 01:26 PM

I totally agree with camohn!! I am so glad my daughter is taking an interest in photography. I am sure she will still charge me, but hopefully I will get a "family" rate. I am using a very good photographer right now who is I guess, not considered a "pro". He does exceptional work, very reasonably priced and at this time is not charging additional usage fees. I do give him credit on my website and of course, purchase the photos I use. I fear the day when he charges additional fees and hope it never comes. If and when it does, I hope my daughter will be up to speed. I don't know about the rest of you, but horses are expensive enough and I can't warrant spending above and beyond what I feel is a reasonable affordable fee.

www.lazyjsporthorses.com (http://www.lazyjsporthorses.com)

shadytrake

Oct. 15, 2004, 06:36 PM

For those of you who think the prices are too high, I suggest that you take a couple of Photography classes at your local University. The last class I took cost me over a $1000 in supplies (not including my time/labor) for a short summer session.

I know we live in a digital world now, but for the really nice (what I call full-bleed quality color or b/w) prints, the costs of film, paper, chemicals, and processing equipment are very high. It is not just the cost of the camera. Those telephoto lenses that capture "the shot" can cost upwards of $2000 each. A nice quality color paper can cost about $75/box of 50 sheets. For those of you who do you own printing, you know it sometimes takes several sheets to get the color balance correct. You are lucky if you get it on the first try.

Plus, if no one buys any photos from the show, they are out all of the upfront costs and they still have to pay their crew. Bottom line, walk in their shoes for a show and you might change your mind.

Alagirl

Oct. 15, 2004, 07:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> In most cases, she has gotten the "better shot", but then she has been told to waste LOTS of film, so she just keeps snapping. The "better shot", however often comes with some baggage that the "pros" shots dont. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't think for a minute that pro's don't *waste* film. A friend of my sister was a photographer, had early on some pictures of his in *Madame* magazine...he told me once that it takes a few rolls of film to get a person relaxed enough to get a good portrait! And that in a situation he can control!

Just look at all those horse calenders, some times the pictures are godawefull, one has to wonder what ended up on the cutting room floor!

Show pictures are relatively easy to take ( http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif at our Pro's) you know where the horse is going to be, sooner or later, be it over a jump or at a specific spot in the Dressage arena...I have spent numerous hours *stalking* horses in the pasture, getting only a few good chances, even less results.

jumpgirl

Oct. 15, 2004, 07:15 PM

shadytrake,

I won't change my mind. Every business takes a lot of capital and often times, a lot of expensive education to get into, photography does not have any speciality in that area at all. For example, do you know how much a commercial copier costs? Several thousands of dollars, yet I can still buy a copy for about .10 cents.

Just think if everyone who developed a brochure, postcard, flier, catalog, etc demanded royalties - everyone from the photographer, to the graphic artist, to the copywriter to the printer. What if they all wanted their name credited and royalities every year the piece was used!!!! Imagine if your interior designer charged you a yearly fee until such time when you redecorate. How about the landscape designer? How about the architect to your house? The list could go on. Somehow, photographers think they are more artistic than other artists and deserve more.

The trick is to refuse to deal with those photographers and tell them why. The market will push the trend to royalty free as it is already doing.

Fairview Horse Center

Oct. 15, 2004, 08:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Alagirl:
Don't think for a minute that pro's don't *waste* film. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, not like I do http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif To shoot a couple of my horses for 1 day at Devon, we "wasted" about 10 rolls of film http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif 250 pics to get a few, but it was so worth it.

ise@ssl

Oct. 16, 2004, 05:04 AM

I agree with camohn on the additional fees being too high. $300 a year for a website photo is for most breeders just off the wall. And I do feel there are photographers who would make MUCH MORE MONEY if they sold attractive and affordable "package deals" for the photos. Afterall - some money is still more than NO money (must be my financial background) http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Also they could require if the photos are used on websites that the user have a link to the photographers site!

It just seems to be such an inflexible situation in so many cases and as many of us who breed know - some of the photos have a short shelf life for us as the foals grow and change.

Paula

Oct. 16, 2004, 06:11 AM

There are some of us that are going the per diem route. I personally charge a flat fee per day for pictures and then the client gets all usage rights on the photos. I've been doing this for a number of large breeding farms and shows (well for shows I sell by the individual picture or by the dressage test but I don't charge extra for web or advertising usage) and it works out well and affordably for everyone. For the breeder it often works out to less than a $1.00 per usable picture often and for me I charge a real wage for my costs in terms of time/supplies. No I'll never make a huge income doing it this way, but I'm making a living doing what I love and enjoying taking pictures of some awesome horses and meeting some great people.

Paula Chmura
Paula C Photography (http://www.finnskeeper.net)

shadytrake

Oct. 16, 2004, 05:48 PM

Jumpgirl,

So I guess that you think just because you buy that record album with the really cool song that you should have the right to stream the music on your personal website??? I doubt ASCAP and BMI would agree with you.

If you wrote a song and it became a big hit, how would you feel if people used it without your permission on their website to MARKET their products (whatever they may be) without giving you compensation?

I think you would change your tune. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

Fairview Horse Center

Oct. 16, 2004, 06:11 PM

Well, not to get into a fight, but actually the photographer does not create the horse, THE BREEDER DOES! And I think the breeder probably has a lot more invested money into that horse than a percentage oft he equipment used to take the photo. So, I'm thinking the photographer should have to give the breeder a "Credit" http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Fairview Horse Center

Oct. 16, 2004, 06:14 PM

and if you think photography classes and equipment are costly, you should have to pay for a $30,000. broodmare, or an $800,000. farm. or maybe a $50,000. tractor - not to mention the education it takes to learn about bloodlines, training, foaling, etc. "MY" art is very costly to create!

shadytrake

Oct. 16, 2004, 06:30 PM

Fairview,

Exactly! Thank you for making my point. You certainly wouldn't want to give away your "art." http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

And that is the last I have to say on this subject. Y'all play nice now. Bye.

Fairview Horse Center

Oct. 16, 2004, 06:47 PM

OK, you write a song, and your band plays and sings it in a public place. Someone records it. They try to sell it back to you. Even if you don't want it, they still have the right to sell it, market copies of it, use it to promote themselves, etc. Fair? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

ljshorses

Oct. 16, 2004, 07:39 PM

Wait a minute...I have heard music on websites when I log on and also on stallion videos when I play them. Did everyone pay rights to use that music??? I am sure they (stallion owners, website designers) did not pay for the use of that background music...correct me if I'm wrong. I think this is getting carried away. I think we should pay for a product and then be able to use that product how we like. I am sure the creator of some famous muscian's guitar did not ask for royalties everytime it was played in a concert. He may have paid hansomely for that magnificent guitar, but once paid for it was up to him to use it to it's full potential.

www.lazyjsporthorses.com (http://www.lazyjsporthorses.com)

jumpgirl

Oct. 16, 2004, 08:00 PM

Ha Ha http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

What about everytime a song is played at a restaurant? And, really, I think it is perfectly fine to play a song on a website or whatever. Also, I have heard many many popular songs played on stallion videos and sales tapes. I don't think they paid extra fees. But we are talking about photographers and again, no one PLEASE, hire a photographer on any basis other than work for hire.

ise@ssl

Oct. 17, 2004, 05:59 AM

Gee! - I've always thought that advertisements, articles, etc. that have images of horses should IDENTIFY the horse!

How many times to you read articles and horses are being ridden or used for various demonstrations and they get no credit! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ree

Oct. 20, 2004, 02:47 AM

I don't think many appreciate the expense and time investment of todays photogrphers or the fact that they have to feed themselves and their families. A show photographer spends many hours that aren't seen working after the shot. Todays world demands that they can view those shots ASAP. This means digital equipment, computers, professional software, and these things are outdated every couple of years, so you have to reinvest. This is all speculation on the photographers part, they aren't paid to be there unless the competitors purchase their images.

So, yes, we charge a useage fee and if we don't we won't be in business long.

camohn

Oct. 20, 2004, 05:26 AM

I don't think anyone is arguing that there should not be a usage fee.......just that some are priced to the point it is not feasable/realisitic for a horse owner to buy the rights. Most of us are not Hilltop Farm. If I had to pay 300. a year for each photo used on my website it would be impossible. 200.00 per print ad per issue also adds up really fast. Equipment is a buiness expense to be depreciated and written off on taxes as a business expense. Yes, you do need to pay for that stuff and I do appreciate the cost of purchasing and paying for it. Just like I have to pay the mortgage of my farm and feed the horses I sell. Those are my business expenses from the horse end. But regardless of those expenses if the product is priced too high no one is going to buy it. Then I still have the expenses and not many sales to cover it. What I am getting at is reasonable fees = more business volume. The show I was at with the really expensive use prices: I wanted to use that photo to advertise the colt. 4 other people I knew at the show had horses for sale and wanted to use the show pic with Junior all braided up for a sales ad. The show photographer had all the same expenses at that show weather we bought the photo or not....so I see it as selling the rights is an opportunity to make some of that money back. If I can afford it I am happy to support that photographer. All 5 of us took one look at the use rates after we got the photos and said "nope....can't afford those rates....not using the picture" and on the wall it went. There comes a point of pricing yourself out of the market. It's no different than a similar thread going recently about pricing foals vs production expenses. You can sell the foal for what the foal is worth to the buying public. If you start pricing a foal too high to make up for excessive breeding expenses on that hard to breed mare or losses on another foal then you have an overpriced foal no one wants to buy. You can make the argument "this mare needed all these covers and Regumate at 200 a bottle to stay in foal.......this foal cost me 6,000 to produce." If the foal is not worth 6K and you insist on getting 6K for it you are going to have that foal for a long time! Now you are out the 6K with NO return on the investment. If you do that very much, yeah, you won't be in business very long. With the photographer and their travel expenses and equipment expenses or the breeder that has shelled out all these fees to produce that foal you are out the money regardless as a production expense. It then becomes a matter of realistic pricing to recoup your investment. With more realisitic use rate pricing that particular photographer would have gone home with 5 folks willing to pay lower use fees instead of no one willing to pay any of it. (Especially in the case of this photographer when we offered to negotiate a lower use rate and they declined. I guess I see that as rejecting offered money.)

ljshorses

Oct. 20, 2004, 05:32 AM

Camohn,
You are exactly right, in my opinion! I agree with you completely. I have no problem paying for the product, but the price has to be reasonable. A lot of us "horse" people rely on the income of our horse breeding business, i.e. puts food on the table for our children as well. Reasonable costs would allow photographers to sell more and us hard working, but not wealthy breeders to be able to afford it and use the photographs to help us promote ourselves and our products as well as the photographer's art. It should be a win/win situation.

www.lazyjsporthorses.com (http://www.lazyjsporthorses.com)

ShowJumps

Oct. 20, 2004, 08:19 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>You have every right to request "no photos please" Just put it on your entry and advise the in-gate person. They should announce it when you go into the arena. If not, let the horse show mgmt know.

This is done quite often at many of the shows I have attended. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most major shows have a stipulation on the prizelist that allows them (or thier agent) to photograph/video you and your horse and to use the images as they wish. By entering the show you agree to those terms. Just another reason to read the prizelist carefully.

cmannphoto

Oct. 20, 2004, 10:46 AM

This all sounds very familiar to a thread a while back, “Professional pictures and fees for use” in Off Course. The problem as I see it is a lack of education both with some photographers and the buying public. I believe that a photographer should have their fees posted upfront so that the client knows exactly what they are getting. On the other hand the buyer should read all the terms and ask questions before they buy. We are all to busy now a day to stop and read anything. Both parties should be ready and willing to negotiate the licensing fee(s) and rights to the image(s).

There is a big difference between an 8x10 that is bought to hang on your wall and the licensing rights to use an image on a web site or in a magazine as a sale ad. The web site or magazine image has now become a marketing tool and is worth more. It has become your spokes person. Like they say a photo is worth a thousand words. A great photo can make the difference in weather the horse you have for sale, sells and for what price. Why do you think that main stream advertising have large budgets for advertising photography?

I am always amazed at how many people in the equine world think that photographers charge too much or should give images away for free. I can’t tell you how many times I have been asked for FREE Photos. Just because “Jane or John Doe” has a camera and takes a picture and gives it to you at a low rate or even for free does not mean that every other photographer has to do the same. This fact is a major problem. There are too many Wannabes who don’t understand the business model of photography.

I run a professional photography business and have cost of doing business for example: equipment, insurance, supplies, travel, rent, taxes, repairs, health care, etc to name a few. All those things add up and need to be calculated into the fees that I and other professional photographers charge for our work. I have had to raise my rates to cover the added cost of doing business and to deter the penny pinchers. It is not worth my time to deal with someone that nickels and dimes me to death. I would rather pass on that sale and give my regular customers that attention they deserve.

Showjumps makes a good point about entry forms and the terms of a show. Just another example of the importance of reading all the terms and conditions of every transaction you do.

Jumpgirl, where do you get the idea that all photographers should sell their images as Royalty Free? Do you even know the meaning of Royalty Free? You said, yourself, that you hire photographers on “Work for Hire” terms. If that be the case then keep hiring them and don’t deal with the photographer who’s terms you do not like. Nobody is forcing you to buy photos.

Charles Mann
www.cmannphoto.com (http://www.cmannphoto.com)

jumpgirl

Oct. 20, 2004, 01:39 PM

Charles,

I will keep hiring photographers on a work for hire basis and I am advising all others to do the same. Nobody will force me to buy anything for terms I don't agree with and I never said anyone was.

My post is to educate others that there are plenty of very good professional photographers who are not wannabes that sell photos for reasonable terms. My advice to everyone here is to support ONLY those photographers. Tell the rest "No Thanks!"

As far as being nickled and dimed, I guess your market is the big farms that need lots of photos for lots of different uses. That is fine - work your market. Nobody is forcing you to take photos of the single horse owner's horse or the small farm owner who just needs a handful of sale horse photos. Please stay away from the average horse show and let a photographer who WANTS that market to shoot it. Again, no one is forcing you to take photos of a market your don't like to deal with.

cmannphoto

Oct. 20, 2004, 03:04 PM

Jumpgirl

All this comes down to - you get what you paid for, if you are happy with the product, price and terms, all the better. Just because somebody ruffled your feathers over licensing terms does not mean those are bad photographers (OK some might be). I will be the first to agree that some photographers need to understand the concept of licensing images and conveying that to their customers.
The ownership of the image is written in the copyright law, which started back in May of 1790, and is NOT something that has been made up by photographers. From the www.copyright.gov (http://www.copyright.gov) web site: ”Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.” And yes the copyright code addresses “Work for Hire.” Like I have said before, everybody on this issue needs to be educated on their rights, from the photographer to the person buying the print or licensing rights to that image.
Why is one horse worth $1,000 and another $10,000 and other is $100,000??? They all have 4 legs, one has white socks and the other does not and the other might only have 3 white socks. So why the big price difference? Just because one performs better then the other? Well the same can be said for one photographer’s work over another. Or one horse is temperamental and the other is well mannered. The same holds true to the photographers.

BTW, I will go to any show I want to, if they want to buy from me fine and if then don’t that’s ok too. It does not matter what my market is. The same rules apply, weather I am dealing with a one horse owner or 100 horse owner. The same hold true if I am dealing with a publication of 500 or 500,000 circulation. It is up to me to make the decision to adjust my price or the terms.

Charlie Mann
www.cmannphoto.com (http://www.cmannphoto.com)

Fairview Horse Center

Oct. 20, 2004, 03:28 PM

Shows hire photographers because people want them. You can change things if enough people want to change. Devon hires Terri Miller and Susan Sexton because they are the best. In previous years, I for one complained because Terri was in one ring, but the photographer in the other was not getting the quality of shots that Terri was. I was THRILLED to see Susan in the other ring a year or 2 later. Hey, IT's DEVON!!

However, all things are subject to change if enough people going to a show wants it to. Start a campaign to any of the shows you are going to. Contact other competitors to petition management. I personally would like to see the pricing changed, but what works for me may not work for others. I would love to see an inclusive price for all shots, but I am guessing most people would flip at a photographer charging a flat fee of maybe $100. per digital file. Something like that would mean if you wanted 7 3x5s it would cost you $700. even if you only wanted it for your album. (I can see that going over well http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif) We are all so different, with different needs. There is a solution - one I have used. Hire your own, or hire one with a group of friends.

jumpgirl

Oct. 20, 2004, 03:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It is up to me to make the decision to adjust my price or the terms.

Of course it is. But if you don't want to get nickled and dimed, as you put it, and only want to deal with "your regular customers", I wouldn't think the average horse show participate would be for you.

Lets face it, most are not looking for a photo of the quality of a magazine cover. And most of the photos that I've seen from the photographers at HITS, Conyers, Lexington, etc. wouldn't come close to making a magazine cover shot. Yet, many want to charge that way. Most are very average in quality at best.

Again, my advice: Only buy a photo with all rights included or hire your own photographer on a work for hire basis.

nhwr

Oct. 20, 2004, 03:34 PM

It does seem a bit one-sided to me that owners and competitors are required, as a condition of entry to a horse show, to sign a photographer's release, however. (Meaning the photographers have the right to photograph and market photos of you and/or your horse without even mentioning, crediting or otherwise compensating you).

ise@ssl

Oct. 20, 2004, 03:40 PM

From a financial standpoint I find the argument about capital investment in equipment, etc. to be an argument that applies to all goods and services - so in this instance photographers or horse owners - its the same and moot point.

Where the "rubber meets the road" is that competitions "hire" photographers to be the "Official" photographers and I'm not so sure they ever ask what their terms and fees will be to the horse owners. They just have them there and often they are the "exclusive" show photographer - so there goes the free market concept of using the professional that offers you the most bang for your buck.

And as an analyst I do feel strongly if photographers were more creative about their "packaging", etc. THEY WOULD MAKE MORE MONEY! What a concept! When the photographer takes the photos at shows the "fixed" costs are there for every single photo - whether the image sells or not. I believe if the photographers analysed if they had some different package deals to attract MORE customers the variable cost of providing the image to them becomes negligable and they DO recover the fixed cost.

No one is denying a photographer their copyrights to the image - but it cannot make any money sitting in a drawer. Doesn't it become another fixed cost to just warehouse these images??

Unfortunately due to scheduling we could not have the photographers we've used for three years at our inspections. They shot digital photos, had the images there to show the owners/breeders, they selected the ones they like (the photographers would even crop them right there). There was a flat fee per photo and another flat fee if they bought "x" number of photos on a CD rom. The owners/breeders were free to use the photos as many times as they wanted to in any medium. It has always been a huge success for the buyers and a huge financial success for the photographers.

And a great photo is a great photo - but it isn't a "deal" breaker in most horse sales. In the breeding business we have a short shelf life as the horses grow and change. We have NEVER failed to have permission to use photographs and we have NEVER failed to give credit on photos but there is a limit to the value.

If a stallion owner sends me flyers for their stallion with images and I put the flyer in sales information for a foal by that stallion - am I supposed to PAY for the use of those photos as well? Really - where does it end.

And again - what if a photographer takes a photo of your horse at a show and it ends up in a magazine or press release and it IS NOT a great shot of your horse - what's the horse owners recourse for this mis-representation?

Most people posting here are not saying they aren't willing to pay for photos - but the "free market" aspect seems to be missing and the "choice" is often non-existent in many venues.

cmannphoto

Oct. 20, 2004, 03:44 PM

nhwr

Careful now, the show releases that I have seen only give the show management the right to use images taken at the show to promote their show. Also, some photographers invoice, order form or sign up sheet may also give them permission to use images to promote their photography.

Now, none of this allows the show management or photographer, unless otherwise stated to market that image. In other words they can not use an image of you for an unrelated advertisement without your permission.

Again, I go back to my first comment about reading and understanding the terms of any deal you enter into. Whether it is entering a show or buying a print from a photographer. You need to know and understand your rights.

Charlie Mann
www.cmannphoto.com (http://www.cmannphoto.com)

cmannphoto

Oct. 20, 2004, 04:24 PM

ise@ssl,

You make some very good points. I am very surprised at the attitude of some show photographers, when it comes to exclusivity at shows. I am not a “show photographer” and when I go to some shows I get accosted by some photographers. Or what I call lens envy. The only way that some of these people make sales is by monopolizing the show and not letting anybody else in to shoot. I can understand stand that to a point, but I can also see the rider/owner perspective of wanting ton see a selection. I am a firm believer in a free market society. I welcome the competition because it makes me work harder to create images that people will WANT to buy, not that they HAVE to buy.

As far as the stallion flyer, like I said before it now has become a spokes person and you are using it to sell a product.

You asked “what’s the horse owner’s recourse for miss representation.” Well the question is whether they actually caused you harm or defamed you. An example of this happened several years ago when a magazine did an article of what not to wear at a horse show. They put black boxes over the horse’s and rider’s faces. They got a complaint about one of the images used. The image was taken at a public show and because the publication made an effort to disguise the horse and rider they have the right to use it for editorial use.

Just because you may not like the way your horse looks in an image does not mean it can’t be used. The photographer or publication can use it for editorial use. Now if they are taking about illegal drug use they either need to do 2 things. 1) get permission from the rider/owner, if the do not already have proof of the illegal use or 2) put a disclaimer in the photo caption. Look in the Parade magazine, in the Sunday’s paper, at the photo credits for medical articles. They have a disclaimer that “Models were used for illustration”, even though most of these images have been licensed from a stock photography agency where the photographer have already gotten a release.

Education is the bottom line.

Charlie Mann
www.cmannphoto.com (http://www.cmannphoto.com)

nhwr

Oct. 20, 2004, 05:45 PM

Oh, I get it cman. The photographers don't exploit owners and riders. They only make the photos available to show management so they can exploit the owners and riders http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Seriously though, how can photographers then mail riders proofs in an attempt to market their photos? Or how can they claim to hold the copyright on an image that is being used without a release of the subject?

cmannphoto

Oct. 20, 2004, 06:35 PM

Nhwr

With the issue of show management exploiting your image, it is up to you to read your entry form completely and understand the repercussions of you agreeing to the terms.

Images taken at public events are fair game for editorial use and show photographers. There are 4 basic ways I can not lawfully use an image of you.

To “Intrusion upon another’s seclusion” you three elements need to be present.
1) there must be actual intrusion
2) the intrusion must be the type that would be offensive to a reasonable person; courts will not consider the particular sensibilities of the plantiff
3) the intruder must have entered that which is considered someone’s private domain
In other words, if I trespass on your private property to get the picture, then you have a case. If I am invited then you don’t.

Here is another way “Portrayal of another in a false light.” For example, if I licensed a photo for an editorial article and they captioned it with something that is false and harmful to your reputation. Then yes you can do something about it.

Then there is “Commercial appropriation of another’s name or likeness.” This is where a company can not use your likeness to promote there product. Why do you think all these athletes make big bucks endorsing products?

Finally, “Public disclosure of private facts.” Say I was asked by a magazine to do a photo shoot of someone going to a horse show and I took a picture of your entry form that has personal information. Then the magazine ran that picture and everybody could read your, lets say, social security number, birthday and address. That would be disclosing private facts that could lead to identity theft.

The above information from “The Law (in plain English) for Photographers” by Leonard D. Duboff, Allworth Press.

The copyright law states ”Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.” With that being said I own the copyright of the image, but that does not mean I can do anything with that image.

So as you can see, there is a lot that the photographer has to understand and know, along with your need to know and understand your rights.

Charlie Mann
www.cmannphoto.com (http://www.cmannphoto.com)

Rainbow Farm Unltd.

Oct. 20, 2004, 06:40 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Or how can they claim to hold the copyright on an image that is being used without a release of the subject? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think CMann dealt with this previously. Photographers can't use a photo of a person without a release, unless it is for editorial use. In other words I cannot sell or use a photo of you without a written Model Release from you. However a newspaper or magazine that takes a photo of you at a horse show can use it without a release from you for editorial purposes to illustrate a story. That's the difference. If you go to any photographer's website, you can be sure that the people in the photos there have signed a release for the photographer to be able to use their photo.

HTH,
Barb Young Photography

nhwr

Oct. 20, 2004, 06:50 PM

cman, I understand what it says on entry forms. As I said initially, I just don't like it very much.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> “Commercial appropriation of another’s name or likeness.” <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean like taking my picture without my permission and then trying to sell it to me?

cmannphoto

Oct. 20, 2004, 07:11 PM

Nwhr,

No, I can offer to sell you the photos. I can not license them to someone else to make money from them. Like I tried to illustrate earlier, “Commercial appropriation of another’s name or likeness.” This is where a company can not use your likeness to promote there product. Why do you think all these athletes make big bucks endorsing products? Say, I licensed a photo of you to a feed company without your permission. That I can not do without your permission.

Another example is the other year I had an art director that left one company and started her own business. She had on her laptop photos of mine that she did not delete as per my delivery contract. She created a full page ad using one of my photos to promote a brand of saddles for a tack shop. The rider in the photo already had a deal with another saddle maker. She almost caused the rider to loose their endorsement from the saddle maker.

She was in triple trouble. 1) for using my photo without my permission
2) using a photo of a recognizable horse and rider without the horse owner’s and riders permission 3) not deleting the images as per my delivery contract.

Charlie Mann
www.cmannphoto.com (http://www.cmannphoto.com)

jumpgirl

Oct. 20, 2004, 07:34 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> The copyright law states ”Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.” With that being said I own the copyright of the image, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unless the photographer is hired as "work for hire". Then the person hiring owns all the rights to the photos, not the photographer. The photographer does not have any control over any of the photos.

cmannphoto

Oct. 20, 2004, 07:39 PM

Jumpgirl

You are sounding more like Northbeach with every statement.

If you read the next sentence in that post you would have seen I included that “And yes the copyright code addresses “Work for Hire.” Like I have said before, everybody on this issue needs to be educated on their rights, from the photographer to the person buying the print or licensing rights to that image.”

Why such a big chip on your shoulder???

Charlie Mann
www.cmannphoto.com (http://www.cmannphoto.com)

nhwr

Oct. 20, 2004, 08:08 PM

cman,

You say that a business entity "can not use your likeness to promote there (sic) product."

Isn't that exactly what the photographer is doing when they take a photo without the permission of the subject and then market it to them, taking my likeness and promoting their photos?

Fairview Horse Center

Oct. 20, 2004, 08:19 PM

Are there definitions anywhere as to the difference between a service, a product, and an art form? What exactly makes a service an art?

nhwr

Oct. 20, 2004, 08:53 PM

Art isn't the only thing that is copyrightable. Software, schematics and certain types of computer designs are protected by copyrights.

The difference with photography is that it is not really the creation of an image, it is the capture of an image. Yes, the photographer recognizes it, frames it, shoots it. They may manipulate or enhance it, in some unusual way. But they don't create it the way an author writes a book, an engineer lays out a printed circuit board or a painter paints a painting.

Rainbow Farm Unltd.

Oct. 21, 2004, 06:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by nhwr:
Art isn't the only thing that is copyrightable. Software, schematics and certain types of computer designs are protected by copyrights.

The difference with photography is that it is not really the creation of an image, it is the capture of an image. Yes, the photographer recognizes it, frames it, shoots it. They may manipulate or enhance it, in some unusual way. But they don't create it the way an author writes a book, an engineer lays out a printed circuit board or a painter paints a painting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

** I disagree with your statement. If I'm shooting a show, I do way more that recognize a good shot, I set up, get familiar with the grounds, plan. I also have a different perception of a shot than someone else, the same as a painter or sculpture. There is way more to a good shot than pushing a button, and how is post production work different than art? The tools are different, but the skills and talent involved are not.
Barb Young Photography

Fairview Horse Center

Oct. 21, 2004, 07:00 AM

In my opinion, Photography is more of a craft than an art. Just like the woodworker that makes fine furniture, or the violin maker that crafts the fine instrument. Why would they not be considered just as much of an art as photography? What makes Photography fall under the "Art" laws. The violin maker can't charge usage fees every time it is used in a concert. The tools are different, but the skills and talent involved are not.

ise@ssl

Oct. 21, 2004, 07:38 AM

Well explain this to me. A fellow breeder took a photo of a horse she had bred at a horse show - the horse was very successful showing with the new owner.

On her website - she had photos of her horses out of each mare and used the shot SHE TOOK (without the handler showing in the photo) and the OWNER of the horse threatened to sue her for using the horse's image.

The breeder represented the mare as an offspring from her mare (who had many other successful show horses) and indicated the owners name of the mare.

Now - what would this owner be suing her for? It was a public venue, all the breeder was doing was stating facts that are public, name, owner, show record (also public). Oh - the owner wanted a big chunk of money to allow her to use the photo on her website!!

Rainbow Farm Unltd.

Oct. 21, 2004, 08:00 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Well explain this to me. A fellow breeder took a photo of a horse she had bred at a horse show - the horse was very successful showing with the new owner.

On her website - she had photos of her horses out of each mare and used the shot SHE TOOK (without the handler showing in the photo) and the OWNER of the horse threatened to sue her for using the horse's image. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

She can't sue. According to copyright law, horse are property, and not subject to the need for a release. Many photographers get property releases for horses, just to be safe, but it is not legally necessary, unless the horse is famous and recognizable to the general public, like Trigger or The Black Stallion or Secretariat. Refer to www.whatiscopyright.org, (http://www.whatiscopyright.org,) which is an excellent source of legally correct information.
hth, Barb Young Photography

Bent Hickory

Oct. 21, 2004, 09:01 AM

To be clear, she CAN sue, but she is not likely to WIN for the reasons you point out.

jcdill

Oct. 21, 2004, 09:05 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> And as an analyst I do feel strongly if photographers were more creative about their "packaging", etc. THEY WOULD MAKE MORE MONEY! What a concept! When the photographer takes the photos at shows the "fixed" costs are there for every single photo - whether the image sells or not. I believe if the photographers analysed if they had some different package deals to attract MORE customers the variable cost of providing the image to them becomes negligable and they DO recover the fixed cost. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have actually done some research on this and what I discovered is that most people have a budget in mind when they order show photos. The higher the photo prices, the fewer photos they order, the lower the photo prices the more photos they order but as a rule they do not SPEND MORE or change their decision to buy photos when the prices are lower. So, when a photographer lowers prices they just have more work (more photos to print) and more expenses (higher printing costs, which are NOT fixed costs) but they do not get more sales! Of course, this only works to a point, when prices are raised too high then most folks stop buying even if they can afford to buy one or two shots within their "photo budget" - they will then only buy if the photo is truly exceptional and they can't get a similar photo from a different photographer at another time.

jc

cmannphoto

Oct. 21, 2004, 09:21 AM

Well put JC.

Charlie Mann
www.cmannphoto.com (http://www.cmannphoto.com)

jcdill

Oct. 21, 2004, 09:28 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> The difference with photography is that it is not really the creation of an image, it is the capture of an image. Yes, the photographer recognizes it, frames it, shoots it. They may manipulate or enhance it, in some unusual way. But they don't create it the way an author writes a book, an engineer lays out a printed circuit board or a painter paints a painting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree with this. Your eye sees many things - not all of them accurate! Capturing this vision in a photograph is not easy, and the "art" of photography is finding a way to capture an image that is NOT easily seen, or captured. Many point-n-shoot photographers don't have a clue of the multitude of things (background, lighting, timing, camera body, lens, f-stop and shutter speed, film/digital/iso speed, pose, perspective, focal point, etc.) a professional photographer learns and choses from to enable them to capture a photo in a pleasing fashion.

After the technical bits have been learned, then there is the creative aspect. The best photographers will have the most creativity in their work. Just by looking you can easily tell a Susan Sexton image, it is distinctive, that is the ART of her work - you can tell a Teri Miller image, it is distinctive, that is the ART of her work - you can tell a Charles Mann image, it is distinctive, that is the ART of his work. Etc. If you take 10 photos from each of them and add in 10 photos taken by point-n-shoot photographers on the rail, and mix them all up, you will be able to EASILY distinguish between the 4 sets of photos. It's not just "point and shoot and capture the image".

Just as there are bad writers and good writers, there are bad photographers and good photographers. You don't buy books written by bad writers, but their words are still protected by copyright{1}. You don't buy photos from bad photographers, but their images are still protected by copyright. When you see a good photo taken by a good professional photographer, you may buy a print or license the commercial use of this image if you find it valuable to you.

jc

{1} Even these humble words are protected by copyright. The Chronical can print them on this forum, and you can quote them in your reply, but you can NOT legally copy them and use them in another form without my permission (although people do this all the time, that doesn't make it legal). If you wanted to compile a book of the "best of the Chronical forums" you would have to get permission from every person whose words you wanted to quote. It doesn't matter if those words are "important" or "well written", they are protected by copyright. If you published the book without getting my permission, you could be subject to large fines and even an injunction that you stop selling the book. Copyright is serious stuff.

SportArab

Oct. 21, 2004, 09:48 AM

Well, JC, I have completely skipped buying photos from some photographers due to high usage fees.

I'm a small breeder and have paid professionals to come out and shoot my herd... but those photographers have had what I considered to be reasonable rates.

I am willing to pay usage fees if they aren't going to break the budget. But I am loathe to spend the bucks if the cost of using the photo is comparable to the price of the ad. It's just too much more piled on top of expensive advertising.

It's unfortunate that the participants at the shows don't have any say on who the show photographer is. So there is no interplay between the buyers and the sellers, so the market can get completely out of whack.

Oct. 21, 2004, 10:19 AM

If you gave enough monkeys enough cameras, one of them would be bound to get a really good shot of you and your horse: that’s trusting to luck.

Getting a camera and learning how to turn it on, set it, click the shutter and get the pictures out. That’s craft.

Photographers who have mastered the mechanics and principles of their equipment, composition, lighting and timing, but besides that also have the vision, insight and knowledge of their subject to capture and show you something that you haven’t seen, even though you were watching the whole time … that’s art.

PhotosbyPeter

Oct. 21, 2004, 10:20 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jumpgirl:
shadytrake,

Just think if everyone who developed a brochure, postcard, flier, catalog, etc demanded royalties - everyone from the photographer, to the graphic artist, to the copywriter to the printer. What if they all wanted their name credited and royalities every year the piece was used!!!! Imagine if your interior designer charged you a yearly fee until such time when you redecorate. How about the landscape designer? How about the architect to your house? The list could go on. Somehow, photographers think they are more artistic than other artists and deserve more. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I work with architects and landscapers frequently. If someone were to use the plans for your house to build another house you can bet that the architect would demand payment. If anyone copies their plans without permission they would demand payment.

You are putting up straw men to tear down. If you frame your photo, you can use it as long as you like without additional payment. You can even move it around in your home. But, if you make additional copies, the photographer is due payment.

Now, I do not always agree with the amount charged by some photographers, but they have the right to charge what they will and if the value is there, they will have paying customers.

prophoto

Oct. 21, 2004, 10:36 AM

Just an interesting exercise in comparitive thinking follows.

Breeder=creative producer of product -- product: unique high value live babies and semen for making those kind of babies -- Some of the investment: horses, training/education, vet, advertising/promo, equipment, staff, property, insurance, travel, time - lots of this and money

Photographer=creative producer of product -- product: unique high value photo images for applications ranging from visual pleasure to basis for the promotion and building of clients' businesses -- Some of the investment: equipment, office with more equipment, support staff, training/education - photographic as well as equine, advertising/promo, property, insurance, travel, time - lots of this and money

Breeder-makes living from sales of produce foals for various uses, sometimes also from USE of product semen

Photographer-makes living from sales of USE of product for various uses ranging from personal to commercial (print purchase is PERSONAL VIEWING USE ONLY of the product, advertising license purchase is ADVERTISING USE of the product - since the value of these different uses varies, so does pricing in traditional photography pricing structure)

Scenario for Breeder-collects semen, for an agreed upon price, breeder delivers to client who has multiple mares semen can be used on. Doesn't this mean the client should be able to use the semen to impregnate as many mares as he wants? Royalty free use of what he purchased! After all client paid for it, so he should be able to get two or three or more babies if desired from that one semen purchase. Sure the client was only supposed to use it on one mare but why not more use if he can? It will mean the client makes more money from their purchase of the semen -- and everyone wants/needs more money. Who cares if the breeder doesn't get his per baby fee - it's too high anyway and what a thrill to get 3 babies for the price of one! Why should the breeder care? He got his money for the semen... Who the heck does he think he is to say he "controls" where that semen goes or if the client can make more money with it than just the money from the sale of one foal....

Photographer-creates images, delivers to clients for varied use from personal only (print on the family room wall to remember a great show) to national advertising in print or on the web for the purpose of better promotion of their breeding business which translates to MORE income from their business. Since photographer bases his business model on *MORE USE, HIGHER FEE* principle, photographer gets paid more for the higher use of promoting a business so the client can make more money from his breeding business and guess what? The client is more successful selling with great images, sells more babies and breedings for higher fees, and then buys even more photos next year.

Actually, this *MORE USE, HIGHER FEE* is in fact the same way a breeder structures his business if you think about it. Yes the 'Scenario' paragraph was outlining a ridiculous assumption for a breeder's business plan - but it was included to make a point - that to think any creator should not have control over their creations is pretty ridiculous. Key point though is that the product the creator creates needs to be valuable and of quality that buyers want and need - basic business axiom and a whole other discussion.

Most good business people understand that image is everything - great image, quality conformation or movement, higher perceived value, class act=ability to ask for higher fees. Low quality, poor conformation or movement, out of focus, lower perceived value, bargain basement style=must ask for lower fees in relation to overall market. You can use whatever type of image you wish to promote your business and you can choose high or low quality product to sell. Just as all business owners can set their business plans to whatever makes the most sense for them. Most real pros in either business will subscribe to the *MORE USE, HIGHER FEE* theory - it's the fairest way to consider from all sides and it makes the most economic sense if you wish to stay in business.

Jumpgirl, you can certainly do as you wish for your own business. But to advocate that an entire profession just give away the very valuable advertising rights to THEIR CREATIVE OUTPUT is just as ridiculous as suggesting that a breeder should do the same by allowing a client to breed however many mares they wish from one purchase of semen. As someone else wrote, it's always important to try to walk a mile in someone else's moccasins before insisting what they do is incorrect or unacceptable.

SportArab

Oct. 21, 2004, 11:01 AM

OK.. from my perspective as a freelance journalist and photojournalist....

when I sell a story or photo to a news organization, I still have the rights to that story, photo.

I generally don't assume each work is going to keep making money for me. And the ones that do (such as stories for the NY Times) generally pay a lot less on reprint than they do on original publication.

If, say, the NY Times wants to keep my story on their website and charge people for downloading it, I don't make extra each time someone downloads.

I think this is a fairly comparable situation. I don't think it should cost me more for the usage than it does to buy prints of the original photo.

prophoto

Oct. 21, 2004, 12:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> when I sell a story or photo to a news organization, I still have the rights to that story, photo.

I generally don't assume each work is going to keep making money for me. And the ones that do (such as stories for the NY Times) generally pay a lot less on reprint than they do on original publication.

If, say, the NY Times wants to keep my story on their website and charge people for downloading it, I don't make extra each time someone downloads. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes you do retain rights to the stories and images you license to publishers. But you need to read the fine print of the contract you make with them because each one differs and some ask for rights to use your creative work over and over and over without you getting one more cent of pay for your efforts. You have the CHOICE to give that valuable extra use away or you have the CHOICE to insist payment for the extra money they will make off your efforts.

Many freelancers can't see the forest for the trees - they sign away their rights to obtain future income from their hard work. For example, you can't modify your article and then sell it to another publication on the west coast if the one you initially sold it to takes all rights exclusively. You may still hold the copyright but the copyright is essentially without any further value TO YOU if your deal allows them to use as many times as they want without paying you for valuable use or won't allow you to sell to others (exclusive). Even if you could do sell to others (non-exclusive), why would others want a worn out overused tired copy of a NYT article?

Why shouldn't you be paid if they sell reprints of your article? Do you realize that reprints of articles are actually advertising tools used by companies that pay THOUSANDS for copies of the "good press" of a favorable article in a "unbiased" publication? This kind of promotion is better than any paid ad. Why should NYT get the $ YOU deserve for doing such a great job telling the story of such a company?

NYT would be NOTHING without the content provided by it's contributors, many of whom are freelancers. They pay medical benefits for their employees, bonuses, wages for days they don't have an article published, etc.- do you feel your own contribution is worth so very much less than the employees that you should settle for a one time payment, no benefits, bonuses or perks? And worse that they can keep making profits off your work when you get a pittance? If your article makes them $50,000 in reprint fees and another $250,000 in advertising space sold, don't you think you should be remunerated for this huge value you brought to them? Licensing on the basis of *MORE USE, HIGHER FEE* is how this is accomplished and it is completely fair and logical and traditional business structure.

The only reason you are not getting paid for those extra VALUABLE uses such as downloadable format from the NYT website is because you have allowed them to have your VALUABLE content without requiring them to adequately compensate you.

Did you know there is a group of freelancers from all over the country, indeed the world, who are fighting NYT times tooth and nail right now over this exact topic? They find it insulting that NYT feels it should own every piece of content it runs and not pay for HIGHER USE. The fight has been going on for at least a year and has included demonstrations and major retreat of many very well known contributors who refuse to be bamboozled by NYT. Those of any renown who you still see contributing are for the most part, negotiating their own custom contracts for fair fees.

Believe me the NYT times knows very well the real and true high value of your contribution. Why do you think they want it so badly? They know they can make a lot more money if they can get all rights. They are just not willing to pay you for all those rights. They look at freelancers as over eager, desperate for publication and ignorant of the real value of their work. They are pleased as punch to take all they can get for the lowest price possible and then exploit it to the fullest so they can make huge profits with "material" that costs them virtually pennies. If there was no real extra value in the rights to use, then NYT would not be working hard to grab every right they can from every contributor they work with.

Truth is, they cannot get great content from all over the country and all over the world and be one of the "biggest and best read" papers in the world just by using their employees (who are work for hire). They need freelancers for great content. But freelancers need to realize the value of their work and ask for payment for that value.

Time to join the writers union. Check out the website of the Boston Globe Freelancers. Go read at www.editorialphoto.com (http://www.editorialphoto.com) -- that site even has a schedule of prices paid recently for reprints, some of which go into 5 figures!

SportArab you are leaving tons of $ on the table if you are not protecting your copyrights so you CAN use the work again in the future for further generation of income and when you are not getting paid for the value your work brings. Sad to see it - I really hope you'll go read some and see what you might find....

ise@ssl

Oct. 21, 2004, 12:25 PM

OK - here's the bottom line -

....
....
maybe BREEDERS should Copyright their name as Breeder of a horse.........then sue if they aren't given credit at shows....in show results....anytime that horse's name is announced for any purpose whatsoever!! ALSO - require that photographers have the Breeder's name on EVERY SINGLE PHOTOGRAPH OF THAT HORSE FOREVER! After all - the BREEDER put that horse on the ground!

This could be the start of something BIG!!

CristyC

Oct. 21, 2004, 12:35 PM

Quote

The difference with photography is that it is not really the creation of an image, it is the capture of an image. Yes, the photographer recognizes it, frames it, shoots it. They may manipulate or enhance it, in some unusual way. But they don't create it the way an author writes a book, an engineer lays out a printed circuit board or a painter paints a painting.

The above was a quote from this discussion. It has been addressed a few times but I wish to reiterate my opinion.

You better believe that I create! Even with a camera I create. Just like an oil artist I take my chosen tools out into a place and make the image I'm thinking of. Example: I recently shot a 3 day long horse trials. I went to the venue early although I am familiar with it. I walk all the way around the dressage arena and study the test and ride times so I know the time of day, where the sun will be, what the background will be, what the pose will be. Why? I know what poses I would like to show in my image. On some competitors the poses come to life for me on some they don't. By the time I am shooting the dressage I have also already walked the cross country course several times. After the dressage I walk it again I may even walk it more times than a competitor. What am I looking for? Well I know I want an image of a jumping horse. I search for the place my assistant or I will stand to get the desired effect for the image. I locate a place or three that will work for each division that will have the desired elements in the background and foreground. I figure out the time of day and sun location and decide whether each jump has the right requirements for my image. I decide what angle I will get for the competitor for the desired image. And like before most times the competitors complete the image and sometimes not for whatever reason. Before I go home I go look at the stadium arena and follow the same process as above. I arrive early on the third day to reasses the arena before I shoot. I definitely create my images. I know what I'm looking for before I even get to the event and like an artist I use the "tools" available. So what if I get my final tangible image in a fraction of a second. I did not put any less though into it.

I wish to also commend Charles Mann and Barb Young and others for graciously pointing out many other things invloved with photogrpahy as a profession. It's not easy doing it day after day after day and continue with fresh ideas for an image and stay up on all the new technology and stay current on news and events, and travel and travel and travel. I'll have to admit I can get pretty tired of driving by the time November rolls around! But you know what....I wouldn't change my profession for the world. I love going places, I love meeting and talking to people and potential new clients and most of all I LOVE THE HORSES!!!

I'll be heartbroken if I can no longer make a living of horse photography because I can't get paid enough to make it happen anymore. If I am forced to get another job because I can't pay my business and personal bills I will not be able to be there for any of the competitors anymore let alone the ones who like my work and are thankful that I was there to get the image.
And like Charles and others have mentioned, in not so many words, if you don't like the picture or the price, you don't have to buy it. If you do, it was probably worth every penny you invested in it regardless of the person or company that took it. YOU have the choice and the ability to shop for what's right in VALUE for your needs.

cmannphoto

Oct. 21, 2004, 12:58 PM

I would be interested if any body really thinks about how the image they use will effect the sale of their product???

From the www.Bizhelp24.com (http://www.Bizhelp24.com) :
Photos can often say so much about the quality of your business as it gives an appearance that is so much better than plain old text and images (although images do add quality to some respect).

It is important that you acknowledge the importance of the quality of the photographs as poor quality will have an opposite effect of REDUCING interest. As a result, if you are not experienced in the field of photography (this does not include holiday pictures!), you should consult assistance from somebody experienced, possibly a family member or friend.

Charles Mann
www.cmannphoto.com (http://www.cmannphoto.com)

Rainbow Farm Unltd.

Oct. 21, 2004, 01:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cmannphoto:
I would be interested if any body really thinks about how the image they use will effect the sale of their product???

From the http://www.Bizhelp24.com :
Photos can often say so much about the quality of your business as it gives an appearance that is so much better than plain old text and images (although images do add quality to some respect).

It is important that you acknowledge the importance of the quality of the photographs as poor quality will have an opposite effect of REDUCING interest. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

** If anyone wants good examples of this statement, just go to Equine.com or Dreamhorse.com and look at the photo ads. Look carefully at the horses/ponies for sale in your discipline and see if the photo catches your eye or not. If there are 2 similar quality horses of super bloodlines and one is an excellent photo showing conformation and detail, and one is your average amateur horse snapshot, which are you going to call on? These horse sales sites are super examples of this topic. And if you can get a great conformation or movement shot yourself, more power to you by the way. Even average or acceptable shots are not easy, and most will advertise with a "make do" photo, which will not usually attract the knowledgable buyers - imo of course.
Barb Young Photography, and...

nhwr

Oct. 21, 2004, 03:40 PM

I didn't say that photographers don't create anything. Certainly, they do. And it is art, IMO. But a painter starts with a blank canvas, paint and an idea. They may also have a model who has agreed to pose and may or may not be compensated. An author starts with paper, pencils and an idea. A songwriter the same. In each of these cases, the resulting art is the product of tools and the artist's own head.

The photographer starts with a camera, film etc. But he is dependent on having an image to capture for his art. When that image is the likeness of a person (the subject), it seems wrong to me that the photographer should have all the rights to the results and the subject has none.

I notice that none of the photographers are addressing whether it is legal to take a rider's photo without their permission and then attempt to sell it to them.

Rainbow Farm Unltd.

Oct. 21, 2004, 03:57 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>The photographer starts with a camera, film etc. But he is dependent on having an image to capture for his art. When that image is the likeness of a person (the subject), it seems wrong to me that the photographer should have all the rights to the results and the subject has none. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The photographer doesn't have any rights to use the photo of a person without that person's signed Model Release, as state previouly. Please read through the above posts or go to www.whatiscopyright.org (http://www.whatiscopyright.org).

cmannphoto

Oct. 21, 2004, 04:14 PM

Here is a better source of info. Plus I addressed this earlier post.

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter12/12-b.html

“Whether you need to obtain a release depends on why you want to use a person's name or image. If your use is for commercial purposes --for example, using a person's photo in an advertisement --you should acquire a release. If your use is for informational purposes such as a news article, a release is not required. However, even if a release is not required, you should be careful that your use does not defame or invade the privacy of the individual.”

“A release is not needed to use a person's name or image for informational purposes. An informational (or "editorial") purpose is anything that informs, educates or expresses opinions protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (protecting freedom of speech and of the press). An informational use would include using a person's name or photograph in a newspaper or magazine article, an educational program, film, nonfiction book, or informational webzine (a magazine published on the World Wide Web)."

Charles Mann
www.cmannphoto.com (http://www.cmannphoto.com)

nhwr

Oct. 21, 2004, 04:20 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> The photographer doesn't have any rights to use the photo of a person without that person's signed Model Release, as state previouly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> If your use is for commercial purposes ..... you should acquire a release. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then how can photographers legally take a rider's picture at a horseshow and later try to sell them pictures, if they don't have a release for that purpose?

prophoto

Oct. 21, 2004, 04:51 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by nhwr:

Then how can photographers legally take a rider's picture at a horseshow and later try to sell them pictures, if they don't have a release for that purpose? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Releases are about the release of the use of the likeness of a person for commercial use, advertising or endorsement as Charlie has pointed out. Releases are not required for anyone to be able to take photos of subjects. It's what they do with the photos later that might require a release.

Your question is really about the individual's right to privacy. The law says that anyone may take your picture any time you are in public. It's a right we have in the US intended to allow freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Imagine if everyone had to have written permsission before they could take a photo - even you, when you are snapshooting at the park? Gestapo land vibe with that kind of deal.

So when you are at a show, a public place, anyone is allowed by law to take your photograph, not considering special arrangements show management might have about who is allowed to shoot on their private property.

If they approach you later to see if you'd like to buy it, well there is no law against that either. You could always ask that no photos be taken and let them know you do not want to be solicited if they do take photos. Surely they won't bother if you are not interested.

If you don't want your photograph taken, then don't go out in public. Do your riding on private property that you control access to, say with a high fence to prevent people on public property from being able to take your photograph. There on your own property, you have the right of privacy and anyone taking your photo while you are riding there would be breaking laws covering the individual's right to privacy if: they were taking those photos from a place on that private property (or on other private property - the neighbors house for example) where they did not have permission to be on that private property. The key is they must have permission to take it from private property.

It is however perfectly legal for anyone to take anyone else's photo from a public place, road, park, sidewalk, even if they are aiming at someone who is say out in their backyard nude sunbathing. The law assumes that when you step out of your home, you understand that someone may see you or even take a photo of you and so you are responsible to only "show" yourself in public as you wish to be seen.

There is a great book on individual privacy rights and rights of photographers by attorney Bert Krages - also google him and you'll find some of his writings about this topic.

cmannphoto

Oct. 21, 2004, 04:53 PM

The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks. Basically it is Free speech.

Now when I offer to sell you prints of these images, you have the right to refuse them and to ask me not to market to you any more. Just like if you get a call from a telemarketer. Just tell them to take you off their list.

Charles Mann

www.cmannphoto.com (http://www.cmannphoto.com)

cmannphoto

Oct. 21, 2004, 05:02 PM

Nancy!

Have we answered your original question?

I bet you never thought it would blow-up to a discussion this big did you. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Charles Mann

www.cmannphoto.com (http://www.cmannphoto.com)

Fairview Horse Center

Oct. 21, 2004, 05:22 PM

"The photographer doesn't have any rights to use the photo of a person without that person's signed Model Release"

Do I have the same rights for my horse (art)?

Fairview Horse Center

Oct. 21, 2004, 05:25 PM

and again

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Fairview Horse Center:
In my opinion, Photography is more of a craft than an art. Just like the woodworker that makes fine furniture, or the violin maker that crafts the fine instrument. Why would they not be considered just as much of an art as photography? What makes Photography fall under the "Art" laws. The violin maker can't charge usage fees every time it is used in a concert. The tools are different, but the skills and talent involved are not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would they not be considered just as much of an art as photography?

cmannphoto

Oct. 21, 2004, 05:36 PM

Darlyn,

If I am taking photographs of your recognizable personal property (house, horse, pet, car, etc.) for commercial use, I would have you sign a release for your personal property as well as yourself.

“A release is not needed to use a person's name or image for informational purposes. An informational (or "editorial") purpose is anything that informs, educates or expresses opinions protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (protecting freedom of speech and of the press). An informational use would include using a person's name or photograph in a newspaper or magazine article, an educational program, film, nonfiction book, or informational webzine (a magazine published on the World Wide Web).”
This applies to your personal property also.

Charles Mann

www.cmannphoto.com (http://www.cmannphoto.com)

CristyC

Oct. 21, 2004, 06:19 PM

I notice that none of the photographers are addressing whether it is legal to take a rider's photo without their permission and then attempt to sell it to them.[/QUOTE]

I'll give it a whirl!

This site may help some.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm you can access a document called Your rights and remedies when stopped or confronted for photography. Published by Bert P. Krages III Attorney at Law

The general rule in the United States is that anyone is allowed to photograph whatever they like when in a public place or private place with permission to photograph unless there is a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinace.

Obviously, when I am invited to a horse show to photograph competitors by the show management, I have been invited there to take photographs. I photograph all competitors and then offer the photos to them. Other photographers may use sign up sheets. Either way, the photographer has permission to be there and to photograph competitors. Not to mention that many of the horse shows are held on city, county or state facilities which are public property.

If a photograph of someone is exceptional and usable for commercial use, I will ask them if they will sign a model release. If they do not wish to sign a model release then the photo is "dead", it goes nowhere and does nothing in the commercial realm. It could still be used to illustrate an informational or news story even if the photo with caption is the only element of the story.

If you or your horse are in your back yard or at a stable I cannot physically cross to private property to get a photo of you. THAT is an invasion of privacy. If I can take a photo from a public street or other property that I have permission to be on I CAN take the photo. I still can't do anything with it commercially, such as use it for advertising (even advertising my own skills) without your permission. I CAN send it to the paper or magazine to accompany a news or informational articles. (editorial use).

Some of the restrictions to photographing are: cannot photograph for commercial use a copyrighted work such as a statue or artwork that has not yet entered the public domain. (the creator holds the copyright to a work for at least 75 years) or building that was built after December 1,1990 until it enters the public domain, at least 75 years. The photographer cannot violate any tresspassing laws and needs to get permission to shoot photos when on private property. The photographer cannot violate any laws regarding the privacy act which are numorous and complicated and many are quite dependant on trespassing laws. Then, there are many more laws about who is allowed to give permission to be on private property aside from the actual landowner. There are, of course, several public properties that do not allow photography such as parts of military bases and that where the specific ordinances or statutes come in.

The best way to NOT have your photo taken is to stay out of sight, on private property with a big tall wall around it. If you go to public events, the best way to not have a photo of you published editorially is to be completely average so you don't stand out. The best way for you photo to NOT show up promoting a product is don't sign the model release and hope that your show management gets only law abiding photographers with good ethics (and yes, you CAN slowly control official photographer quality by communicating with your show management). And you may always go up to the photographer and ask that they not photograph you or your horse. I ALWAYS honor that request by either owner, rider or trainer. (And I usually get asked later by one of them where thier photos are!)

I certainly hope this helps clear a bit of the mud from the water of this huge sea of a topic. It is not a simple issue by any means.

CristyC

Oct. 21, 2004, 06:36 PM

Apparantly there are others that type much faster than I!!

Nancy!

Oct. 21, 2004, 08:15 PM

cmannphoto: OH My goodness! Yes, quite a can of worms. And Bits & Pieces - http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif to the pinto freebies. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Anyways, we have a small breeding farm. I've had professional photos done at a photo shoot, have also had professionals do pictures at shows. Paid for the 8 x 10's and that was fine by them including having them on the website.

The show and photographer in question. A very small local show (extremely well run) that I go to every year. This year an old friend was there and has recently become a professional. She came at the last minute and this was her first horse show. She didn't have very good angles on the horses at all but I wanted to support her. There were also 2 other photographers there as well. When my friend posted my photos on her website, I said I would take some and paid $74.00 because I wanted to use them on the website. Now she is saying she wants "usage fees". Well, she hasn't said back how much she wants yet. The pictures aren't the best and another photographer is sending me 2 photos as well ($20.00).

The horse is a 4 year old and is only doing a cross rail class and a 2'3" class. Normally I wouldn't buy a bunch but since she was my friend I said okay. I even turned down an reduction in the price of the photos since I wanted to pay her her standard fee.

She actually has all the photos on her website. And I just checked them now and they have a big copyright on them. I'll PT anyone the website if they'd like. EDITED TO SAY SHE HAS NOW TAKEN ALL THE PHOTOS OFF HER WEBSITE.

I certainly understand that not only is photography an art and thank goodness we have great ones out there but all I wanted was a photo of my guy all decked out to put on the sale page of our website.

Sorry to cause such a stir, I was basically looking for costs. It is not a stallion I am trying to promote so a $300.00 fee is way over the top for me.

Nancy!

ise@ssl

Oct. 22, 2004, 05:29 AM

Wow - I think the photographers on here should take a deep breath. Also please stop trying to turn the discussion into a debate on whether your work is quality of not.

If you'd all step back - what horse owners are attempting to TELL YOU - is that your current marketing campaigns including pricing and packaging are not flexible enough and in many cases so onerous that people aren't buying at all. Now - we had ONE photographer here say she'd done a market analysis on this and found out changing wouldn't affect her volume and bottom line. I'd love to see how the survey was done.

In the new age of technology and as I stated we did have one company come out and offered prints to people on site and also CD's with a group of photos. Are these going to be magazine covers? I doubt it but the shots were excellent and showed the horses very well and the buyers were happy - NO VERY HAPPY - felt it was affordable, went home with their photos in one form or the other or both. The photographers were happy - they had made money and had NO OTHER WORK TO DO AFTER THEY LEFT!

I'm just offering a suggestion that the current process is sometimes onerous. Some photographers at various horse events have websites that take HOURS to find the horse you are looking for and the shots. We are fortunate to have a huge computer system and DSL - most people in the horse world DON'T.

Yes - we'd like to use photos on our websites but we use the ones we take or those taken by friends or some photographers who aren't going to charge us for using each photo in each media (many on a yearly basis!).

I also feel - the photographers here have argued very hard about the fact that they have CREATED THESE PHOTOS. Well - as breeders - WE HAVE CREATED THESE HORSES. Shouldn't we have our name after the horse's?? That image that you took wouldn't be there if we hadn't bred it!! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

cmannphoto

Oct. 22, 2004, 05:35 AM

Nancy,

I think your question was a legitimate one, which needed to be asked. You and all the other horse people on this board that buy photos need to know what they are getting when you purchase a print or the licensing rights to an image. I hope that this thread has been educational to both the photo buyer and the week-end photographer to the professional photographer.

Like I have said in some of my earlier posts on this thread, the advances in today’s cameras makes it easy for almost anybody to take decent photos. The problem comes when people do not follow the traditional photography business model.

Another fact that I can not stress enough is the value of a good quality photograph used in any type of advertisement. Research has shown a good photograph will draw customers to your product, were as a poor quality photo will deter them from being draw to your product.

There are several forums for equine photographers, which are run by the Equine Photographers Network. I have been active with this on the “big board” after one of the co-founders made a reference to this thread. I think that is important that the equine photographers know what their clients are thinking about their services and the needs of the equine photo buyer. Because of this several photographers from that group have jumped in and help clarify some of the misconceptions that were out there.

I hope that everybody comes away from this with a better understanding of what they are selling or licensing and what you are purchasing.

Charlie Mann
www.cmannphoto.com (http://www.cmannphoto.com)

pcwertb

Oct. 22, 2004, 05:49 AM

Ok, I just went to a horse show and there is a fabulous photo of my pony. Now, are these fees reasonable to you? I'm inclined to think they are pretty fair, maybe a little on the high side?

One time use for sale and promotion: 55
Web- unlimited web use for one year: 85

Print and Web for one year: 150

To buy an 8x10 is 45. So if I want an 8x10, plus one for the kid who rode, plus website for one year, it is $175. I may want to make a print for sale, but haven't decided for sure on that yet.

Rainbow Farm Unltd.

Oct. 22, 2004, 06:00 AM

Beth, I for one am not comfortable discussing someone else's pricing plan. I think the question for you is, is the pricing structure worth it to you for your purposes? What value do you place on better advertising ability with a really good photo of your horse?
Barb Young Photography

Fairview Horse Center

Oct. 22, 2004, 06:07 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cmannphoto:
Another fact that I can not stress enough is the value of a good quality photograph used in any type of advertisement. Research has shown a good photograph will draw customers to your product, were as a poor quality photo will deter them from being draw to your product. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is SOOO true, but I find that the "good quality" photograph that attracts the buyers, is not the clarity of the picture it self, but whether it shows the horse in a good placement, no body parts looking not like the true horse, etc. I have gotten good and bad from some of the best photographers. I have also gotten good and bad myself using a fairly inexpensive digital. The "key" is for owners to develop their eye, and not be "owner blind" at what they are using.

I think in this day of technology, photographers may need to realize that even a monkey can get a nice shot. It is the "type" of shot that sells the horse, not the clarity. ESPECIALLY in this day when internet ads are doing most of the selling. Even a crisp, clear top quality photo, is going to be presented in a much lower resolution. I purchase from photographers for convenience. I took all of the attached shots - 3 of them within about 45 minutes. Getting these shots, I didn't even bother to see what the professional at the shows had taken.

cmannphoto

Oct. 22, 2004, 06:11 AM

Beth,

I have to say that your question is a little hard to answer. Different parts of the country will bring different prices.

With that being said, I took a look at your web site. I looked at your “Horses and Ponies for Sale” page. The photos of Loughin’s O’Leary, I have to say are not the best in my opion. He is very small in the middle photo which makes it hard to see him. The top photo is a little better but still is hard to really see him. You question the fees for the use of those photos on your web site. According to the asking price on your web site for this horse, the cost of the web use would be 0.0056666% of the asking price. To me I would jump all over a rate like that for advertising.

I mentioned this before in this thread and this is a perfect time to bring it up again.

From the www.Bizhelp24.com (http://www.Bizhelp24.com) :
Photos can often say so much about the quality of your business as it gives an appearance that is so much better than plain old text and images (although images do add quality to some respect).

It is important that you acknowledge the importance of the quality of the photographs as poor quality will have an opposite effect of REDUCING interest. As a result, if you are not experienced in the field of photography (this does not include holiday pictures!), you should consult assistance from somebody experienced, possibly a family member or friend.

Advertising is a part of doing business. Good advertising pays for itself.

Charlie Mann
www.cmannphoto.com (http://www.cmannphoto.com)

ise@ssl

Oct. 22, 2004, 07:08 AM

Regarding the pricing quoted -
one time use for sale or promotion - is that one flyer of any amount? one time in a sales ad on how many horse sale websites?

Also - I think if someone puts a photo on a website and gives the photographer credit and pays a one time fee - why should that be yearly?

And regarding the difference between good and bad photos - well you don't have to be a photographer to figure that out. But everything in life is relative - nothing's absolute and if some of you photographers would be a little pragmatic you'd see the reality that the price of a horse pretty much dictates the amount the person can spend on a photo.

And we don't scratch off a prospect because of a lousy photo if other facts are there - i.e. pedigree, age, price, performance. Sure it catches our eye but many times times we've found the "emporer has not clothes" - i.e. great photo - lousy horse. That to me is even more frustrating.

cmannphoto

Oct. 22, 2004, 07:20 AM

I buy a magazine off the news stand and pay cover price for it. I like it and order the subscription, do I get credit for the price I paid at the news stand???? NO!!!!

ise@ssl, you are not likely going to change the way most photographers do business. But you now seem more educated on licensing an image, because you are asking the right questions in the beginning of your last post. Now, it is up to you to negotiate a fee to license an image, by asking those same questions, for your particle needs.

Charles Mann
ww.cmannphoto.com

nhwr

Oct. 22, 2004, 09:22 AM

The things that bothers me about this is not the privacy issue as much as the inequity of the situation. The idea that a photographer can take my or my horses photo on private property without my permission and say they have all the rights in the situation and I have none, is malarky, IMO. Attitudes like "If you don't want your photograph taken, then don't go out in public" are hardly a reasonable alternative, but they do demonstrate the presumptive mindset of many photographers. Where I live and compete, most horse shows are not on public property and the photographer's aren't taking the photos from the street. They are not neccessarily even public events on private property, since people can be barred from them for a number of reasons. So the claim that photographers have unrestricted rights to take photos there is not valid.

All the photographers here have said that a release is not required if the photos aren't for commercial use. When a photographer arranges with show management to have access to entries, sets up at a show and takes photos of most, if not all, competitors and does a mass mailing of proofs from those entries, the intent is clearly commericial.

It does seem to me that, in this case, photographers want to play both sides of the street and that is what I object to.

cmannphoto

Oct. 22, 2004, 10:03 AM

nhwr,

You have plenty of rights. You are protected by law from a photographer using your likeness or your horse’s likeness in commercial ADVERTISING without your approval.

It is a fact that most shows entries want photography. So, you don’t want you picture taken, then tell the photographer. Most of them will comply. Like I said before if you tell a show photographer not to take your picture and not to send you proofs they would most likely grant your wishes.

You are stuck on the idea of “Commercial” use. Yes it is commercial BUSINESS, but it is to your benefit also. Like I have said before, you have the right to ask not to have your photo take and refuse to buy any photos that are presented to you. Nobody is forcing you!!!

Your comment about being photographed on private property, well most horse shows and a majority of sporting events, they take place on private property. When you sign the registration form you are agreeing to the terms of that show organizer and/or property owner. The same holds true to the show photographer and any media photographers that might attend that event on private property.

The comment made “then don’t go out in public” although harsh it is the true. We ALL are subject to this every time we walk out our door. That is one of the things that makes this country what it is. Freedom!!!! On both sides.

Do as farm owners do for hunting, post signs saying “No Photography” around your place when you are home.

You have rights, and it is up to you to understand what they are and how you can protect them. Which I have suggested a few above.

Let me add this. Each venue that I go to has a separate set of terms and conditions. Some sports even control the use of ANY image taken during their event by accredited photographers. Examples of those are NBA, NFL and MLB.

I just spent over 3 weeks in Athens covering the equestrian events. Last August when I received my accreditation, I had to sign a statement that I would not use ANY photo from the 2004 Athens Olympics for commercial advertising without written approval from the International Olympic Committee, which sometimes requests the approval the United States Olympic Committee. If I did not sign that I would not be accredited for the games.

Which bring up another point in your favor, the by laws of the USEF and the FEI protect your likeness also.

Charles Mann
www.cmannphoto.com (http://www.cmannphoto.com)

jcdill

Oct. 22, 2004, 10:15 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Well, JC, I have completely skipped buying photos from some photographers due to high usage fees. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Buying a photo and usage fees are two different things.

When you buy a photo, you are getting the photo (the printed paper) and you can put it on your wall or give it to a friend etc. You own that piece of paper and have the right to display it wherever you want. What you don't have is the right to copy that image and use the copy for some other use.

When you license a photo, you are licensing it, not buying it. You license it when you want to reprint (that is to say "copy") the image, to use it in advertising etc. and you pay usage fees that are dependant upon the use. That is a whole different thing from "buying a photo".

BTW, my personal photo sales policy is that when you buy an 8x10 from me, it includes a license to use that image in a small sales ad for that horse. So if you buy a nice photo of the horse jumping at a horse show and then later want to sell the horse and place an ad that is 1/8th of a page or smaller, you can use the image in the photo without paying an additional usage fee. But if you are placing a larger ad you will have to pay a license fee. If you are willing to pay the magazine more for the larger ad you should also be willing to pay the photographer more to reprint and use that photo in a larger size.

nhwr

Oct. 22, 2004, 10:30 AM

The point is, cmann, photographers say;

I am free to take pictures on public property of anything I want. If they will be used for commercial purposes, I must get a release. You said (and this is consistant with my experience) "the show releases that I have seen only give the show management the right to use images taken at the show to promote their show".

So when you are an exhibitor at a horse show, you aren't necessarily "out in public". Nor do photographers have a release for the purposes of marketing their photos. It may be beneficial to me or it may not, but isn't that really for me, not the photographer, to decide? If a photographer, with commericial intent, mails me unsolicited photos that were obtained without a release from me on private property, how can they claim sole ownership of them?

It seems to me like this situation violates everything an ethical photographer is supposed to do and yet they claim to entitled to all the rights to the photograph. Not cricket, IMO.

ise@ssl

Oct. 22, 2004, 10:38 AM

Wow what a condescending remark "I'm starting to ask the right questions ....and understand copyrighting". I had to take enough law courses in Business School to know a great deal about copyrighting.

What is at the center of this discussion is the fact that it's not a free market. And someone does bring up the point - it's not PUBLIC property in most instances. We were also told in Graduate School at it was an invasion of privacy if you are using any type of ZOOMS LENS - because that went beyond what the "eye" could see from the public area.

And more often than not the photos are available for public consumption on photographer's websites of various individuals and their horses - without the individuals permission. Check out the sites for various events - you can look at anyone's photos!

So there really are some issues beyond the laws defining and protecting copyright and fees that are really almost usuary when photographers have exclusives at shows.

SportArab

Oct. 22, 2004, 10:45 AM

JC, I realize the photos and the rights are differnt things.. but I will not pay for hard copies of photos, no matter how much I like them, if I think the usage fees are exorbitant.

Just my own small protest.

SportArab

Oct. 22, 2004, 10:47 AM

Oh... and I did buy quite a few photos from the photographer who did a photoshoot at my farm and included some usage rights with the purchase of an enlargement.

cmannphoto

Oct. 22, 2004, 10:49 AM

nhwr,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>”So when you are an exhibitor at a horse show, you aren't necessarily "out in public". Nor do photographers have a release for the purposes of marketing the photos.” <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most show photographers that I know have a contract with the show management. I am not saying all shows have this, but, by law if I am invited onto private property with the idea I will be taking photographs, I have that right and everybody on that property is subject to having their picture taken. Unless something is posted or on the back of the ticket saying I can’t………I can.

If you have issue with this then bring it up to the show organizers or just say NO!!!!!!!!!!

Do you think the same for the food vendors at a show?? What if the show management said you could not bring in your own food??? The food vendor is monopolizing on the fact that you are going to be at the show most of the day and might not take the time to leave to go find food. Are you telling me that they should not be in business either??? They are taking your money because you need to eat or drink.

OK, so you bring your own. You save time, money and you have what you like. Well the same is true for the photography.

Charles Mann
www.cmannphoto.com (http://www.cmannphoto.com)

SportArab

Oct. 22, 2004, 10:54 AM

Prophoto...

I know contracts are different from different publishers - I have several different contracts with various news organizations. I have negotiated differnt things in different contracts.

I feel I am adequately compensated for the initial publication, when it comes to text. I don't write for publications unless the intial fee is high enough that I don't need to worry about reselling articles.

Yes.. they don't have to pay me in benefits. But otoh, they don't have my body available anytime they want it. I get to sit here at my farm and write during the hours of my choosing.

My husband is a jouralist at a major newspaper, so I can fairly compare the deals we both have.

And I do know journalists who market everything they write to multiple news organizations (generally getting paid less by each one than I would work for).

To each his own.

nhwr

Oct. 22, 2004, 11:06 AM

cmann,

When I brought this up originally, you said

"nhwr

Careful now, the show releases that I have seen only give the show management the right to use images taken at the show to promote their show...Now, none of this allows the show management or photographer, unless otherwise stated to market that image."

But it seems that isn't really true. A photographer may have the right to take everyone's picture. But that isn't the same as the right to market the pictures. A contract the photographer may have with the show management is not a model's release.

And no, I don't think the same about food vendors because they don't claim to be artists or attempt to assert copyright protection. They don't serve me unless I request it. And they attempt to control what happens to their product (food) after I pay them for it, thank God http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Tiki

Oct. 22, 2004, 11:28 AM

I haven't read this whole thread, but what gripes me is that I have to pay a fee ($50 usually) just to have the pictures taken - even if they all turn out horrible or even if I just don't like any of them. I have to pay a whopping big fee for a year's usage on my website of a youngster, but the photographer has a clause that it is MANDATORY that I give them credit (which is free advertising on my website) and I get nothing for that. That's a crock of horse hockey. You want free advertising for your work, give me a break on the photo. I'll then be happy to plaster it all over my website and give you credit in BIG LETTERS!!! For now, I'll use my own. I certainly don't charge myself for taking the pics, and I'm getting pretty darn good at head shots, anyway.

jumpgirl

Oct. 24, 2004, 07:23 AM

I understand about the differences between buying a photo and licensing but I don't really care. It doesn't matter because the market drives the price and the market is becoming more educated about what is possible and what is not.

What is possible is to hire a very high quality photographer on a work for hire basis where you can own all the photos to use for whatever you want for one affordable fee. Or, in the case of horse show photography, you can hire very high quality photographers who will sell unlimited usage for one flat affordable fee. Then you don't have to waste all your own valuable time to figure out what the photographer wants to charge on a blue Tuesday of the first full moon of the 3rd month of the new leap year.

You also don't have to track down a photographer 3 years later when you decide to sell that horse to ask the photographer if you can use that photo in a sale ad.

Someone said that you can show a photo that you buy to someone without extra cost but you can't make a copy without a usage fee. Well, when you show the photo on the website, you are NOT making a copy. You are just showing it to someone. They are not getting a copy to hang on THEIR wall. They are just viewing it same as if you showed it to someone in person.

Charles, what is Northbeach? Is that a show? If it is, I have not been to it.

Oct. 24, 2004, 09:04 AM

Jumpgirl,

I can't speak for every photographer out there, but I know that I do try to listen to my clients. I am always fine-tuning my pricing, my literature and my presentation to make it all more user friendly. For instance, there are many different combinations of local, national, and web advertising, and I presently have a much wider range of prices and releases than I ever did to fit this changing marketplace.

But there are things that rub me the wrong way when asked to change, such as giving up rights which are guaranteed to me by law, namely, the ownership of the copyright of my images -- especially for the sake of convenience. I appreciate your views as a potential client, but as you can see by reading so many of these great posts about the preservation of rights from both sides of the camera, this issue is larger than your "shopping experience".

I will also be voting in 9 days, because that right is guarantee to me by law, too, even though it would make it more "convenient" for the other candidates for me to not vote!

ise@ssl

Oct. 24, 2004, 01:40 PM

Tiki - I feel that having to pay money up front to have the photographer take photos at a show - even if they are horribl and you don't buy any is HORRIBLE. This should not be allowed. What's the incentive for the photographer to get really good shots of every horse - they make money even if they are terrible!

No one is asking any photographer to give up copyrights - you can plaster it right on the photo forever - just asking that you consider this pricing system and ask yourselves if it's realistic given the horse owners' average budget per year.

Cartier

Oct. 24, 2004, 03:27 PM

Haven’t read this whole thread but Ilona is right about this.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>“... the photos are available for public consumption on photographer's websites of various individuals and their horses - without the individuals permission.” <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A photographer snapped some shots of our horses at a recent event. I bought the cd of her shots (I could not see them unless I paid for them in advance)... I hated the photos and called the photographer to ask if there were any others shots available that she had not included in what she sent me (there were not). In the conversation I specifically mentioned that the shots I had just purchased were worthless because they were snapped at the wrong time in the stride, or the horse was cut off, or not standing square, etc. I did not ask for a refund, but I made it clear I did not like the photos. It is quite irritating to see one of the photos (which I said I did not like) on the photographers website. It has been there for at least a month. Not only does the photographer NOT have my permission to use the photo, she knows I dislike the photo.

While it would sure be nice if photo packages were more affordable, I feel that great photographers are like other great artists and as such their work product is worth something. The greater (more skilled) the artist, the more I expect to pay. For us, the biggest disappointment with the situation I described above is that we relied on the photographer and now we don’t have any pictures to commemorate the event. The moment is lost in time. I’d love to have some Terry Miller shots of that event (at any price).

Fairview Horse Center

Oct. 24, 2004, 04:16 PM

I think so much is what you are looking for in a shot, and I don't always agree with what the professional photographers are shooting. Most of the professional shots I have gotten of the trot show the "perfect moment" at full extension. HOWEVER, what I am looking for is not the photo that shows length of stride for a dressage horse or prospect. I am looking for a photo taken just a moment earlier that shows the expression in the gait. I would rather use fuzzy photo, lousy background, expressive moment.

Rainbow Farm Unltd.

Oct. 24, 2004, 04:36 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I did not ask for a refund, but I made it clear I did not like the photos. It is quite irritating to see one of the photos (which I said I did not like) on the photographers website. It has been there for at least a month. Not only does the photographer NOT have my permission to use the photo, she knows I dislike the photo. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are well within your rights to ask her to remove the photo (if you did not sign a release, which it sounds like you did not) from her website. She cannot post it without the rider's or handler's written model release.
Barb Young Photography

Fairview Horse Center

Oct. 24, 2004, 04:55 PM

Cartier - Probably if you send this thread, along with your request, she would remove the photo as there are legal statements from some of the top Photograpers in the country on this thread.

Cartier

Oct. 25, 2004, 03:13 AM

Daryln,

While I would have described what I’m looking for a bit differently, I agree with what you are saying here.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> I would rather use fuzzy photo, lousy background, expressive moment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> (and I like your Seattle Big trot straight picture. Maybe if it was just a hair second later I’d like it even more). Had the photographer at our event captured that phase in the movement I would have been thrilled.

As for you and Barb's suggestiions about having the photographer remove the picture, believe me, when I first saw the thing on the photographer's site I thought about calling her... but I was so pissed that the picture was there (after I’d said I disliked it), I thought it best that I wait till I’d calmed down a bit. As background, at the time I was dealing with the likelihood that Dr Cartier is going to be deployed to Iraq, so a bad picture on a website (posted without my permission) just seemed insignificant.

It’s been a month now... and at this point it’s just one more thing to be annoyed about. In the scope of life’s problems it hardly seems worth the confrontation.

CuriosoJorge

Oct. 25, 2004, 04:26 AM

If it's not worth the confrontation in real life, why are you talking about it on arugably the industry's largest internet message board?

Cartier

Oct. 25, 2004, 04:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> If it's not worth the confrontation in real life, why are you talking about it on arugably the industry's largest internet message board? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I mentioned our experience because: 1. I felt like it, and 2: because of a point Ilona had made (and actually because of several comments Charles Mann had made).

Tiki

Oct. 25, 2004, 04:37 AM

I haven't yet seen an answer to the question about all the free advertising that the photographer gets after WE pay for the 'right' to post the photo on our website or advertising. Why is this never taken into consideration?

Cartier

Oct. 25, 2004, 04:42 AM

You’ve got a very good point. Neither Susan Sexton or Terri Miller have ever photographed our horses... the reason I believe that they are superb photographers is that I’ve seen their photos on the websites of others. So giving them photo credit has definitely worked as an effective form of advertising. And next spring we'll try to get one of them out to the farm. I am tired of only having this quality of photo, which is one that I took.

Tiki

Oct. 25, 2004, 05:00 AM

Aw Gee, Cartier, I could do better than that, and probably charge you a whole lot less! Hmmmm, now let's see about the copyright and use charges.

Cartier

Oct. 25, 2004, 05:14 AM

Sheila,

If you could take a movement shot (that is even remotely in focus and correctly timed), I'd be happy to pay you something reasonable. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Here again is an example of what I am capable of… which is why I want a series from Sexton or Miller.

jumpgirl

Oct. 25, 2004, 06:13 AM

Another point to consider is the fact that there are really 2 different types of photography - the artistic type like Ansel Adams and the basic point and shoot type that just captures a moment.

I know that to capture unique, artistic shots, the photographer has to use special shutter settings, leave the shutter open for longer periods of time to capture light, etc. But the average horse show photographer basically sits at one angle where he or she can shoot 1 or 2 over fences shots and just aims and clicks. I've watched these photographers engaged in conversation until the horse comes up to the designated fence and literally one-handed lift the camera and click, click. I don't consider that kind of shot "art". It is on the level of getting my child's band photo taken and that cost about $25 for a package deal of unlimited use...and about the same quality.

Again, I am not talking about top class photographers who basically have a branded name but the average horse show photographer who then wants to turn around and charge an extreme usage fee or fees for basic equipment handling.

Rainbow Farm Unltd.

Oct. 25, 2004, 07:33 AM

Tiki

Oct. 25, 2004, 07:49 AM

Ah yes, Barb, but you must not be looking at too many show results as I have very, very seldom seen the breeder's name mentioned - even in breed shows. As to photos, it is, as far as I know, MANDATORY to include the professional photographer's name. That is extensive free advertising if it is posted on even a relatively popular website.

Elaine, I would be happy to try, but I think there is/would be a problem of travel/distance.

talloaks

Oct. 25, 2004, 08:45 AM

I would like to know what constitutes a professional photographer??? Also what criteria used for each professional photographers pricing???

Oct. 25, 2004, 09:02 AM

>Ah yes, Barb, but you must not be looking at too many show results as I have very, very seldom seen the breeder's name mentioned - even in breed shows.>

This is something to be brought up with magazine editors and show managers, too! I know that I am not always provided the breeders' information at shows: if I don't know it, how can include it in my captioning?

I include as much information as I can when I caption my photos for publishers: it's up to the editor to be diligent enough to include it all!

Cartier

Oct. 25, 2004, 09:12 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Elaine, I would be happy to try, but I think there is/would be a problem of travel/distance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sheila,
I do think we are too far away... I am in North Carolina... rats!!! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
-E

Rainbow Farm Unltd.

Oct. 25, 2004, 09:19 AM

I define a professional photographer or professional anything, selling something and making a profit. There are many professional equine photographers out there that either do other kinds of photography too, or do equine photography part time and have other means of income.
Barb Young Photography

Rainbow Farm Unltd.

Oct. 25, 2004, 09:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I do think we are too far away... I am in North Carolina... rats!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would suggest checking out the Directory at www.EquinePhotographers.net (http://www.EquinePhotographers.net) for professional equine photographers in your area. There will be a variation in work done, pricing, etc., depending on the individual, but the Directory gives you a chance to check them out, their websites, work done, references, pricing, etc.
Barb Young Photography,
member: Equine Photographers Network

Fairview Horse Center

Oct. 25, 2004, 09:28 AM

I do want to state that many of the Photographers ARE listening, and offering reasonable rates in a variety of packages for use. If you have not been to their site recently, you may want to check for updates on prices.

I would still like to see the usage fees not be for a certain # of years. I (thankfully) was able to purchase nice photos with unlimited use, several years ago. I have to keep track of so many things on this farm, that there is just no way I am willing to keep records on which date each photo needs to be removed from my site, or not used in fliers or an ad. How many people are EVER going to pay to use a year or 2 old photo, except occasionally a stallion owner. (All the Gold has certainly got his use out of that jump photo http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif)

jumpgirl

Oct. 25, 2004, 09:40 AM

Fairview,

Most people I know who have a made horse that they want to sell routinely use photos from the previous several years of showing. That is what makes a hunter/jumper/dressage horse "made" is that they have years of show miles and looked good doing it.

Trying to track down a photographer 2-3 years after the show photo was made so you can get permission to post it for sales photos on a website or a sales ad in a magazine is usually difficult at best.

But you are right, there are many great photographers who sell photos unlimited use for a flat affordable fee. These are the photographers that we should all be supporting!

Fairview Horse Center

Oct. 25, 2004, 09:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jumpgirl:
Most people I know who have a made horse that they want to sell routinely use photos from the previous several years of showing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

but hopefully you wouldn't need to use it more than a year or 2 to get them sold http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Good point about trying to track down a Photographer. I have one photo that was taken 1998. The photographer sent me the proofs, I ordered a print (Proof was stamped), paid for it, and NEVER received it. This was all within a few weeks of the show. I tried to track down the photographer, not only to get my photo, but to see about use fees. NO LUCK. Took my money and ran! A few years ago, I even posted on these boards to see if anyone had contact info - NADA. so I'm thinking the photo I have is fair game. I removed the copyrite stamp, and used it. Someone that unprofesional does not deserve to be treated like one.

so HERE it is - anyone want to claim it? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Cartier

Oct. 25, 2004, 11:00 AM

www.EquinePhotographers.net (http://www.EquinePhotographers.net) very interesting link... Thanks

ise@ssl

Oct. 25, 2004, 11:23 AM

Well gee - you can now put the photographer's name and copyright mark righ there on the photo - why not the name of the horse and the breeder!! Sounds pretty darn simple doesn't it????? Why isn't it done? Because the people who BREED THESE HORSES are not considered to be on par with respect to identity as the people who take PHOTOS OF THESE HORSES!! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Really - you photographers have NO IDEA how many times those of us who breed horses see photos of horses (in any media for any use) and wonder - who is that horse?? What's the breeding and I'd love to know who the breeder is!! But alas - all we know is who took the photo!

Tiki

Oct. 25, 2004, 11:30 AM

AND with the photographer's name and copyright on it WE have to pay to use it!

talloaks

Oct. 25, 2004, 02:41 PM

Barb Young posted:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I define a professional photographer or professional anything, selling something and making a profit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh boy!!! I've sold some pictures that I have taken once they have been enlarged to 20 X 30. matted and framed, some of them had horses as subjects so I guess I am qualified to be a professional photographer!!!! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif
I have also done farm shoots!!! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cartier

Oct. 25, 2004, 02:52 PM

Talloaks,

We can vouch for the fact that you have an excellent eye for composition… and that your photos are crisp and clear… maybe we should have you come and do Cooldanz and the gang… that would be fun. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

talloaks

Oct. 25, 2004, 03:21 PM

Right on!!! And what a deal I could give you!! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cartier

Oct. 25, 2004, 03:57 PM

Great... now all I need is a website.

Nancy!

Oct. 26, 2004, 08:56 AM

Well, thanks for the links guys (equinephotographers.net). I found a link to a person in Alberta that lists prices right on it. http://www.johanejanelle.com/jjpfeeschedule.html

For a total of $135.00 you get 48 proofs and copyrights are provided. This would well be worth it.

The person who did our older stallions photos cost us more but she did a great job. She wasn't listed on this site.

This is the information I was looking for. You would think that since the person that took the photo at the show would make it more reasonable considering this. I'm having lunch with her today so I'll find out what she is asking.

Nancy!

cmannphoto

Oct. 26, 2004, 12:51 PM

Nancy,

I would suggest your ask some questions of this photographer before you go any further. As I read it, for the $135.00 price you get to look at 48 PROOFS from a commercial photo session. Then, “A set of 48 proofs will be processed for each commercial photo session from which clients may select the photographs they wish to PURCHASE.” You may want to clarify that you can use those 48 Proofs for your needs or do you have to purchase the licensing rights in addition to the $135.00 photo session fee.

As I was saying in an earlier post that you need to read the terms and conditions when you hire/purchase photos, or as questions.

Charlie Mann
www.cmannphoto.com (http://www.cmannphoto.com)

appyhunter

Oct. 27, 2004, 03:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tiki:
I haven't yet seen an answer to the question about all the free advertising that the photographer gets after WE pay for the 'right' to post the photo on our website or advertising. Why is this never taken into consideration? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aside from copyright considerations, which detail what markings should be on any copyrighted item (it's not just photos, and it's not just 'art')?????

What 'free' advertising, Tiki? It's part of the price paid for use of the image. There is nothing 'free' about it, and it's certainly part of the consideration. The alternative is to UP the photo prices, so the photog can pay for more advertising somewhere, likely many wheres.

And unless you have a really top notch, well linked and very high traffic site, that 'free advertising' isn't worth squat. It's not much value unless it's seen. Same applies to print usage.

Even then.. find out what the banner exchanges pay per click or per impression. THAT is the commercial value per view for that copyright on your site. It takes a LOT of traffic to make pennies. Actually.. that's too high a valuation, as a copyright notice on a photo is not a click thru or link to the Photographers own site.

ise@ssl

Oct. 27, 2004, 05:02 AM

I have to disagree with you Appyhunter. When the photographers name is ON the photograph - every single person looking at it does see it. Those people are aware of the fact that "that" photo was taken by "that" photographer. And many horse owners would GLADLY have a link on their webpage to photographers in exchange for more reasonable fees to use the photos. That's a bonus for the photographer.

I just know that some of the policies and practices are starting to be questioned and challenged. Markets change and suppliers have to realize that if the "demanders" of the service aren't happy - sooner or later the "suppliers" have to face that fact.

What seems to be ringing through here - if the photographers would just calm down - is that MANY MANY horse owners are unhappy with pricing policies. Now sooner or later SOME photographers will hear that and adjust to the demand and take more market share. And more and more exhibitors will complain that current policies at shows are not "fair and reasonable" and challenge exclusives or pre-payments, etc.

There doesn't seem to be a level of mutual respect on the part of some - that's unfortunate but it all comes down to money - so that's what will change it. With new digital cameras - even amateurs can take several dozen photos and get a few that are very good. Magazine cover quality? Perhaps not. But for the NEEDS of the horse owners - especially myself as a breeder - having many horses that grow and change - I have to be practical and pragmatic. Will I use a terrible photo - NO. But a good photo that I can afford or have taken myself and have control over is certainly the choice over one very good photo on the wall and I cannot afford to use anywhere else. It's about the bottom line.

jumpgirl

Oct. 29, 2004, 07:30 AM

Ok, the photographers can't have it both ways.

Photographers say that they should charge these high fees for web usage because so many people see the image and that they have to have their name on the photo because so many people see the image. Then appyhunter and others say that putting a credit to the photographer does little good because horse sites typically have such little traffic!!!!!??????? HUH?

Cartier

Oct. 29, 2004, 07:52 AM

I don’t have a comment about how much traffic a given site gets, but if the owner of the site has gone to the trouble and expense of having a professional photographer take photos (and given photo credit) it seems to me that there is strong likelihood the site itself would be visited be the exact target audience the photographer might want. Or, put another way… it is not the number of views of the site… it’s whether those views will generated business. I think that good horse sites draw in the specific kind of person who would be a customer for the photographer. So even if the number of total views is low, the percentage of sales from views might be very good.

susansexton.com

Oct. 31, 2004, 10:27 AM

Having read all 8 pages of this thread in one sitting, I'm ready for a nap. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But first, a few comments:

Many thanks for the very nice things that have been said about me on this thread. It's very much appreciated.

I'd like to make some observations about horse pictures in general and about show photography, specifically. And usage fees. And the public domain, etc., etc.

1- jcdill said s/he'd done some actual research on what people will spend on photography at a show. S/He did not go on to say the source of the research, but later posts led me to believe that jcdill is a show photographer. I also have done that same research and to answer the query posed by ise@ssl, my research has been done over nearly 30 years of doing show photography. I totally support jcdill's findings: I tend to make the same amount from shooting a show regardless of the cost of the pictures.

This is an AMAZING fact, and has proven true over and over again. Who'da thought!! My prices for pictures have been all over the map for decades, so I feel qualified to make that statement.

2- I consider photography a service, and so that's what you are paying for when you hire me, or when you sign up with me at a show for pictures. Luckily, you ALSO get a product (pictures), unlike plumbing, when all you get is the service. I might also point out that my prices are higher than most, not just for pointing the camera and pushing the shutter, but ALSO for knowing when, where, why, etc. etc.

In an earlier post, someone said that if they sign up to have pictures taken in the ring, what is the incentive for the photographer to do a good job (having already been paid)? Two things: pride in my work and the desire for repeat customers.

A vet friend recently told me he got a look of amazement from a client when he billed her $115.00 for a 15 minute procedure. He explained that it was $15.00 for doing the procedure and $100.00 for knowing howl. Same thing applies to photography.

And this brings me to point #3-
Someone said in reference to using good and bad pictures on a website (and sorry, I don't feel like browsing around in these 8 pages of posts to find the maker of the comment), she said "...well, you don't have to be a photographer to figure that out..." I couldn't agree less! Sorry to say, it continues to ASTOUND me what people (breeders AND photographers) will see as a "good" picture. This has gotten so bad recently (with the proliferation of equine photographers), that I feel compelled to make many long, serious observations about that in further publications.

4- Hats off to the pro photographers who were willing to discuss copyright issues. It's complex, and it took a lot of explaining. What I tell people is, if you're buying a picture just to look at it, it's one price. If you also want that picture to do some work for you, to attract attention, to make you look good and all the other work a picture can do for you, then you have to pay a "commission" to the picture for doing all that work. This is called a usage fee.

5- Using a picture editorially is a completely different matter: when you are at a show, you are in the public domain. I didn't see that term in this long thread, so here's just a tiny definition of it. When you are at a gathering of people who are there by choice, regardless of whether or not it's on public land or on privately owned land, you are in what the legal community calls the public domain. This makes it OK for people to take pictures of you at the gathering, and it's OK for publishers to use them in an illustrative manner. This means it is NOT OK to use them for advertising.

6- The problem arises when a bad picture of you is used in one of your favorite magazines. Two things come into play here:
1- the photographer doesn't know what constitutes a good (or a bad) picture, and
2- neither does the picture editor. This is a very sore subject among us photographers who've spent decades learning everything there is to know about what makes a good dressage picture (for example).

It is extremely bothersome to submit pictures to a publication, pictures I KNOW are good, if not perfect examples of what the article is about, and then have the publication use a piece of doo-doo to illustrate their point. They might do this because the picture is cheap, but more likely because the editor doesn't know any more about a good dressage picture than the photog does! In most instances, they are people who took all kinds of journalism classes in school, but know nothing about horses.

7- It is appalling to me and to a bunch of others in the EPNet Professional group how many people call themselves pros who have not really learned their craft, yet. They just don't realize how much there is to know about horses, first, or about the horse sports, second, in order to be able to make a good picture on an ongoing, long-term and consistent level, you have to know a LOT.

8- And, finally, I have to point out in this post how many breeders and owners don't know enough, either. They can't take good pictures of their own horses, and they can't recognize them. They just haven't learned. Being able to know a good picture when you see one is a learned craft. Most people see the horse they love, and you know what they say about love: it's blind! So they see a picture of the horse they love, and then, by default, they love the picture, without exercising one iota of judgment.

I could name sites all over the internet of breeders and owners with sales horses who use pictures that are less than complimentary. Why do they do this? Maybe because they feel that a picture is better than no picture. This couldn't possibly be further from the truth. If a picture says a thousand words, a bad picture says a thousand bad words, and why on earth would the breeder or owner want a thousand bad things said about their product!!!???

To save money? Is it realy worth it!?

Or, maybe they don't know what makes a good picture, and this, I fear, is the prevalent reason we see so many bad pictures published, in print and on the internet.

Good thread, folks.... Thanks!

susansexton.com

Oct. 31, 2004, 10:36 AM

That long post from pix was made by Susan Sexton, by the way. Sorry it didn't show up, at first. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Equine Reproduction

Oct. 31, 2004, 11:10 AM

Boy, I suspect the original poster didn't expect this thread to go the way it did http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif But, with that said, it appears that the biggest area of complaint/disagreement/argument, etc. is on prices/pricing. There are lots of photographers out there and obviously, some are better than others. Those that are better are going to command and demand a better price, and rightly so! Argue all you want, but photography "is" an art and not all have an eye for catching the perfect moment. If that were the case, this thread wouldn't even exist! Professional photographers would not be necessary...

Both Susan Sexton and Terri Miller do spectacular work that IS dynamic! It's what has made them who they are. Can you afford to purchase their work? That would probably depend on your budget, but the flip side of it is that choosing a less than exemplary photo may actually have a negative impact on your business. So the next question is can you afford NOT to purchase their work? (Sorry gals...you're getting singled out as everyone here knows who you are http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif)

You are not required to purchase the photos at a show unless you have contracted to do so. Photography is a service industry so if they don't do a good job, their business is going to suffer for it. And, as Susan noted, there is pride in a job well done.

Ultimately, a photographer's success is going to be based on what the market will bear. If they (photographers) charge too much or do lousy work, they'll be out of business in short order. If they become very accomplished and good at what they do, they can charge more and will probably have a more select audience that will purchase their work. The same applies for just about any profession out there.

There are times when getting good photographs are critical. The 100 Day Test comes to mind http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif and having sent one stallion through and ultimately ended up with nothing terribly useful, I recognize the importance of having not just good photos but EXCELLENT photos!! I know in the past there have been a couple photographers at the testing and I applaud the photographers and the organizers for doing that...whether or not the stallion owners recognized it for the opportunity it was, I don't know. This time around, I'm not taking any chances on hoping someone will get a good shot of my horse for me...I'm bringing my OWN photographer with me! I will also purchase photos from the photographer that is contracted at the testing as well. I realize just how important it is to get those super shots and be able to use them in advertising! It's absolutely critical and can mean the difference of a mediocre ad and one that will catch peoples' eyes.

Kathy St.Martin
Equine Reproduction Short Courses
http://www.equine-reproduction.com

jumpgirl

Oct. 31, 2004, 12:00 PM

Sorry, I just don't agree.

If I want a Sexton or Miller photo, I do expect to pay for it and rightly so. If I am at a show and get a photo that was snapped one-handed or snapped by the amatuer that the so-called pro show photographer has "helping" at a show, I don't expect to pay those kinds of fees.
Those photos should be cheap and with no usage fees.

I can also rent top quality equipment and get the kind of shots I want. I don't think it is rocket science to get good photos using really good equipment. I think it is easier for a horse person to learn equipment than it is to teach a ego inflated photographer what the magic moment is in a horse's movement or jump.

And, with all due respect, Susan, only I know what kind of photo I want and since I am paying for it to use in whatever context I want to use it for, it should be my decision. You telling me that I am too stupid to really know what I want doesn't help.

You are right however that many people use bad photos. But crystal clear shots are not what sells a horse. I can and my clients can look at a blurry photo taken from the right angle and make a decision better than looking at an "artistic" sharply focused shot that doesn't show me what I need to see.

Pretty pics of stallions standing in a conformation shot may sell breedings to novice breeders who know little more than "ohhh, look at the pretty horse" but with me, I am only interested in performance stallions who have close relatives with performance records. I want to see the technique of the hind end over a jump and how a horse uses itself over a jump. I want to see that same technique in those relatives as well.

Videographers are the best bet to show this and with video on websites easier to do now than ever, that is the future .... and videographers DON'T charge usage fees. Photographers need to sit up and take notice.

ise@ssl

Oct. 31, 2004, 12:17 PM

Well sorry the thread was very long for you to read Susan - but perhaps that speaks to the importance of the subject matter.

In this sport there will always be those people who can afford to by HUGE amounts of money for one or two fabulous photos and have the where with all to spend even more money to use it on a website or sales flyer.

Perhaps where the rubber meets the road is not the work that comes from a private shoot but what is offered as a product at horse events. There the consumer base changes significantly, as does the economic middle ground.

Can we all find BAD photos used in ads or sales promos - YES - I'll bet non-pro photographers can point those out as well as the pros. But as someone mentioned we've now gone to taking frames off of regulare or digital video. OK - so they aren't as sharp but WE have the luxury of stopping at just that frame that shows what we need for that customer. AND IT VARIES depending on what the buyer is interested in with respect to the horse. We are seeing it's more cost effective to make the investment in more EQUIPMENT that allows us to pull off frames relative to buying a photo and paying for every use we want or sometimes IMMEDIATELY NEED for a photo of that horse.

At shows or large horse events the "service" offered should be sensitive to the consumer and from what I've seen on this thread the CONSUMER is saying it IS NOT. In fact, many times it's a monopoly with no choice or competition even if multiple photographers are willing to shoot the show!

Sure we all see fabulous work out there and yes it takes an "eye" but it's hard for me to believe that people who are in the breeding business for awhile haven't developed the "eye" for what they are seeing in the horses and certainly can tranfer that ability to what they see through a lens.

When you read back over the thread it seems the photographers are saying they can't make anymore money and the breeders are saying they won't spend more money with the status quo. Maybe these surveys from years ago need updating as new technology has offered different options to the consumers.

Oakstable

Nov. 1, 2004, 03:03 PM

I am a breeder and a decent photographer. I've developed my eye by living with horses for 25 years and being willing to burn through a lot of film. I don't have a digital camera yet. Today, horse owners want to see proofs on the same day as the show. The photographer these days has to have quite an investment in computerized equipment in order to meet that demand, in addition to having the artistic sense of knowing exactly when to fire. The best photographers should be compensated for their experience and talent, and for keeping up with the demands of the customer.

Some useage fees might be a little high, but a useage fee is fair. The right photo can make the difference in a stallion owner's profitability. Perhaps pricing needs to take that into account. The okay photos that are nice for recording the event go for one price, but the photo that sears the memory should be worth a lot more.

Professional quality photos make the web site of a breeder, the amateur photos detract from what might be wonderful animals.

I've paid for some so-so photos at shows and some great ones. I'm happy to get photos because if one of my horses is being shown, I'm sure I don't have the presence of mind to do what it takes to get the job done.

~Sally