Professional pictures and fees for use

[Alix]

I too have been reading this thread with intrest because so many times I have had the same discussions with my clients over the years.Most things have been answered really well and I feel I don't need to add my two bits. Having said all that there is one thing that I do want to revisit and perhaps explain a bit,.Poltroon, you mentioned a "personal" website. That is a bit of an oxymoron, because a website is certainly more exposure than a single print in an album.One of the ways images are evaluated for pricing is how much exposure they are going to have to the market place in short how many "sets of eyes" will see the photograph.Where this is directly applied is when a photographer sells the use of an image to a magazine. It will not be the same price for a publication that has a circulation of five thousand as for another publication of five hundred thousand readers. Conversely the image would not be the same price for a brochure with a publication of five hundred.Putting something on a website is randomly exposing that image at large and that is why the photographer in question probably priced it the way he or she did.

[sidesaddle]

Charlie:

OMG -- 1962?

[cmannphoto]

don't remind me, its cominbg up soon again.

[Northbeach]

Not that it seems to make any difference to any of the photographers here, but in one of my first posts I said:

Quote:

There are many photographers that are upfront and honest. You buy a photo from them at a certain price and then it is yours to do with what you will. All the rest of the stuff is just plain out price gouging.

So I don't know where you keep getting that I am lumping everyone together. I have repeated this quote now in, I think, 3 of my posts!


As for the question as to who is buying the images, the graphic designer or the client, it is the client and I have never said otherwise so, again, I don't know WHERE that is coming from either. You guys are just making stuff up to defend the way I have been personally attacked on this forum for simply stating that I don't agree with the way SOME photographers are charging. Are photographers the only one entitled to an opinion?

There are other people on this board who are saying basically the same things that I have said - Liz, Norsire and others have said that they think some prices have gotten too high and even the moderator has stated that there have been some photographers who have been hard to deal with. I am not the only one and what makes that one poster think that we didn't have an agreement in writing. Again some of you are just making up stuff!!!

And I will get angry when called a liar which is basically what one of you said when they posted that those photo sites are fictional. Any graphic designer worth their salt uses photodisk online and, as Been There said, Charles Mann has photos for sale on the other mentioned photo site - so much for saying they are substandard photos or don't exist.

As far as web design goes, way to go prophoto, you've just insulted 90% of the equine websites out there with your $500 website crack. As to charges for photos to go on websites, most VERY popular farm websites get maybe 40 unique visitors a month, most a lot less - hardly a justification for charging super high prices.

[GDesign]

Ok, I have watched and stayed out of this long enough.

First off, I am a graphics / web designer, I do not charge just $500 for my web sites, that is about 1 1/2 pages on one of my sites.

I have worked with photographers from the horse industry and commercial photographers for my projects. I can tell you first hand that the commercial photographers are MUCH EASIER TO WORK WITH. The equine photographers think that their photos are worth an arm and a leg, almost literally. If you hire a photographer to come out to your farm to take photos, those photos should be yours to do with what you please. You paid their expenses for the trip, i.e. Hotel room (or put them up at your home), plane fare, meals, etc PLUS the cost of their time and film. You hired them to come out and do photographs of your horses - for what? - gee, I would think that most if not all of you are hiring them for sale / advertising photos. It is not any of their business WHAT you are using the photos for, they are not stupid and they know that the photos are for - advertising -before they ever come to your door! They know that your are not having them come out to get pretty pictures to show your friends and family or for photos in your home. They have no risk involved when coming out to your place as you have typically paid at least 1/2 up front before they ever get on the plane plus you have paid for the plane ticket and hotel room at this point. If you want to take that photograph and put it on ABC during Superbowl Sunday, they SHOULD NOT get another dime from you, you have already paid for your photos.

With commercial photographers, I pay their expenses while working for me - hotel, plane, meals and time. They give me EVERY photo they shoot, good or bad. They DO NOT ASK what I am doing with the photo - they already know it is for advertising. I don't even have to put their copyright on the photo because it was a private shoot commissioned by me, therefore they release all copyrights to me. After all, the photo would have never existed if I did not ask them to come out and take it in the first place!

If a photographer gets paid a "Shooting Fee" at a show, then they sell you the photograph, it should be your photo to use in advertising, on the web, on billboards, etc. They can say how big the photo is allowed to be, i.e. you bought a 5x7, then you should only be able to print the photo in an ad at 5x7 size. I do not have a problem with the photographer saying, personal use $25, commercial use $100. That is it, no leasing of the photo, no extra fees for web useage, no extra fees based on the size of the publication you are advertising in or the number of publications you are advertising in. This should be your photo, with their copyright on the photo. This overly priced $350 per photo for a 2 year lease is absolutly ridiculous.

I can tell you from first hand experience that VERY LARGE corporations use stock photography in their advertising. Prices are not based on size of publication or what the photo is used for unless it is a "Rights Managed" photograph where they get exclusive use of the photo for a time period. That means the photographer can NOT SELL the photo in any other form to publications for editorial usage, etc.

As for equine usage, the number of unique users that any LARGE farm gets, such as Iron Spring Farm, is only about 100-200 per month. Now that is not to say that those people do not visit more than once per month giving them a total usage of about 1000-1200 visitors per month. This makes the $350 per photo per 2 years extremely expensive for a VERY LIMITED number of viewers. The equine photographers are assuming that because it is on the web it is going to get millions of people looking at the photograph. The bottom line here is that the horse market is very specialized and limited in the number of viewers that are seeing a web site. "Oh, but Practical Horseman has 75,000 subscribers." Yes, but most of them get the magazine for the VERY GENERAL information that they provide. MAYBE 5% are warmblood breeders, 10% quarter horse owners, 25% Thoroughbreed owners and the rest are a very LARGE MIXTURE of I do not know what I have, I just like horses. They are not looking at every web site listed in that magazine, AT LEAST 1/4 don't even know how to use the internet, much less look at the web sites. Over 1/2 are teenage kids that either ride in some very small training barn or wish they could ride but their parents won't let them or can't afford a horse / board.

I too, have leased digital equipment - Nikon D-1 with a 200mm and 400mm lense. It was about $170 / day and I got excellent results. I shot over 1000 photos. The wonderful thing about digital is if you did not zoom enough, you can easily correct it with a good fracticals program and the computer. If your not a graphic designer, you can have it done for about 1/2 hour of time from a professional. Very cheap in the long run and the photo is yours, they do not put a copyright on it or charge you for usage of the photograph they touched up.

Just my 2 cents worth. You equine photographers are really overcharging the market.

[This message was edited by GDesign on Jan. 05, 2003 at 07:24 PM.]

[This message was edited by GDesign on Jan. 05, 2003 at 07:27 PM.]

[been there]

Hee hee hee! You go Gdesign!! Very well said!!!

[Oakleigh]

You Go!!! I agree. Photos are way out of line on price and rights.

Oakleigh

~~~~>>>>****~~*~~****<<<<~ ~~~
Breeder of Holsteiner and Oldenburg prospects.
Oakleigh Sporthorses

[cmannphoto]

This all boils down to having a CONTRACT before hand that BOTH parties agree to. Their is blame on both side of this issue. The client need to be upfront with the photographers as to the intended uses of the images and the photogrpahers need to set a price and then that is it. Yes there are photographers that I do not agree with their Business practices, but I also have been taken advantage of in the past by various people in the Equine World.

So get it in writing and if you don't like the terms go somewhere else. This works both ways.

Charlie Mann

[Erin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There are many photographers that are upfront and honest. You buy a photo from them at a certain price and then it is yours to do with what you will. All the rest of the stuff is just plain out price gouging.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's not.

First of all, "upfront and honest" does not equate with a photo being "yours to do with what you will." Any photographer that is "upfront and honest" will spell out exactly what their fees are, and what rights you get for those fees. If you get rights to the photo outright, well good for you. But that has nothing to do with how upfront and honest the photographer is.

Everything you've mentioned IS legal under copyright laws. If you signed an agreement stating that you would pay Photographer X a certain amount of money to take pictures for you, that agreement also spelled out who owns the photos. Unless the photographer gives up those rights, it IS the photographer's photo. Period. End of story.

We live in a free-enterprise society. If it were REALLY so easy to get stellar-quality photos, and if the photographers were REALLY "gouging" as you claim, they would simply be going out of business because the market wouldn't bear that kind of useless expense. We're in a recession, you know. People don't just spend money without a good reason.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There are other people on this board who are saying basically the same things that I have said - Liz, Norsire and others have said that they think some prices have gotten too high and even the moderator has stated that there have been some photographers who have been hard to deal with.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Big difference, Northbeach. Liz, Norsire, and I offered comments on our experiences without condemning in the industry as a whole, without calling names, and in the interest of constructive discussion. It's the difference between vinegar and honey.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I am not the only one and what makes that one poster think that we didn't have an agreement in writing. Again some of you are just making up stuff!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And again, you're attacking people. Could it perhaps be that you never MENTIONED if you had an agreement in writing? Or that if you did, it was 100 posts ago? Why don't you try giving people the benefit of the doubt, and explain yourself politely rather than bite off the head of anyone who doesn't agree with you?

And for the record, while I did say that some photographers can be difficult to deal with (as can some writers, advertisers, and designers ), that really doesn't mean squat. Any reputable photographer -- or business person of any kind -- will spell out their fees up front. If you don't agree with those fees, you simply don't hire that photographer. It has nothing to do with how "difficult" they are.

If you don't agree with it, fine -- you're entitled to your opinion. You're also entitled to vote with your wallet and refrain from hiring photographers who charge fees you don't agree with.

But you'd get a lot farther in this discussion if you'd stop calling names and insulting everyone with a different viewpoint than your own. It's awfully hard to have respect for YOUR opinions when you quite obviously have no respect for anyone else's.

[This message was edited by Erin on Jan. 06, 2003 at 01:34 AM.]

[prophoto]

For North Beach:
SNIP You buy a photo from them at a certain price and then it is yours to do with what you will. All the rest of the stuff is just plain out price gouging.

No all the rest of the "stuff" is NOT gouging. It is a choice creatives make on how to run their businesses. All creatives INCLUDING YOU may choose to avail themselves of copyright protection and derive income from their creative works for all the benefit it gives clients over time. Just because you choose not to do so, does not make another creative who does a price gouger. Licensing for commercial use is a standard in advertising which has been thoroughly explained. Yes, you can get GENERIC images from royalty free places for a one time fee and then use them any way you want. That doesn't mean the whole world of creatives must run their businesses on this same model. There are many markets for imagery meaning different price points and each creative chooses which markets they focus on JUST LIKE YOU focus on which kinds of markets you service in your design business.

Software companies license their products - do you complain about that too? Music and books are licensed - do you think they should be priced according to your business ideals rather than as the creators choose? Team logos and movie characters like Disneys are licensed and you pay a premium to cover that license in order to wear a logo on a sweatshirt or hat - do you whimper over that too and accuse gouging? Or do you go to the bootleggers who are stealing the logos without paying the licensing fees? Or do you just pass on buying the sweatshirt? That was not an accusation, simply an illustration of possibilities.You may choose any of these courses of action. But you cannot make the blanket statement that creatives who choose to license their work, a business norm for commercial use, are gouging customers because they are simply not or they wouldn't be able to remain in business. This blanket statement and your bleating it over and over is what has irritated so many who have participated here.

If you don't like someone's pricing, don't buy from them. Tell everyone you know you think the price is too high if you wish. But don't go on to spread LIES that they are gouging when they are simply doing business according to a business standard within the creative industries.

SNIP As for the question as to who is buying the images, the graphic designer or the client, it is the client and I have never said otherwise so, again, I don't know WHERE that is coming from either.

So now you are stating that you did not write "Graphic designers are PISSED OFF at having to deal with all these prima donna photographers that don't deal upfront. We buy photos with the understanding that..."? ANOTHER SECOND TIME QUOTE FROM YOU. Clearly you state you are buying, not the client. Your description there of buying under one assumption and then finding out the terms of the license don't meet your assumption points to one thing: somebody didn't do their contracts completely and let the details slide. Could be the photographer was also at fault for not disclosing all the terms and conditions BUT and this is a big but, YOU ARE ALSO RESPONSIBLE to ensure the deal is acceptable to you before you proceed with the project. That means reading the contract, changing terms if need be, negotiating rights and fees and having a MEETING OF THE MINDS BEFORE you dive in. The rude awakening later might be because you or the photographer or BOTH OF YOU did not attend to the details and make sure there was an understanding. That's what written contracts are for. That is not a situation that is attributable as a blanket indictment against photographers. How do we know you did your part of the deal? How do we know you didn't just sign on the dotted line WITHOUT reading anything and then got all jacked out of shape when you found out the real terms you agreed to?

SNIP There are other people on this board who are saying basically the same things that I have said - Liz, Norsire and others have said that they think some prices have gotten too high and even the moderator has stated that there have been some photographers who have been hard to deal with.

Actually the moderator said "some of them are a little, ahem, quirky, most are extremely accommodating" for the SECOND TIME QUOTED. She did not say hard to get along with or anything close to that. Look up the definition of quirky. There is a difference in stating that pricing is too high in YOUR OPINION and stating that the sellers are gouging in an extreme way as you have done repeatedly.

SNIP Any graphic designer worth their salt uses photodisk online and, as Been There said, Charles Mann has photos for sale on the other mentioned photo site - so much for saying they are substandard photos or don't exist.

Yes many use royalty free GENERIC photos for non-customized needs. Nothing wrong with trying to bring the most value to your clients and if this helps you do so, great. As previously stated, the stock photo market is widely varied and targets many different segments within those various markets -- just like designers and just like photographers and just like retailers (WalMart or Target or Dillards). Photographers and other business people decide which markets and which segments they will target ~ this is simply part of business. Charles or you or any business can choose to sell to one, many or all of the different markets or their segments.

SNIP As far as web design goes, way to go prophoto, you've just insulted 90% of the equine websites out there with your $500 website crack. As to charges for photos to go on websites, most VERY popular farm websites get maybe 40 unique visitors a month, most a lot less - hardly a justification for charging super high prices.

Back at you - Way to go northbeach, you've insulted 90% of the equine photographers out there who charge some form of licensing fee (whether included in print or services fees or billed separately) with your bleating over the gouging we are doing and insisting we have no right to charge according to industry standards for commercial use.

As for my comment, it wasn't intended as an insult to a whole profession or to any website owners. I've seen website design services for a basic site at prices from $100 to $2500 (from Kmart style to Nordstroms Here again, nothing wrong with choosing whatever meets your needs. But if you are upset because the total price you get for your own work seems low in comparison to what some get for licensing great images for commercial use, perhaps that is why you're being so rude. The point was not about how little a website costs or to put down anyone who has a lower cost site or who sells a lower cost site design. Everyone has to budget and make economic decisions to serve them best - this is life. It was about trying to fathom why you could be so hot under the collar over standard pricing practices for commercial photography uses.

Your omission of any acknowledgement of the gross mistake you have been making in your bleating over "$350 per picture for the web" is noted. Yes, $350 for one web photo would be high but that's not correct and was clarified early on, a clarification you still choose to ignore. Apparently the fact that this rate includes MUCH MORE COMMERCIAL USE than just one web placement is something you'd rather not address because then your complaining seems more like whining. After all, the use fee works out to a whopping $60 each per year for web/brochure/print. That is quite reasonable for a custom product. How much is the percentage of premium that you pay for custom riding boots or horseshoes or saddles over mass produced ones? 100%, 150%, 200% or more? Now if you were paying $60/yr for use of a generic photodisc image that every other Tom, Dick and Harry will be using, that would be a bit steep.

Instead of being so indignant on the many points offered, why not consider learning from them? Don't you think the photographers responding are reading and learning? We are and so should you. We want to hear what clients think but don't appreciate being painted as bad guys by a few complainers when the vast majority of our ranks are talented, fair-minded business people trying to provide a valued and necessary service for our market while making a living using common standard business practices for creatives in photography. We also want clients to know we are doing all we can to get them the best services at the best price possible so that they win and we thrive too - just like you are presumably doing in your service business. Isn't that what business is about? It's doubtful there are any viable industries based solely on the premise of ripping off the clients as much as possible, overcharging for poor products and services. That industry just would not survive in a free market society such as ours as consumers would not embrace it. Go buy that book by Jim Pickerell that Charles noted he uses to price his licensing - read and learn instead of just complaining without understanding the market. You are after all also a creative and what you learn will likely benefit you in your own work as many concepts apply to all creatives.

[cehilton46]

Hi Gdesign,

You have made some really good points by what you have said. I appreciate you tone and reasoning. We are talking about the prices photographers charge for their work and uses of their work. I would like to ask you a few questions about your ways of determining your web design prices. We might understand each other a little more through it. I am asking not scolding or putting you down for what you have said and trying to reason how we are different in the way we do business. I will repeat what you have said as it was written so that I don't take anything out of context.

Gd
First off, I am a graphics / web designer, I do not charge just $500 for my web sites, that is about 1 1/2 pages on one of my sites.


Ch
I am interested in web design myself and have done a few. It looks like your rates are near about $350 to $375 per page. I don't charge that much because I am not at a level that I can yet. I also know of some people who are advertising that they can design a web site for me and others and will do it for $10.00 a page with as many photos as I want. I am not sure where the prices start and I know that there are others who charge into the thousands to design and maintain a web site because of all that is involved.

I have done extensive design work for printed material so I am not totally starting out here. I just don't know all that there is to know yet and the technology is growing so fast that it is even hard for most full time Web designers to keep up with it, much less me. I really don't want the high tech sites but those that needs good design principals using text with great graphics/photography, which I can do as well. I want to expand my business so that I am not depending on one area to make my living. I also want to do it for the Equine Industry because I love horses and enjoy working with horse people. If I were designing a site that has just 10 pages give or take, how can I determine what to set my fees at? What might be too high for me or be too low?

By the way, I can understand that your fee is within reason if this is the way you earn your full time living. I am fairly proficient in scanning and working with images for print production and web display. I know that once I have the design concept down, it won't take me more than an hour or so to put it all together for one page depending on the amount of typing I have to do, that I am not quick at. For me I could be charging something like $300.00 per page and make about $200.00 to $300.00 an hour. I could only do that because of the experience I have that can be carried over into web design. If I work slower I wouldn't make that kind of money. I may have to look into that, I didn't think many people would spend that much unless they were making a lot of money from it some way.


Gd
I have worked with photographers from the horse industry and commercial photographers for my projects. I can tell you first hand that the commercial photographers are MUCH EASIER TO WORK WITH. The equine photographers think that their photos are worth an arm and a leg, almost literally. If you hire a photographer to come out to your farm to take photos, those photos should be yours to do with what you please. You paid their expenses for the trip, i.e. Hotel room (or put them up at your home), plane fare, meals, etc PLUS the cost of their time and film. You hired them to come out and do photographs of your horses - for what? - gee, I would think that most if not all of you are hiring them for sale / advertising photos. It is not any of their business WHAT you are using the photos for, they are not stupid and they know that the photos are for - advertising -before they ever come to your door! They know that your are not having them come out to get pretty pictures to show your friends and family or for photos in your home. They have no risk involved when coming out to your place as you have typically paid at least 1/2 up front before they ever get on the plane plus you have paid for the plane ticket and hotel room at this point. If you want to take that photograph and put it on ABC during Superbowl Sunday, they SHOULD NOT get another dime from you, you have already paid for your photos.


Ch
I agree with most of what you are saying about the photographer should know what the photos are being used for 100% that way he/she can determine a proper price for how the photography he creates will be put to work for the client. Knowing that, he should his work allowing it to be justly compensated for its work. If we both agree then it will be set by contract, that way both are held accountable. If terms can't be reached we can part to other things agreeing that we can't work out our differences. The client is free to find someone else and I am free to seek other work. If the client wants to change something then we can discuss the extra fee if any.

Let's say that I decided to have you design me a web site and because you are really good and worth what you charge, we agree. You build my site and it is mine to use just as I want. I think that I should have it made into a brochure just like you designed it. I think I have a way to convert everything you did into a high enough resolution page to get it printed. Also, because I want to impress everyone that you had done the original design. I put you name on it for you, but it ends up looking bad because the printing process just requires so much more information than is contained in a web image, I have made you look bad, not so good. Or if I did have a super way of increasing the resolution that would allow me to do it. It looks great but I didn't think you would mind so you didn't get any credit or benefit in any way financially, because I have already paid you for the work. I am using it in a way that I failed to mention or that I just thought about at the time after we discussed it. There is really nothing wrong with that by your way of thinking towards a photographer's work. So I would be ok in doing so and you really wouldn't sue me because I have used copyrighted material you created for another totally different use than I paid you for. What would be your thoughts about this and how would you deal with it under these circumstances?



Gd
With commercial photographers, I pay their expenses while working for me - hotel, plane, meals and time. They give me EVERY photo they shoot, good or bad. They DO NOT ASK what I am doing with the photo - they already know it is for advertising. I don't even have to put their copyright on the photo because it was a private shoot commissioned by me, therefore they release all copyrights to me. After all, the photo would have never existed if I did not ask them to come out and take it in the first place!

You are right about the photographer you have hired, I can't discuss for him, why or how he chooses to do his business. I know many commercial photographers who would never give away their copyright without charging so much that your jaw would crack as it hit the ground for the shock of it. Not only that but if you could get them it would blow your budget for any web site.

By the way when any photographer creates an image for advertising, we are in the commercial group as well. You are right about that photograph never having been created without your request as well. It wouldn't be created with any other photographer that was hired to do it either, you would have something totally different. May-be better, who knows about that? You hire someone for your own reasons and needs however unique they are. You don't hire them to produce something like someone else each photographer is like each web and graphic designer; they each have a unique ability to produce something of value. Every horse is a unique individual just as every owner is, no one should be classified as those "sakdfj;wef" are all the same. That being true I could hire the web designer that charges $10.00 and get just as good a job. The fact is that you may just be able to get the job done by him, you like most of us, as equine photographers would rather go with someone you knew could produce what you want and like us you are willing to pay for it to a point. When that point in price is too high, you would go someplace else and the other creative person would have to either find another customer or re-evaluate his prices.



Gd
If a photographer gets paid a "Shooting Fee" at a show, then they sell you the photograph, it should be your photo to use in advertising, on the web, on billboards, etc. They can say how big the photo is allowed to be, i.e. you bought a 5x7, then you should only be able to print the photo in an ad at 5x7 size. I do not have a problem with the photographer saying, personal use $25, commercial use $100. That is it, no leasing of the photo, no extra fees for web useage, no extra fees based on the size of the publication you are advertising in or the number of publications you are advertising in. This should be your photo, with their copyright on the photo. This overly priced $350 per photo for a 2 year lease is absolutly ridiculous.
Ch

In the above reasoning, I would ask you to go back to using the photo or what ever to have a commercial during the Super Bowl. That would be ok if you expected the network that is hosting the game to charge the same for advertising then as the do at about 3:30 am. It is all the same amount of time so it shouldn't cost more because there are more viewers watching the Prime Time Super Bowl than something running at 3:30am. I can't even imagine anyone getting enough response to have one let alone several of those time spots on the Super Bowl. There are companies that pay it though. By the time the game is over how much do you think was spent on all the advertising, tickets, party's etc that goes on?

Why do we have restrictions on movies that were created 50 years or more ago and why can't we just copy them and resale them as we please? That seems fair.



Gd
I can tell you from first hand experience that VERY LARGE corporations use stock photography in their advertising. Prices are not based on size of publication or what the photo is used for unless it is a "Rights Managed" photograph where they get exclusive use of the photo for a time period. That means the photographer can NOT SELL the photo in any other form to publications for editorial usage, etc.


Ch
Can you tell me about how much is paid on average for stock photos that are purchased with a released copyright? Or maybe how much the best images earn in one of the large stock agencies for restricted use? There are some stock companies that does sale the images completely royalty free, and because of the price many people use them, I have myself because of the price restrictions with the clients budget. They work out sometimes and if the client is satisfied the I am but if the client so chooses to go that way then I am not responsible when it doesn't work for them as they want.

We work in a field of advertising that has great expectations but often falls short because an ad doesn't get the response we want. We can't make someone buy something they don't want to buy. With mine and your products or for the advertising we create for a client. We always do so with a hope but there aren't many sure things and if an ad fails is it your fault, as designer, the photographers fault as a photographer, the client for not having the product that the consumer wants to purchase. When we can get that figured out and do it on going, we can and will be able to name our price, be it graphic design, web design, an equine photographer, a person with a horse for sale or a can of soup.



Gd
As for equine usage, the number of unique users that any LARGE farm gets, such as Iron Spring Farm, is only about 100-200 per month. Now that is not to say that those people do not visit more than once per month giving them a total usage of about 1000-1200 visitors per month. This makes the $350 per photo per 2 years extremely expensive for a VERY LIMITED number of viewers. The equine photographers are assuming that because it is on the web it is going to get millions of people looking at the photograph. The bottom line here is that the horse market is very specialized and limited in the number of viewers that are seeing a web site. "Oh, but Practical Horseman has 75,000 subscribers." Yes, but most of them get the magazine for the VERY GENERAL information that they provide. MAYBE 5% are warmblood breeders, 10% quarter horse owners, 25% Thoroughbreed owners and the rest are a very LARGE MIXTURE of I do not know what I have, I just like horses. They are not looking at every web site listed in that magazine, AT LEAST 1/4 don't even know how to use the internet, much less look at the web sites. Over 1/2 are teenage kids that either ride in some very small training barn or wish they could ride but their parents won't let them or can't afford a horse / board.


Ch
You are probably right in you assessment of visitors to a web site. In light of that, I wouldn't pay $350.00 for one photo just to use on a web site alone and that would be high. The $350.00 that keeps being thrown around was for nearly unlimited use during a two year period for web, advertising for the full 24 months of two years. When you look at that possibility and understand that 24 times the cost of just the advertising in three or four different publications, then that image has done a lot of work for you. Thinking about the math on the total cost of something like that and that $350.00 easily becomes only a percent of 1% of the cost of the ad. That isn't much when you consider that it is also one of the main selling points that brings recognition to the product.

I am not sure about your figures on the example using Practical Horseman as an example. As a former horse owner that did purchase every magazine that I could find I did look to learn training styles, about equipment, to look at the photos of the horses and who took them and how they were shot. It was and still is a great way to learn many things. There aren't many stallion owners advertising in that magazine, it along with any of the others have more horse products aimed at the horse owner than being a place to advertise a stallion. Some does have a few horses for sale in the classified area though without a photo. I know some who have gotten results there so it can be good for that owner, maybe better than a web site. I am not sure about that either, how do you feel about owners using just classified ads to sell their products? Is that a great market place?

Gd
I too, have leased digital equipment - Nikon D-1 with a 200mm and 400mm lense. It was about $170 / day and I got excellent results. I shot over 1000 photos. The wonderful thing about digital is if you did not zoom enough, you can easily correct it with a good fracticals program and the computer. If your not a graphic designer, you can have it done for about 1/2 hour of time from a professional. Very cheap in the long run and the photo is yours, they do not put a copyright on it or charge you for usage of the photograph they touched up.


Ch

Here I agree with you 100%. I would encourage you to do as much of this as you can and want to do. What do you charge when you do that for your time? Do you charge $350 to $375.00 per hour when you shoot and work on the files like you do when designing a site or do you include that in you page fee? How about the commercial photographer you use flying him/her paying all the expenses etc. Do you charge the client, or is is absorbed in the same page rate?


Gd
Just my 2 cents worth. You equine photographers are really overcharging the market.

Ch
Those were just a few of my thoughts/questions about your ideas, which are good and you have shared very well with grace. It is good to discuss because it brings more awareness for all of us. As an Equine photographer, I don't charge anything close to the figures stated per hour or by fees as they have been referred to by most of the graphic designers be it web or print or what ever. I am one photographer who doesn't charge enough I think and surely not as much as most of the other commercial photographers I know. I don't get what they charge for the uses either so you must be dealing with some that are working their way up or who has made it already and just do it on occasion to keep involved. Photography, Graphic Design and Web Design takes creative people with imagination and skills to produce a product. Most of the Designers I know work for a large firm that specializes in design. I don't know many who are a one man show like most of the photographers I know are.

I wish you all the work you can stand and success in every way you desire. I realize that more than likely I will never work for some of you or with some of you because of our differences in how we view each others work and business practices. I will do what I have to do to make a reasonable living from my work and like you, I would not hesitate to learn web design better or print design. We all make our living doing something, hopefully it is legally done with respect to others rights along the way.

Again thanks Gd for sharing,
Charles Hilton

[prophoto]

For Gdesign
Please see recent comments to Northbeach. You would also benefit from reading the reference book on stock photos Charles Mann mentioned because apparently you are only seeing how commercial photography works in a limited way even though you hire more photography work than the average person. Rights Managed does not mean exclusive. It means Licensed work where the creator retains the copyright and licenses his property ~managing the rights~ just as previously described as an industry standard for commercial photographers including equine photographers. Licensing is typically done for 1 year and is non-exclusive. Apparently you are contracting photographers on a work for hire basis where they have agreed to give up all their rights. That is their choice but the majority of working professionals do not choose to do business under this model. Some students and newcomers fall into this trap and some prey on them to get all rights for an under market rate. Not saying this is what you do, but it is a fact.

As for the farm call pricing and show services pricing scenarios you describe in your post as being normal and to your standards, guess what? You don't get to set the fees or decide whether or not you get all the rights - the seller does and they base that on the market, their business plan and their cost of doing business. You can choose to buy or not but you don't set the fees or dictate the terms any more than your buyers dictate your terms and pricing. We could also ask you why you charge so much for your websites when a 5 page site seems to average $1500 according to your post. Why are you charging so much more than Northbeach who apparently only charges $500 or believes a 5 page site goes for that amount? I've seen them for just $100. Are you gouging? See, not very nice is it? Well it was just an example not a dig at you. You get to set your prices based on what you feel the value of your service is to buyers. Same with other sellers.

Go here to see sample pricing from surveys of professional photographers for stock licensing http://photographersindex.com/stockprice.htm These surveys are now at least 3 years old and pricing has not fallen but gone up since then. There are several types of exclusivity - regional, national, industry, limited by length of exclusivity. Each level adds cost to the license as more benefits are gained by the advertiser. (Note most if not all equine photographers would not repurpose an equine image from an assignment like a farm call unless the owner agreed to this which usually means they get a price break of some form or other consideration.) This is standard in stock pricing ~ if you read the book, it will verify this.

Note how much it would cost to license one image using the calculator referenced for a cover shot on a small brochure run ~ $425 - $850 for one year non-exclusive which does not include the costs involved in making the image, just the license, as this is for stock photos already shot rather than assigned as per a project. Shooting fees, film, prints, travel expense, etc would all be extra when this is an assigned shot. Equine photographers don't charge anywhere near these mainstream fees because of the size of the businesses and limited markets they are dealing with - meaning owners vs large corporations. They also keep their fees low by requiring copyright credit lines be displayed on the image which is a small form of promotion. The $60 licensing fee in question, the yearly brochure portion of that $350 that keeps getting thrown around erroneously tagged to one web use, is 7-14% of these mainstream rates. Even if you reduced the calculator rate by 50% for the high quantity shown there, you are still looking at a rate only 14-28% of the mainstream rate. Hardly gouging.

Really I assure you, equine photographers are not getting rich off fees paid by owners to promote stallions and farms and they are not trying to gouge them. Rather they are trying to make a living while providing a quality service that is valued, needed and wanted by many. Just like you in your business. If you do not value this service, you are welcome to rent cameras, hire someone who will hand over the film or whatever. But please get a grip on the real world of photography, all of it not just your limited view and don't try to make us into the bad guys we are not. Sure there are some exceptions, a few bad apples, but there are in every profession, even yours. Again, not saying that you are a bad apple, just stating the fact that there are a few.

The preceding was given in the spirit of education, understanding and sharing and is not intended to offend anyone. Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to share their opinions and factual information on this topic. Some may be unsettled by some posts but there has also been a lot of good information shared.

[TigerLily]

I would like to address these comments about website traffic on horse related websites. I can tell you for a fact that the commercial website for Summerplace Farm that I administer has had a average of approximately 10,000 visitors per month over the past 6 months.

I also own a small horse for sale website that I don't actively promote and that site gets about 2700 visitors per month on average.

Anyone getting 40 visitors a month needs a new system administrator.

Before anyone goes off on me about the definition of visitors let me tell you that these statistics are generated using Urchin and here is there definition of "visitor".

Visitor A visitor is defined as a series of hits, with no idle time of 30 minutes or more between any two hits, from the same IP address. Explanation: when a web surfer arrives at your site, he/she requests the files, such as GIFs and JPEGs, that make up that particular page. Each request is a hit, and they are delivered in quick succession, with no more than few seconds between them (from the server's perspective). When Urchin detects a gap of more than 30 minutes between any two hits from the same IP address, it is assumed that it is a new visitor. This is usually true, since most large ISPs, such as EarthLink, recycle idle IP addresses.

[Erin]

By the way, these issues don't pertain exclusively to photographers.

In the recording industry (in my understanding, anyway), the flip side of the coin is usually the norm -- it has long been standard practice for artists to sign over the rights to their songs to the record companies when they sign a recording contract. If Universal Music Group signs a no-name band from Dubuque, for instance, UMG is promising to spend thousands of dollars getting the album recorded, sending the band on tour, promoting the record, etc. In exchange for that, they want the exclusive rights to the songs. In essence, UMG will own the songs forever, even if the band eventually leaves the label -- in the event that that happens, the band would be unable to re-release those songs (on a greatest hits album, for instance) because they belong to Universal, not to the band.

But what's happening more frequently now is that artists are refusing to give up ownership of their songs -- their artistic works. U2 is one band that has retained the rights to all of their songs from Day One. (They had a manager with the foresight to insist on it back when there were still just four young lads from Dublin. )

If you ever saw The Artist Formerly Known as Prince (insert his weird symbol here ) in the days when he would write "slave" across his face, that was his protest against his record company's refusal to give him back the rights to his songs.

Photographers have been fortunate (or vigilant) enough that it's standard practice in their industry for the artist to retain rights to the works. I don't think this is just equine photographers either... my understanding is that most portrait, wedding, etc., photographers keep their negatives of "your" pictures. i.e. They retain ownership of the pictures, not you.

[cmannphoto]

Hi Prophoto,

SNIP
Go here to see sample pricing from surveys of professional photographers for stock licensing http://photographersindex.com/stockprice.htm These surveys are now at least 3 years old and pricing has not fallen but gone up since then.

Thanks for that link. I checked similar useage and that link and Jim's Book are very close. http://12.104.99.70/scphotos/price.lasso

I also like the comment after you calulate a price.

Charlie Mann

[poltroon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alix:
Poltroon, you mentioned a "personal" website. That is a bit of an oxymoron, because a website is certainly more exposure than a single print in an album.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By "personal" website, I meant a non-commercial website where nothing is for sale. Yes, it is open to the public. Yes, if you find it, you're welcome to look. But I don't make any money or get any benefit if you do. Therefore, it makes no sense for me to pay for web rights to put up a photo there.

If I were a trainer, selling horses, a farm, whatever, then I'd feel differently.

On "work-for-hire": actually, almost any web design is done on a work-for-hire basis. The client owns the copyright and can modify website at will. Software copyrights are almost always held by companies, not the individuals who created the individual portions of code, who are paid a salary or hourly wage, because generally software copyrights aren't valuable until the work is large and complex enough to require multiple contributors. Freelance authors, artists, and photographers are more likely to hold their copyright, though in some cases they are hired and work on staff and thus assign their copyrights to their employer. Heck, every time I author a review on Amazon.com, I assign my copyright to them without getting so much as a discount coupon in return.

This is a great discussion, and I really appreciate all the pros taking the time to comment.

[been there]

Gosh Prophoto!

I think you are taking this thread way too seriously and personally. Maybe some of the things Northbeach said have hit too close to home or you know who he/she is personally and have hard feelings - I don't know but you've taken so many things so far out of context.

I believe Northbeach has already said that he/she is NOT a web designer so your harping on northbeach selling web design for $500 is way out of line.

As for whining and such, I found what has been said by northbeach and the others who think renting good equipment is a great idea and not whining at all. Nor is the expression of opinion that a lot of photographers prices are out of line...quite a few others have expresses it as well. The fact that you keep picking on northbeach makes me think you have your own personal agenda.

And you know what, they are entitled to THEIR opinion and the way THEY want to do business too, just as YOU keep HARPING AND WHINING that photographers are. Try and keep that in mind.

As to the $350 for unlimited 2 year use - times that by the 3-6 pics needed to do a web design and you have more initial outlay than most horse owners can pay.

But let me say this, Terri, Susan and Charles are probably some of the top in the field of equine photography, so they are going to be more and probably should be the MOST expenisve. Does that mean that others without that kind of reputation should charge the same? Prophoto makes it sound like "if Terri and Susan can charge it so should I and everyone should pay it". Or that if it isn't the level of Terri and Susan, then the photographer is a beginner or an amatuer. That just isn't true. There are many good photographer out there who charge a reasonable rate for reasonable service for the regular farm/horse owner. Is what is reasonable MY opinion for MY business? You bet your rear-end it is! And if I were a equine photographer, I'd sit up and pay attention to what many have said here instead of getting so defensive and acting in denial. After all, the client does pay for the pics, but it is the graphic people who recommend which ones to use and how to use it. If the rates continue to escalate, the graphic people are just going to take over the farm pics because we make our money on the design work anyway. It sounds like it is already happening.

[been there]

Oh and Tiger Lily, nice try but I - as a vetern web designer - just ain't buying it!!

The site you are referencing, #1, is a horse show site - not someone's farm site to sell a stallion breeding or horse for sale!

And "hits" ain't "unique visitors"!

[buryinghill1]

Singer Michelle Phillips (Mama and Papas, rock group...) told her daughter, also a singer, to "never ever give up the rights to your songs, it's like giving up your soul."

Photographers (horsey or otherwise) should think the same way.

You think Ansel Adams prints get reproduced for free in all those Sierra Club calendars? His family is doing quite well because of him...
Paul McCartney's kids will benefit from their own dad's talent as well.

I growl if I have to pay a "royalty" (or use fee) but I understand why it's done.

[lauriep]

I have a question and am at work so don't have time to go through the entire thread to see if it has been answered. Please forgive...

I am shortly going to be posting, on another site, a "History of Show Jumping (and hunters, eventually" gallery, using my own photos and ones solicited from friends and others. This will be a "read only" kind of thing, no advertising whatsoever, no fees charged for viewing, and (I am told) the photos will be blocked from being able to be reproduced. At the moment I have 20 of Karen Golding's albums to start with. Most of the stuff are her own personal shots, but there are also some professional photos.

These will, for the most part, be pictures at least 15-20 years old, and much older. How will the copyright laws apply to this sort of an effort? If you prefer to email me, I'm at lpitts@hsc.edu.

Laurie