Professional pictures and fees for use

[Gucci Cowgirl]

well, i guess that depends on your definition of art....

[AKDragooPhoto]

Northbeach, since you don't know me, do not make assuptions.

You failed to comprehend my post. I was speaking of FEATURE stories. You seem to think that photographers are mindless drones. You give us no credit for understanding how to document/cover an assingment.

Please feel free to visit any of the national or state photojournalism sites. There you will find examples of the way photojournalists work. We are given an assingment to cover (if we haven't generated it ourselves) and from there is up to us. The two that I am a member of are www.nppa.org and www.pppa.org

When it come to equestrian events, the majority of my work is stock. But if you care to reference last month's Practical Horseman's article on CANTER or next month's article on Rolling Acres you will see two of my recent examples of documentary assignments.

For both articles I was given the major points, and for the most part the were not tangible things. From there it was up to me. Me, the photographer, who has to be able to take a intangible, see (and many time to forsee) a moment that makes a thousand words into a single, tangible moment frozen in time.

As I said before, the majority of the photos in equestrian magazines are from stock. This means, for those who don't understand the word, the photos are images we have shot and are on file. They are not made at the direction of anyone. They are framed by the photographer, who has taken their understanding of type of fences, of the course and the landscape for where the most explosive moments will happen. Add into that lighting (because many time the best places have awkward lighting), background (because eliminating background clutter requires more than just pulling out a different lens), angle (because variety is the spice of life).

As for documenting a how-to type article, there is more than snapping a few frames. Again background, exposure, lens, angle that best shows the subject are all up to the experience photographer. This is not just leveling ground. If you really think that the two are the same as comparing apples to apples, it speaks very clearly to your lack of knowledge.

As I said I have 10 years of being a professional (and since I am not hinding my identity, I know the readers of this board recognize my statements have validity). This is 10 years of full-time work, and not just an even 40 hours a week. My sole income is from my photography, so trust me, I have been on quite a variety of shoots.

Amy Dragoo

[been there]

Photoequs, I don't know how you got from taking photos to create a website or brochure to PHOTOJOURNALISM - this goes again towards what we talked about earlier - the difference in photos for commercial advertising and "art" that should have a copyright. You guys keep mixing it up.

I have sent many a photographer with a list of very specific shots to take and I have personally supervised the shoot. And I have personally rented equipment and taken the shoots myself. I do think that the photographer should know how to do it - lighting, angles, background, etc. Doesn't that fall under the category of knowing how to do their job? And if you think that running a bobcat or bulldozer for grading work is only "leveling ground" it just shows how pompous photographers are in thinking they are something special because they know how to operate a camera. Geesh, get over yourself!

[Heather]

I am an equine jounralist, and also an editor for a major equine news website. I write, I make assignments to writers and photogrpahers, I purchase professional pictures, and I shoot my own, though this is always strictly for finacial reasons, as I am now where in the league of a professional photographer.

Earlier this year I discovered that written work by myself, other employees of our website, and some freelance work had been used without permission, both in print and on another website. They gave us credit--there was my name! SHould iHave just happily basked in the glow of seeing my name in print? Or should I have contacted our corporate lawyers to find out who was STEALING MY NAME AND WORK AND THAT OF OTHERS?

Using something, anything, without permission is stealing. That is the bottom line. If your mother didn't teach you that when you were, like, 5, I don't know what to tell you (generic you here, not a specific poster).

If you want to have ownership of a photo, you either need to shoot it yourself, or be willing to pay for it. Kind of like if you want to have ownership of, say, a car, you either need to pay for one, or be real good with engine parts and a welding torch.

If you don't like the ownership terms and price of say, a Lexus, then buy a Toyota. But don't complain because youcouldnt afford the Lexus or be surprised when the Toyota doesn't look, run, feel, or act exactly like the Lexus.

Professional photography work IS expensive, I know our site can't afford to use it full time--that's why I or my freelancers often get behind the camera ourselves. But I don't pretend for an instant that people can't tell the difference between my work, and CHarlie's--and the "low resolution of a website" has absolutely nothing to do with it. Nor does the equipment--believe me, if you have the eye you could get an image with an antique light box that would be worlds better than an amateur with a Nikon D1. You have no idea how I wish this wasn't so, but after many years of shooting horse stuff, I promise you it's the truth.

I do think this issue is hard to understnad unless you are in this sort of business where your product is semi intangible. Because people can't hold the artistic touch or eye in their hand, it doesn't seem like a real prodcut. TO them, the physical picture is what you pay for, just as when I was a freelance writer it sometimes seemed like the only value in my work was the number of words and how fast it could be done, not the brain power that went in to their craft. Now that I'm an editor, I try hard to know that it's the intangibles in the business that you pay for.

Are the artistic temperments--photogrpahers and writers alike-- out there that can make your job tough? Absolutely! But see the great thing is, I don't have to hire them! And neither do you! Isn't that a hoot? Total free choice--it's the best.

[AKDragooPhoto]

Argh, in a moment of weakness I got sucked into feeding the zealots. Bad Amy, bad Amy!

"I'll use CAPITALS, lowercase or sanscrit until the font police come and get me," Josh Lyman, The West Wing

[prophoto]

Thank you Heather for a most excellent description of copyright, ownership (of original creations) and free choice.

"SHould iHave just happily basked in the glow of seeing my name in print? Or should I have contacted our corporate lawyers to find out who was STEALING MY NAME AND WORK AND THAT OF OTHERS?"

Perfect example of free choice. All CREATORS including photographers, writers, DESIGNERS, etc. are free to CHOOSE to view their work as copyright protected property or not. In this thread we have determined that most professional equine photographers CHOOSE to own the rights to their work and to license those rights to customers desiring the VALUE of professional photography. Evidently there are many who agree in this value or we wouldn't be able to sell these rights. We have also learned that some but not all horse breeders or owners CHOOSE professional photography because it enhances their equine business by attracting more attention.

"Using something, anything, without permission is stealing. That is the bottom line. If your mother didn't teach you that when you were, like, 5, I don't know what to tell you (generic you here, not a specific poster)."

Perfect explanation of ownership and the right of the owner to keep ownership of their creations. Of course for you designers (or others) out there who choose to give away their work including ownership so that no further benefit can come to you through it, that is your choice and you have the freedom to do just that. Even if others think that choice is not a good one. Free choice again both on the part of the one doing the choosing and the one judging if the choice was a good one. But you don't hear any whining and complaining about how wrong designers are, just attempts to get them to look at options and choices while educating themselves.

"If you want to have ownership of a photo, you either need to shoot it yourself, or be willing to pay for it. Kind of like if you want to have ownership of, say, a car, you either need to pay for one, or be real good with engine parts and a welding torch."

Amen Heather. Many pros here have said again and again that if people want to shoot their own photos, go for it. There are even photography clubs where pros help amateurs do just this. But I would guarantee that those pros would NOT want to help amateurs who are apparently trying to downgrade and devalue what we do for a living. Why on earth would we? Amateurs like some of the more trollish types who have responded to this thread certainly do professional photographers no favors nor themselves if they expect pros to assist them. I've noticed that none of the design pros here who seem to be doing the most complaining about pro photographers pricing structure think of themselves as talented artists in their fields ---- they all sound more like production workers, working on the factory line pumping out the designs one after another, giving away their rights to their creations for a one time fee when they could be licensing the creation to work for them now and later. Again these are CHOICES one can make about one's profession or job because we do have freedom of choice.

"If you don't like the ownership terms and price of say, a Lexus, then buy a Toyota. But don't complain because youcouldnt afford the Lexus or be surprised when the Toyota doesn't look, run, feel, or act exactly like the Lexus."

What a priceless analogy. This is REALLY what it all comes down to - you either buy the Lexus and be glad about it or you buy the Toyota or build one yourself and gracefully accept that you cannot afford the Lexus.
If you buy the Lexus, you may be a bit put out that it cost so much to get something of that high quality but in the end you got what you wanted and mostly you're happy about that. If you buy the Toyota, bitching about it and trying to put down all the Lexuses and their makers, owners and admirers isn't cool or smart - it's just plain immature and well, bitchy. Again we are back to CHOICES ---- you can CHOOSE to bitch and moan because you can't afford something or because you don't see the value in it and others can CHOOSE to view you as small minded and bitchy when you do so. Or you could CHOOSE to realize that all moaning you do will not make one difference to an established industry's business practices and CHOOSE not to rant on over it since it is a silly thing to do given your absolute powerlessness to affect any change outside your own industry.

"Professional photography work IS expensive, I know our site can't afford to use it full time--that's why I or my freelancers often get behind the camera ourselves. But I don't pretend for an instant that people can't tell the difference between my work, and CHarlie's--and the "low resolution of a website" has absolutely nothing to do with it. Nor does the equipment--believe me, if you have the eye you could get an image with an antique light box that would be worlds better than an amateur with a Nikon D1. You have no idea how I wish this wasn't so, but after many years of shooting horse stuff, I promise you it's the truth."

Without "the eye", anyone can make photographs with some decent technical knowledge and inclination to keep trying. But with "the eye" a pro brings a LOT more to the process and to the result. This is what you are paying for. Some pro once replied something like this when asked why his price was so high "It's 10% for the image and 90% for the years of study, dollars in equipment and education, the experience and knowing exactly how to make it." The same can be said in any profession: there are the real pros who are worth their rates even if higher than is desired and there are wannabes who don't know their value and either undercharge, give it away or charge too much fluctating wildly because they range from dreadfully unskilled to highly skilled but not yet professional in how they run their business or value their work. These 2 groups cannot be compared side by side either in work or in rates but the fact that there are such wide variances means a lot of people get confused. Couple that with the fact that photography (or design or writing) is an art which results in a unique object, intangible in it's value, means even more confusion. If anyone could "do it" there would never be artists, photographers, writers, designers. So given all the creatives in the world, there is something "more" about "it" than just doing it - such as the eye.

We all know about the $10/page vs $250/page web designers -- back to a point I posed earlier that conveniently none of the complaining designers responded to: why should anyone pay more than $10/page for web design since there are "professionals" out there who do it for that rate? Again with the difference in web page pricing, it's about CHOICE, informed CHOICE, both on the part of the designer in setting rates and on the part of customer choosing to use one over the other. I don't really need the answer, I know why I would pay more ---- I'm also just making a point here that it's not OK to whine and carry on about photographers business practices when many of the same complaints voiced could be made about designers. And yes, that includes designers who do retain ownership of their work and license it rather than sell it under work for hire - I actually know some of these folks. In fact, logo design and corporate identity is a very lucrative niche BECAUSE of the licensing that goes forward over time. Imagine holding the copyright on the logo for Nike or Coke ------

"I do think this issue is hard to understnad unless you are in this sort of business where your product is semi intangible. Because people can't hold the artistic touch or eye in their hand, it doesn't seem like a real prodcut. TO them, the physical picture is what you pay for, just as when I was a freelance writer it sometimes seemed like the only value in my work was the number of words and how fast it could be done, not the brain power that went in to their craft. Now that I'm an editor, I try hard to know that it's the intangibles in the business that you pay for."

Thanks again for the explanation of the PARTS that go into making a work which is the same as with photography. It's not just the camera, it's not just the scene, it's not just the film, it's not just the light, it's not just the number of frames shot. It's all of these things and much much more especially in action work where anticipation and intimately knowing how the action will likely play out is also involved. The Pro has studied and learned all of these and knows how to use them in balance to get what meets their vision and yes the needs of the customer but if the customer was in complete control of the whole process they would just do it themselves rather than hiring a pro. Sort of like horseshoes.... do you shoe your own horse? Think you can do just as well as your farrier? Try it sometime - it too is an art as well as a science.

"Are the artistic temperments--photogrpahers and writers alike-- out there that can make your job tough? Absolutely! But see the great thing is, I don't have to hire them! And neither do you! Isn't that a hoot? Total free choice--it's the best."

Amen, amen, amen. Free CHOICE to buy what you want to suit your needs. Free CHOICE to like or dislike whole industries based on what they sell and how much they sell it for. (Personally I dislike the cable industry but I don't rant on and on about it because some very nice people I know value it and that would be rude to them. Besides ranting about it just shows me as a petty person focused on negativity and that kind of thing begins to envelope you. I find no real value in cable though at the prices charged, but if it were free I might use it a little.) Free CHOICE to give away your own work if you wish or to maintain ownership and reap the rewards of that ownership over time if you are willing to CHOOSE to work to do so (additional uses don't drop out of the sky). Free CHOICE to write an editorial piece or shoot an editorial photo, keep ownership of it and then repurpose it later by selling it for use as advertising copy or images. Free choice for all of your posessions including copyright creations.

Complaining Designers, a closing note, instead of whining and complaining about other industries' work practices why aren't you considering that YOUR work is original and can be copyrighted and licensed? Is all this bashing just about having fun cutting down another profession? That's not fun just negative but this becomes a whole different topic so we won't go there. Why aren't you trying to do the best you can for your business by making work that can be used over again as in repurposing rather than giving it away for a one time fee? If your answer is because that's the way it is, then why are you not doing something about that? It's your CHOICE how you sell your work and FYI some designers do license their designs. See this page http://www.gag.org/contracts/contracts.html with definitions of the various kinds of rights, work for hire, etc. This was written by graphic artists for graphic artists and is an excellent reference. Have any of you ever been to Graphic Artists Guild forums at www.gag.org ? There are discussions there about copyright in design work including posts from lawyers specializing in intellectual property laws. Do any of you know that this national organization is part of a contingent of creative groups, including photographers, illustrators and writers, who are working in Washington to protect and strengthen copyright laws for the benefits of their members and for all creatives who rely on these laws (and the ability to retain ownership of creations) to make a living? From all that has been written here by designers it appears that none of the values GAG sets out are being embraced at all. Perhaps it's because you just didn't know ????

It's really difficult to understand why members of a very similar profession (creatives) are so dead set against other creatives structuring their businesses in the most advantageous way especially when this way has long been advocated as the standard in the industry. Hard to see why you aren't also following the licensing model for your own benefit. Hard to understand why you have chosen to completely overlook copyright laws and protection and how those laws can assist you and instead have gone to commodity sales of a commodity, your work. You may see your design work as a commodity, another widget in the world of widgets. Photographers do not see their work as a commodity but rather as a creative work, unique and of value, and they proceed to get that value out of the work whenever it is used. Seems like common sense, just as the pricing for a dinner is more expensive than for a sandwich. More value, more $. Or the Lexus/Toyota example and we could go on but we won't.

[Northbeach]

Geez, I couldn't even get through most of your post prophoto.

I don't think any of the designers here have talked about stealing. There you guys go making up stuff yet again.

And you quoted: "Free choice again both on the part of the one doing the choosing and the one judging if the choice was a good one. But you don't hear any whining and complaining about how wrong designers are, just attempts to get them to look at options and choices while educating themselves."

Well, this whole thread basically got going on my suggestion that if you don't like paying the high prices of the photographers, then rent good equipment and learn to take the photos yourself." It is THE PHOTOGRAPHERS WHO STARTED THE WHINING!!!!!! IT IS THE PHOTOGRAPHERS WHO GOT ALL UP AND ARMS AT ANYONE DARING TO DO THIS!!!!! Go back to the "saddle makes the rider" whines and snipes.

As far as the zealot statement. There have been many stallion owners and farm owners who have responded to this thread stating that they think the prices and conditions have gotten out of hand - are they whining? Are they zeolots? No, they and the graphic designers are exercising their free choice NOT to deal with the pro photographers anymore. They have made arrangements to find an alternate way and it is apparently working for them and us - a loss to you. As you said, it is our choice. That is what this thread has mostly been about. It is you photographers who are whining about it.

I briefly made a point about equine photographers not being upfront with their fees. I can and will whine about that. It is NOT my place to ask a photographer 1 million questions to get a "feel" for how they charge when so many of you admittedly charge differently. If I say to a photographer, "I would like to buy this photo for a stallion ad." The photographer says, "It cost $X.XX" I shouldn't have to be the one who then has to ask, "If the circulation goes over 10,000, will there be another charge?" and "now, if it goes over 30,000, will there be another charge?" and "if it appears in 3 straight issues, will there be another charge?" and "if Jupiter lines up with Saturn, will there be another charge?" No, of course not! The photographer should outline exactly what their price is or, since there apparently is NO standard pricing, ask ME questions so they can determine the full price.

Get this scenerio from yet another "pro" photographer. A stallion owner takes a photo with their own equipment - NOT the photographer. The client takes THEIR photo to a photographer who happens to do some touch up work and background changes. The stallion owner wants to put it on a website and asks said photographer "how much?". The stallion owner pays photographer the agreed price and gets the photo back. The photographer has now taken the stallion owner's copyright OFF the photo and replaced it with his own. Then the photograhper says (after work is done, money paid mind you) there will be an ongoing fee for every year that it is used!!! The client ate the money that was paid to the photographer, took their original photo to a graphic person, had a nice background put on, some touch ups, paid the agreed price and was good to go! This, again, happens to a lot of people over and over.

Do you really get a custom done, custom negotiated contract every time you hire someone to do anything? I know this kind of thing happens in any industry but there seems to be a LOT of it happening with photographers.

If I have to custom negotiate a written contract for every single photo my graphics firm buys, then we'd have to have an entire legal department to handle it. Most photos are not bought that way. It is just invoiced out - 5x7 photo for commercial use or something like that.

As far as the Lexus or Toyota statement, no one responded to it because it was kind of stupid. I had already said that the photographers who are tops in your field should charge more -Terri, Susan, Charles, etc. But just because someone doesn't charge a lot doesn't mean the work isn't good. I know designers who charge a LOT who aren't worth a penny. I know a parttime designer who doesn't hardly charge anything that is better than just about anyone I know. No one here was whining about paying a "toyota" price and NOT getting their "lexus". It is just the opposite. People are tired of paying Terri's and Susan's price - the "lexus" and getting crap or having the "terms" of use suddenly "change". I AM NOT SAYING TERRI OR SUSAN DOES THIS. From what I can tell, you either decide to pay Terri's and Susan's price or you don't - they are upfront and professional about it. The problem is that so many are not.

[Smart Alec]

I didn't read through all of this yet, but as an illustrator myself, I can sympathize with the photographers and also with any clients in that it can get very confusing as to when a fee needs to be paid.
Most times when an image is used that was originally someone else's creation (whether a photo or painting or whatever) the author should get paid for the use.
Many times, when an image is used for an article, the magazine pays for one time use and that is all...the artist can resell the images rights elsewhere. However, if they were to print the image in a second or third issue, yes, the author should get paid for that use. However, sometimes a magazine may buy full rights (much more expensive) but if they do....they can use it anytime, anywhere, and no one else may use it....depends all upon the contract or written agreement.
Being a photographer or illustrator or painter is real work. I know it may seem like an 'easy' or 'fun' job but it is a job and it's how people make their living. I went to a real college and got a real degree to become a real illustrator. (you'd be surprised how many people ask me if I went to a 4 year college and earned a BFA!) I'm not pointing any fingers here at all, I'm just telling everyone what I have explained over and over to many people I speak with. A great source to look at is the Graphic Artists Guild Guidlines book---it is very informative and protects the rights of artists.

To the OP, I do feel for you that this is a surprise, but you aren't being taken advantage of. If you could think of it in a way that whenever a person sells a books, the author gets a royalty check....this is very similar. I hope I didn't make things more confusing! Best of luck. :

"Donuts. Is there anything they can't do?"
~Homer

[Heather]

Sorry you thought my analogy was stupid. I was hoping it would help, maybe it will help others.

I will say that if I bought a photo from someone for our site,and they came to me and said, Oh, you have more users than I thought, I need another $50 or whatever, I would tell them where they could stick it. However, I can honestly say I have NEVER had that happen. Now, I know that I pay some photogs more than they charge other publications because we aren't a big name publication (yet) and we don't buy enough pro photos throughout the year to make us a "good client," but I don't begrudge them that--most businesses operate on a volume-discount basis that at this point, we can't rpovide them.

If there is an epidemic of professional photographers out there who are chraging one price then coming back with their hand out, or changing copyrights on photos, etc. then that is ridiculous, and I would be screaming too. But I have to say, it's never happened to me, as a rider who buys photos, and a professional who does. I get charged a price, I use the photo for it;s intended purpose. If I can't afford the price, I find another photo.

I also agree Northbeach that you shouldn't have to play games to figure out your final cost. But again, that simply hasn't been my expereince. Maybe I've just been lucky. I love taking pictures of my own horses, and I love taking pictures at the competitions I cover. I've had photos published in magazines and on our site. But I don't consider myself a photographer. I'm a writerwho takes pictures. Big difference.

I haven't heard any photographer here say, "dear god whatever you do don't take your own pictures.". I have heard them say, don't be suprised if your pictures don't work as well for their intended purpose as a professional's. As a professional, that has been my expereince as well, but if others are getting just as a good a results on their own, great!

[Smart Alec]

but I thought your analogy was good.

"Donuts. Is there anything they can't do?"
~Homer

[Molly99]

I think she was refering to were Northbeach said it was a stupid comparision.

I thought it was a good one, also, especially for those of us lacking in creative juices.

And Northbeach, you must not read very well... as there were people prior to you that did comment on the comparison and though it a GOOD one.


I have learned a great deal from this topic, including who I would and would not do business with.

[This message was edited by Molly99 on Jan. 15, 2003 at 03:15 PM.]

[This message was edited by Molly99 on Jan. 15, 2003 at 03:18 PM.]

[been there]

Heather and others, I don't think it was the analogy itself - it was the way it was applied to this thread.

I don't think anyone here, especially the graphic designers think that creative output should be given away or that top quality work should be sold at bargain prices. I do, however, think that there are a lot of equine photographers that do not follow the same "standards" that other commercial photographers follow. This thread seems to be about "equine" photographers and not really just photographers in general. I must say that I have had numerous "unexpected" and flat out bad experiences with equine photogs. It sounds like Northbeach has too and a few others. Even Charles Mann stated there are some that he does not like their business practices. So, it is fairly evident that there is a problem.

Prophoto, you have been queen of the ranting and bitching on this thread. Your on and on and on and on posts bitching about the graphic & web designers makes your complaint of us bitching very laughable! lol

[susan b]

For what it is worth, I've had several bad experiences with equine photographers too.

I bought website rights to 3 photos for quite a bit of money - stated clearly on an invoice, not a "contract". After my web designer utilized the photos on the website - 2 were cut out with the background changed and 1 was cropped in slightly all to fit the overall design and look of the website as to be expected - the photographer called and said I owed additional money because we had changed her "work". She tried to weasel an additional $500 PER PHOTO. I faxed a copy of the invoice that stated "for web design use" and said that is what we used it for and if she had further questions, she could contact my attorney. I never heard anything back but I can imagine that someone else may have been intimidated enough to pay it.

Elizabeth, I also don't see in this thread where anyone talks about "stealing" images or copy. Did that ever come up? - not that I found and I don't think anyone advocated it.

I also find prophotos "ranting" and then he/she complaining of the graphic people ranting kind of funny!

Prophoto, you might need to be aware that most horsey websites are in the $250 - $1000 mark. That may have been said by someone else but your nasty posts and attacks are not making me feel very comfortable in dealing with you or anyone that thinks like you. Just my 2 cents worth.

[TigerLily]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by susan b:
She tried to weasel an additional $500 PER PHOTO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who was the photographer?

[prophoto]

Northbeach, well, you are a bit long winded too so I guess that makes us even

A couple counterpoints:
you said:"Well, this whole thread basically got going on my suggestion that if you don't like paying the high prices of the photographers, then rent good equipment and learn to take the photos yourself."

Yes and all of the pros have stated repeatedly that if people want to take their own images, that's exactly what they should do.

you said:"As far as the zealot statement."

Actually I never mentioned zealot - someone else may have.

you said:"There have been many stallion owners and farm owners who have responded to this thread stating that they think the prices and conditions have gotten out of hand"

No argument here - you are correct that some owner/breeders have said this. But that has always been the case because there are always certain segments of a market who don't see the value in professional services. Just the same as the way I see little value in cable.

you said:"they and the graphic designers are exercising their free choice NOT to deal with the pro photographers anymore. They have made arrangements to find an alternate way and it is apparently working for them and us

As noted, this has always been true, there have always been those who shoot their own photos or have a graphic designer do it for them. There are also many who also create their own brochures and websites probably because they believe the pricing of designers is too high and they can do just as well themselves. Judging whether any of these alternative choices meets the same quality as if a pro does the work is a subjective judgement, in the eyes of the beholder. But the bottom line is the whether the piece will attract customers for the client. Most tend to believe that professional photography, professional design work will do the best job but that doesn't make this the only option as we can see by some who have replied here.

you said:"I briefly made a point about equine photographers not being upfront with their fees. I can and will whine about that. It is NOT my place to ask a photographer 1 million questions to get a "feel" for how they charge when so many of you admittedly charge differently.

Well northbeach, I agree completely that all professionals should clearly and completely communicate their pricing and policies. That is just good business. It is also true that photographers charge differently just as designers charge differently. As previously noted, some designers DO LICENSE their work rather than selling it and ownership of it for a one time fee.

you said:"I shouldn't have to be the one who then has to ask, "If the circulation goes over 10,000, will there be another charge?" and "now, if it goes over 30,000, will there be another charge?"

No you shouldn't have to ask this question. BUT you should not be dismayed or shocked when you get the response that "pricing depends on usage - more usage means higher pricing". Why shouldn't you be dismayed? Because this is a standard in advertising photography business structure called Rights Managed where the creator retains ownership of the image and licenses it as needed for the value it can bring to advertising campaigns. And the image does bring value because it is what attracts attention - the text and design is certainly not the first thing that jumps off the page and asks the viewer to look closer. It is the image that does that. That is not to say that the text and design are not important just that the image is the draw, the hook that gets the interest going.

you said:"Get this scenerio from yet another "pro" photographer. A stallion owner takes a photo with their own equipment - NOT the photographer. The client takes THEIR photo to a photographer who happens to do some touch up work and background changes. The stallion owner wants to put it on a website and asks said photographer "how much?". The stallion owner pays photographer the agreed price and gets the photo back. The photographer has now taken the stallion owner's copyright OFF the photo and replaced it with his own. Then the photograhper says (after work is done, money paid mind you) there will be an ongoing fee for every year that it is used!!!"

Well on the surface this sounds like something very wrong - taking someone else's property, the image created by the owner, and making changes to it based on the owner's request and then labeling it as their own property. However, we don't know what the contractual arrangement was between these 2 and we don't know if any of the terms were discussed before the work was done. It should have been and it should have been in writing so there would be no surprises. That's the reason for contracts. In addition, this same scenario could have happened with a designer and I'm sure it has, we just haven't heard about it.

you said:"This, again, happens to a lot of people over and over."

Is this one particular photographer you are referring to or several? No names please as I am not interested in bashing any person in particular. I just cannot imagine any I know doing such a thing given that the underlying work is not theirs to begin with. Now if the work was theirs completely, this again is part of standard practice, to license the image for use rather than give it away for a one time fee.

you said:"Do you really get a custom done, custom negotiated contract every time you hire someone to do anything? I know this kind of thing happens in any industry but there seems to be a LOT of it happening with photographers. If I have to custom negotiate a written contract for every single photo my graphics firm buys, then we'd have to have an entire legal department to handle it. Most photos are not bought that way. It is just invoiced out - 5x7 photo for commercial use or something like that."

Contracts for the for the protection of BOTH parties, so each ends up happy with the transaction. Words and assumptions lead to misunderstandings. Once a professional has their contract language in order, it is very easy to use a template contract form and just make minor adjustments as needed to reflect the details of a specific transaction. If you are not using contracts, you are asking for problems and they will appear eventually.


you said: "As far as the Lexus or Toyota statement, no one responded to it because it was kind of stupid."

No it's not stupid. And you overlook the point that people who desire the Lexus but only want to pay for the Toyota seem to be the ones whining and moaning about how expensive the Lexus is and why isn't it just given away. Point is we all have levels of comfort in spending and we shouldn't rip the people who provide the stuff we cannot afford just because we are not economically able to have their stuff but we want it anyway. Doing so just makes us look like immature whiners and not as credible grownups.

you said:"People are tired of paying Terri's and Susan's price - the "lexus" and getting crap or having the "terms" of use suddenly "change". I AM NOT SAYING TERRI OR SUSAN DOES THIS. From what I can tell, you either decide to pay Terri's and Susan's price or you don't - they are upfront and professional about it. The problem is that so many are not."

I agree that pricing needs to reflect the level of competence & quality and for those who are overcharging, well the market will sort them out eventually. But whose definition of "suddenly change" are we to accept in this scenario? Yes, it would be a problem to deliver images with stated licensing pricing included and then a week or a month later, drastically increase those prices. Not that a business person is not fully within their rights to do so - how many price lists have you seen with the disclaimer 'prices subject to change without notice'. Even more unsettling would be to raise prices because the person or company wanting to use the image had those "deep pockets". I'd like to think that all business people providing services base their pricing on some set of standard pricing and do not add premiums just because a client has money --- in other words to be fair to all clients. But I am sure there are some out there who are not honest and earnest in this regard. What I have been saying is that the licensing model is based on payment by use --- more use, more payment, less use, less payment. That is fair because it means the image earns money based on the work it does - more work, more pay, etc. But as a business person, a photographer or a designer is free to revising their pricing as needed to reflect their costs of doing business and the value of their work. I am sure there have been times your own pricing was raised when a client came back to you and you had to make a choice: honor the old price or explain why there is a new price. Same with all service providers.

Now I am still intrigued to know: why aren't the designers here using the licensing model for their own work? Do any of you know about the Graphic Artists Guild and their work on behalf of the rights of designers?

[ise@ssl]

We have used some professional photographers but we've stayed away from those that want additional money every single time the photo is used. We simply cannot justify the fees they expect to receive.

As a breeder I need to have good solid photos of young horses - paying the fees discussed by photographers on this thread is just not something we can justify. We aren't asking for "award winning" photography - just straight forward photos of the horses standing or moving (usually at the Inspections we host). Plus our horses change so much as they grow - those huge fees just don't balance out.

I feel if a stallion owner uses a professional photographer for a shoot for future marketing - the fee they negotiate should cover all that - or keep shopping around.

This year for our inspection we used a company called Instant Xposure. They were excellent photographers - maybe not horse experts but all the participants in the Inspections were extremely pleased. They could see the photos immediately on a monitor and select what they wanted. Their fee rate is one rate for print photos (which they provide that day) and the buyer DOES not own the copyrights - another fee is if the buyer purchases images downloaded on a CD (there's a maximum # of images & a flat fee) BUT the BUYER owners the copyright!!! YEAH!!!

We had wonderful shots of our horses (even pulled more out of the barn for spontaneous photo shoots and the end of the Inspection) - spent a lump sum of money BUT - it was minimal compared to the going rate for equine photographers. Plus we had the ring all set up with flowers, etc.

Because we've used the photos for promotion, sales and advertising the cost is easily justified. AND we can continue to use them on a website or whatever without additional fees. We do give credit for the photos even though we don't have to do it.

The photographs who did the shoot were thrilled with the business they did and we hope to use them again. I have to believe more services like this will be out there.

One thing I do object to is shows or inspections having an EXCLUSIVE photographer for the event. That is so unfair, IMHO, because many people simply cannot afford the fees. Even at our Inspection we allow the horse's owner to have other people photograph or video.

One other final point. When photographers refer to their stock photos that they take at shows, events, etc. - why don't they at least identify the horse & owner when it's used in print. By Golly, they put their own name on there!!! Well what about the horse???

[tm]

&gt;&gt; One other final point. When photographers refer to their stock photos that they take at shows, events, etc. - why don't they at least identify the horse & owner when it's used in print. By Golly, they put their own name on there!!! Well what about the horse???&gt;&gt;

Every photo that I send out from my stock library has complete identification attached to it: horse, rider, owner, location, date photographed. Sometimes the editor or designer chooses to omit this information.

Terri Miller

[Northbeach]

Prophoto, the zeolot statment wasn't to you. I think the name at the bottem of the post was Amy.

Also, the analogy that was asked why no one convienently responded to was the $10 per page website design, not the Lexus analogy. Sorry I mixed up what was being posted. But, hey if someone can get a website for $10 per page and it does what they want, all the power to them.

ise@ssl made some good points. We don't always need a photo from Terri or Susan. Would it be nice if they were all that good? Yes, but does it justify a particular goal - that is for the client to decide and I would never critize anyone for offering good quality for a good price as has been done repeatedly here.

Prophoto posted:

"Contracts for the for the protection of BOTH parties, so each ends up happy with the transaction. Words and assumptions lead to misunderstandings. Once a professional has their contract language in order, it is very easy to use a template contract form and just make minor adjustments as needed to reflect the details of a specific transaction. If you are not using contracts, you are asking for problems and they will appear eventually."

Well, that makes it the photographer's responsibility then doesn't it? And a LOT of photographers are NOT offering a templete with their terms spelled out. Matter of fact, that has only happened to me a couple of times. The rest have all been basic verbage typed on an invoice.

As for the rest of what was said, Prophoto, it sounds like you and I agree on a lot of points. I really think quite a bit of what you posted was based on some assumptions and the challenges of getting a point across on a BB. I never said that there wasn't value in Pro services or that anyone should give anything away.

The biggest thing we disagree on is that graphic design is considered 'work for hire'. That is the industry standard. If there are a few who license their product, they probably don't have very much business, certainly not a full time graphics firm that conducts regular client business - do a search on the internet with graphic designers as the keyword search.

There is a HUGE market for photographers to sell photos without all these conditions attached and it seems like a lot of people are looking to get away from the licensing and go that route. I know we won't do business that way and many others I've talked to won't either. Thats our choice.

Big companies like Nike and Coke OWN their logos - they do not pay royalties to the person who designed it or, should I saym, firm that came up with design. I don't know of ANYONE who is licensing a corporate identity package - it is a CORPORATE identity - not a designer identity package!!

I also resent that attitudes of some photographers that "well this is work so blah blah blah and I went to school for this so blah blah blah." Well, ya know, I went to school for what I do and I reckon most professionals at whatever field they are in did too. And I WORK too. So what? And the attitude of "you have to know lighting and background and angle and blah blah blah." Well, SHOULDN'T someone who is a professional in their field ACTUALLY know how to do it? So you how to do your job. Does that make it unique. I guess it does if you are a government employee! I reckon a brain surgeon knows their job too but they don't license their work! Big fee for work performed, yes! But license it, no! Oh and I'm sure they went to school too! If they DON'T know their job, it is called malpractice!

[been there]

Nike or Coke paying royalties for their logo!!! ha ha ha! Not on this planet! If anyone is stupid enough to pay royalties for a corporate identity package, they deserve to get ripped off!!!

Corporate identities are owned and TRADEMARKED by the corporation! NOT the designer!!! They do NOT pay a licensing fee! Where is this stuff coming from!!!!!

[elizabeth]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by susan b:
Elizabeth, I also don't see in this thread where anyone talks about "stealing" images or copy. Did that ever come up? - not that I found and I don't think anyone advocated it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You aren't talking to ME, right? I'm the "elizabeth" on this BB, but I can't find a post of mine to which you might be referring. . . .