Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 25, 2007 at 2:58 PM
As a continuation of this thread, I would like to take a more positive approach to the conversation and address the future of stock photography. Specifically, as the supply of excellent nature photos continues to grow (supply increases), what does the independent stock photographer need to do to ensure their continued success?
In the thread linked above, I have made the comparison to the changes that have taken place in the plumbing and hot-water heating industry. Just as the "Mega Home Center" has had tremendous impact on how the the typical home owner "consumes" P&H products and sevices, so will the growing supply of "hobbyist photography" impact the buying habits of photo buyers, as seen in the now-terminated HP contest.
So what is the stock photographer to do to adjust to the changing economic environment of their industry? Is simply fighting the trend and sticking to their "traditional guns" enough?
Jim,
In my view the whole concept is flawed. Nature stock never was a viable stand alone business for full time photographers. For many photographers of all experience levels it is and has been a place for some income but certainly not a raise your family, pay the mortgage, pay the bills middle class job.
The fact is a bear photo shot in 1970 is just as salable today as it was when made. Nature stock just never has been a full time livable model.
Check and see how many stock agencies are looking for new nature photographers to join their business model.
The people who are really being hurt are the people who would like to make photography part of there income. The people who want to take a vacation and have photography sales from that trip be a way of justifying there expense. Those are the guys who should be concerned.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 25, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Jess, good points. To be successful, it pays to have the eggs spread among many baskets.
Posted by David Chauvin on January 25, 2007 at 8:05 PM
A lot of discussion has gone on about the value of an image. In it's basest
form, a stock photograph is a commodity. A commodity is only worth what
someone is willing to pay for it. In today's electronic world, there is so much
more of all grades of this commodity being made available. For lack of a
better analogy, what was once a hand crafted cottage industry is now mass
produced and easily distributed. Today's reality is that it's a buyer's market.
I feel it is not always realistic for non-pros to expect or hold out for pro level
compensation. If that were the case the buyers would automatically go to
their regular pro stock sources. If someone pays pro prices, they are more
than likely to deal with a pro shooter. If the cost is the same, why go through
the trouble and doubt of dealing with an unknown amateur when you can
have the peace of mind of dealing with a known pro supplier. This leaves
someone with no pro aspirations completely out of the loop.
I have a job that pays the bills and the few photo sales I make help a bit to
finance my avocation. I do not actively market my work but I always ask for
what I perceive to be fair compensation. Maybe I've been selling myself
short, but most attempts at raising prices end in no sale. I have turned
down quite a few sales because of pricing and the potential buyers simply move
along until they find someone willing to meet their price point. We all
have to draw our own bottom line.
What troubles me more are arguments turning this into a morality issue.
Someone not demanding "professional rates" may or may not be under pricing
their work. To question someone's values, principles or ethics over the
pricing of their own work is ridiculous and the implications are insulting.
Agree or disagree,,,,,,fine. Give me a reasonable argument. But please lay
off the holier than thou, it's for your own good crap. As for killing
the profession, as long as people need images, there will be a market.
How it all shakes out is anybody's guess but I'm pretty sure it won't look
like yesterday's or even today's market.
I work in an industry where we had to compete against foreign businesses
that were government subsidized. They were constantly undercutting our
prices and gaining customers. But through aggressive reorganization and creative
sales techniques, we outlasted them all and are the last man standing. We now
are in a sold out position for the forseeable future. Will this last? Only until someone
comes out with a better product at a cheaper price or we do something dumb to screw
it up.
Please correct me if there is some gross flaw in my thinking.
Best Regards,
David
Posted by Rick Dunn on January 25, 2007 at 11:52 PM
Supply and Demand. The supply has increased dramatically in recent years. Expecting prices for images to remain where they were 5 years ago - staying the course or sticking to traditional guns - is wishful thinking and a path to extinction. A photographer must be able to differentiate his or her work from the hobbyists in order to command premium prices because the supply of hobbyist images is growing exponentially.
HP has figured out that they don't need to pay tens of $1,000s of dollars for an image. Some may find it offensive or distasteful, but it's smart business. I suspect that they'll have no problem setting up a successful contest somewhere that gets them their images for their price. Someone will supply them with the images. Of course, as consumers, those who are offended have the choice to do business with some other printer company as a form of protest.
I find it peculiar that many of those who are so opposed to the $1000 HP deal have likely purchased camera equipment on the internet from some e-company that is selling for less than a brick-n-mortar store in their hometown. Isn't it the same market dynamic? - pay only as much as you have to - but it's somehow seen as distasteful because now we're on the 'losing' end of the deal.
It's a darwinian world; adapt or become obsolete....
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 26, 2007 at 9:14 AM
I guess it comes as no suprise that David and Rick echo my thinking pretty accurately. Some rambling thoughts...
I think the biggest dissappointment with the resistance to the contest was the tactic used that David referred to - the casting of doubt on one's ethics because they would have participated. It's a good thing indeed to educate and encourage others to get the right price - for which I'm sure we're all grateful - but something altogether different to insuate low moral standards because some (many?) thought "the deal" was fair and would have participated.
Once all of the information was placed on the table - what the contest entails and the ensuing discussion of how the compensation was not up to the standards a pro would get, I think each person had the right to determine whether they wanted to participate or not. This is another point that I feel strongly about - one can appreciate the education on what they should/could receive for compensation, but I suspect many did NOT appeciate the pressure/lobbying applied to discourage participation.
Now for some insight - the first page of thumbnails in the HP gallery was filling up quickly early in the day. But as the discussion dragged on and protests to the contest grew stronger, photos started being deleted by those who posted them. It was at this point I knew it was over.
Something else not discussed up to this point is how a manufacturer passes on their costs of production to the consumer. Do high-priced stock photos inflate the price of HP products? Obviously the cost of photography is built into their consumer pricing, as are all other costs of making the product. Would HP pass on the saving from using hobbyist photos to the consumer? Who knows, but we know for sure they would certainly pass on any costs that went higher.
So, back to the intent of this thread - if I was a pro stock photographer, what would I do to survive in these changing times?
I believe the first thing I would do is reorganize my inventory of images and separate the ones of highest value from those of marginal value. If a pro's inventory is anything like mine, I would end up with far fewer "valuable" images than less-valuable ones. At that point, I might create a program to offer to clients like HP - here is a selection (of my less valuable images) that they can choose from that I am willing to deal with. Perhaps I do not surrender complete ownership, but I offer them exclusive use at a price that would make them not want to have to deal with the amateur. I offer them some reasonable protection from the threat of lawsuits. If they agree to use my photos exclusively for a certain use, I would sweeten the deal. I would do everything possible to make my company easy to do business with. I would listen to their needs and look for ways to help them without "giving it all away." In the business world, it's all about relationships and understanding the needs of your clients - whether you agree with those "needs" or not. The old tactic of "this is what it's worth - take it or leave it" would have to be shelved as it no longer applies in a buyer's market.
From there, I would look for niche markets that I could serve well. For example, HP is looking for photos that are colorful and have areas of sharp focus - photos that would make impressive prints. Anyone who has been around NPN for even just a while will have learned how to do this! They are not looking for your top-shelf photos of rare species or exotic locations, simply photos that can demonstrate the capability of a printer! Even I could do this in my backyard or a local park over a summer weekend. So hypothetically I take hundreds of photos over a weekend, let them pick 10 and ask for $10,000 for complete ownership of those 10 photos. How many here have ever made that much money over a weekend doing something you really enjoy? I've been self-employed most of my working life and for me, this is a no-brainer. Am I going to get sentimental and worry about my "works of art" that I am giving up forever? Not in the least - I can go back and take more, and if my client is happy with the service I proivided, they will be back for more. It's not about art - it's about business - understanding the needs of my customer and supplying them with what they need.
Innovate. Think outside of the box. Understand your client's needs and then look for ways to fill that need. HP, like any other company, will find someone to work with them.
PS - if any NPN member is interested in working with HP, contact me using my email link below. I can forward your contact info to the right person.
Posted by David Bostedo on January 26, 2007 at 9:55 AM
Jim - Well said (by everyone so far). I am one who was upset by the implication that I shouldn't participate because it showed bad morals. Someone compared participation to condoning sweat shops - which is a poor analogy in the first place, and obviously loaded.
In any case, this may be a bit off topic, but you mention the cost of photos increasing the cost of the printer. This is probably only partially true. When you're dealing with the volume of printers HP is, you are trying to set your pricing to maximize revenue, regardless of the production costs. So the price is determined to get the highest (price x #-sold) value. As they raise the price, the number sold goes down and vice-versa - and there's an ideal point in there somewhere. Anything they save on marketing or advertising or photo purchasing likely just increases their profit. (Which, as a well-run company, they should try to do.)
Of course, there are other factors (public perception, marketing, psychology, recouping costs) affecting the price as well, but individual company expenses don't have too much power to move the price I don't think.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 26, 2007 at 10:10 AM
In any case, this may be a bit off topic, but you mention the cost of photos increasing the cost of the printer. This is probably only partially true.
Good point. Eventually higher costs will make their way to the retail price tag. Lower costs may not, but may help hold current prices as other costs rise.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 26, 2007 at 11:12 AM
A few more thoughts...
We all know that the photographer owns all rights to their photos - this is copyright law, and something we would never give up against our will. What is odd is that according to some, we should not sell complete ownership of the same photo - only rights to use it. But if we own "full rights" to our photography, don't we also have the right to sell it to a new owner under any terms we feel are fair?
At the same time, if we decide to sell complete ownership of the photo, don't we have the right to negotiate the price with the buyer? Wouldn't pressure from other "photo sellers" to sell at a certain price be anti-competitive, i.e., in voilation of anti-trust law?
So I guess in a nutshell this is my POV - if I possess all rights to my photography, I also have the right to sell that photography for whatever terms I feel are fair, and that it is in voilation of anti-trust law for me to conspire with other photographers to assign an arbitrary value (based on some outdated formula) and "fix the price."
Posted by Darwin Wiggett on January 26, 2007 at 12:18 PM
I make no judgement about how others should behave, or how much people should sell (or give away if they prefer) their work, or even how businesses manage to get images from people.
I don't want to impose my standards on anyone nor do I believe in forming professional groups to come up with industry standards (union mentality). All I can do is control my own behaviour and my business model. I have my images priced at a value that makes sense to me and gives me a decent profit. If someone wants my photos this is the price they pay period. Simple.
So far I am making a good living as nature photographer . What other people do with their businesses is their 'business". If it effects me in a negative way, then I must adapt... and not expect others to change for me. If things are not working, then make the changes necessary to survive. Stock will be around for a long time - it is just played by different rules now. What is all the fuss about?
This is the discussion that should have surfaced with your announcement of the HP contest Jim!
Great insights and careful thinking by everyone so far. I think your comparison to the Mega Home Center can be extended in its impact on individual businesses and photography specifically. I've watched Walmart enter many marketplaces to the delight of consumers and the distress of small business. The hand-wringing, zoning battles and lawsuits are standard, but Walmart not only prevails, but prospers. They wouldn't prosper if people didn't walk through the doors, instead remaining loyal to the long term professionals in their own communities. Aint gonna happen.
Look closer at the small local businesses that manage to survive, and in fact may thrive, as Walmart enters a community and many small businesses fail. Those that continue to flourish provide better service and professional employees than Walmart, even as they have to adjust prices. They adjust inventories, improve warranties and provide more than price. Heck, In certain market sectors retail prices at Walmart are lower than the wholesale prices accessible to small businesses! The businesses that fail insist on doing things as they have always done, relying on customer loyalty and the "morality" of their case to keep the cash register ringing. Aint gonna happen.
Our own photo business continues to thrive today because we concentrate on service and quality, making those the medium of exchange rather than price, meanwhile broadening and diversifying our offerings. Sure we lose sales to discount sources, but even those customers come back to us when quality and service are more important than price.
Narrowing my ramblings to the HP contest specifically, in the introduction you pointed out that it was aimed at photos languishing in files rather than anyone's prime, money-making images. Businesses call it dead stock or idle inventory and homeowners call it junk. Whether it is sold in a Super Sale, fingered in garage sales or piled in a dumpster by unsuspecting heirs, the stuff is ultimately moved out. Some of it is worth a lot more than the owner knows, and that's the lure for bargain hunters. There would be no Antiques Road Show on PBS if the dead inventory in stores or junk in closets didn't contain some overlooked treasure. But most of it is not treasure!
HP was simply asking to paw through our dead stock and junk to find hidden treasures, but willing to pay a quite a bit for it when they found it. How was their proposed usage different than any customer pawing through volumes of RF images? Compared to RF prices for photographers $1000 a pop is a heck of a generous settlement, and I think you recognized that.
The whining and chest beating that forced you to withdraw the contest has been deeply saddening for me to read through. In a Walmart world, I can guarantee most of the detractors are going to have to fold up shop on their professional dreams to support their moral stand. It's being done by businesses in small towns all across the country, and frankly their former clients don't miss them.
Would I as a successful pro have participated in the HP contest. Heck no! I didn't like the lifetime terms they proposed. But if they had made that a 1- or 2-year license I would have dived headfirst into my dead stock. And truth be known, comparing a $1000 payment with the average 1- or 2-year income for a photo, I'd probably have submitted more than dead stock.
If I was an amateur would I have entered the contest in spite of the lifetime license? You bet your bippy! $1000 is $1000, and that's a heck of a payment for a photo that is more likely to be chucked by my heirs than sold by me, no matter how much I might dream about quiting my day job and becoming a pro. That ain't gonna happen either.
Posted by Tom Webster on January 26, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Darwin Wiggett wrote:
I make no judgement about how others should behave, or how much people should sell (or give away if they prefer) their work, or even how businesses manage to get images from people.
I don't want to impose my standards on anyone nor do I believe in forming professional groups to come up with industry standards (union mentality). All I can do is control my own behaviour and my business model. I have my images priced at a value that makes sense to me and gives me a decent profit. If someone wants my photos this is the price they pay period. Simple.
So far I am making a good living as nature photographer . What other people do with their businesses is their 'business". If it effects me in a negative way, then I must adapt... and not expect others to change for me. If things are not working, then make the changes necessary to survive. Stock will be around for a long time - it is just played by different rules now. What is all the fuss about?
Darwin
Darwin, you and I have butted heads before on technical issues but, I have to say, you have made the most responsible and professional statement of any of the "professional" photographers who frequent NPN. My hat's off to you.
Do not kid yourself, when "professional" photographers tell amateurs not to accept anything but top dollar for their images. These "professionals" are not doing it "for the good of the industry". These "professionals" are telling the amateurs this for the good of their own business. These "professionals" either do not want to change their business model, or do not have the means to change their business model, to adapt to a changing market place. I, personally, am tired of hearing all of the sniveling and self-pity spewed forth by these "professionals" on all of the Internet forums. Either adjust to a changing market or find something else to do. Sell hardware. Don't make the amateur photographers responsible for supporting your own flawed business model. That is your responsibility!
On the other hand, please keep up the whining and the sniveling. While you are busy complaining about the market place, others like myself, are taking advantage of your distress and are marketing our images through newer business strategies. Your whining and sniveling does only good for my business.
"Professional" photographers complain that amateurs selling their work for less than top dollar is immoral and bad for the industry. As Bill the Cat would say, "Pttttthhhhhppppp!" "Professional" photographers have no moral leg to stand on. Morals are a personal issue, not an industry issue. There is nothing immoral about a photographer setting his/her own prices for their images based on their own valuation and selling images for those prices, even if it is not "top dollar". That is the right of the photographer as the owner of the images. "Professional" photographers do not have the "right" to expect every other photographer, amateur or pro alike, to support their pricing structure. Either adjust or get out of the business but do not expect me to support anybody else's pricing structure but my own.
There is so much talk about "potential value". However, I have real bills to pay that require real money, not "potential" money, to pay them. I even have potential bills coming up that I wish I could pay with "potential" earnings. It would certainly make my life easier. The fact of the matter is, I had to come up with a business plan that puts real money in my pockets and allows me to pay the real bills and potential bills and still allow me the luxury of staying in business. I love exploiting the markets the "professionals" ignore because it is below their dignity and standards. Please, keep ignoring those markets. I love to stay busy!
Jim, I am very disappointed that you felt the need to pull the plug on this contest. IMHO, I think you are trying to be too political. This is just like a congressman who caves-in under the constant pressure of some special interest group. Even though some members may have been pulling images from the contest there are many members who would have benefited from the contest. It is nice to have some working photographers joining in and posting on NPN. There is a value in their membership but after all of the statements you have written about the pros needing to adapt to changes in the market place, pulling the plug on this contest looks to me like an abrupt about-face and caving-in to that particular special interest group. Either you stand behind your convictions and say this contest is "good" or call into question your own convictions.
Enough said, I'll go back to happily making and marketing my images.
(Hat's off to Hank, too.)
Posted by Paul Grecian on January 26, 2007 at 3:38 PM
I am curious what advice would be given to an NPN member who says they were contacted by HP and they like one of their images. The NPN member says that HP wants to use it for their packaging, and a magazine ad, and oh yea, a brochure, a testing print image, maybe an annual report, and well, anything else they want and that I would need to sign over copyright. What dollar amount would have advised them to ask for, or even expect, what amount would have been said was fair? Would anyone have asked whether the NPN member thought it was a good image? Or whether the NPN member was a professional? Would anyone have thought that $1000. was a good or even fair price? Oh and in the form of a printer and ink/paper? Would anyone have said, yea, good deal, grab it? Or would you have put a much different dollar value on this?
Paul
Posted by Tom Webster on January 26, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Paul Grecian wrote:
I am curious what advice would be given to an NPN member who says they were contacted by HP and they like one of their images. The NPN member says that HP wants to use it for their packaging, and a magazine ad, and oh yea, a brochure, a testing print image, maybe an annual report, and well, anything else they want and that I would need to sign over copyright. What dollar amount would have advised them to ask for, or even expect, what amount would have been said was fair? Would anyone have asked whether the NPN member thought it was a good image? Or whether the NPN member was a professional? Would anyone have thought that $1000. was a good or even fair price? Oh and in the form of a printer and ink/paper? Would anyone have said, yea, good deal, grab it? Or would you have put a much different dollar value on this?
Is that really anybody's business other than the photographer's and HP's? For what it's worth, my advice would be to accept any offer that meets your own valuation of your image. Accept or reject, that is the photographer's business and HP's business.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 26, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Paul, I think it would depend on the image itself. Some of my photos are worth more to me than others, so I would negotiate accordingly.
Since I would ask a fitting (for me) price for full ownership transfer, I wouldn't give a hoot what they do with it afterwards - it's now their's to do what they want with. For me, a slide or RAW file is no different than any other possession I may own and decide to sell. I personally see nothing wrong with full ownership transfer, though understandably those who operate stock photography agencies will feel differently as their whole biz model is based on recurring income and the licensing of only "rights to use."
I truly believe that business model is already doomed - companies like HP want to "own" and no longer "rent." RF has greatly lowered the price of stock photography and made it a commodity. To avoid embarrassing situations of the same photo being used by someone else at the same time, I can fully understand the need for exclusive rights. Low prices and the need for exclusive rights makes the the desire for full ownership understandable in today's market.
Someone is going to step up and fill the need - and I'd bet the ranch on that.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 26, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Jim, I am very disappointed that you felt the need to pull the plug on this contest. IMHO, I think you are trying to be too political.
I pretty much got the same response on the thread that I started a short while ago (in the Photo Marketing Form) regarding pricing of prints.
Posted by David Bostedo on January 26, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Paul - I believe you're saying that people on here would encourage someone to ask for a larger amount (perhaps a much larger amount) that the $1000 and I believe that you're correct. But people's advice in those cases would be based on what they know they, or others, have previously gotten. In that way, you don't short change yourself - you put the onus on HP to pay as much as they are willing. I believe that is the point of people asking on here. Not some sort of collusion among all photographers to keep prices up. (At least, that's been my view - apparently I differ from others.)
But you can only get as much as HP is willing to pay due to competition, regardless of what you think your work is worth. If HP doesn't feel the need to pay that much anymore, then they won't and you simply won't get the sale. They'll ALWAYS find the cheaper way.
And Anil - That post was one that made me question some of this in the first place. If it's the one I'm thinking of, there was some anger directed toward you for selling cheaply - which seemed incredibly unfair and wrong.
Jim - I see that you're starting to get some flack the other direction (for cancelling the contest) but I'd like to say that I understand you have to do what's best for the site and community as a whole - you have to be political. In this case, keeping the contest likely would have done more harm than good...so "caving" (if that's what it was) seems OK to me. I'd hate to lose any of the good things about this site due to something like a small contest.
Posted by Paul Grecian on January 26, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Does full ownership transfer include all slightly different compositions as well? How concerned would someone need to be about copyright infringement for using a "like image" made during the same time as the image transfered to the buyer?
Paul
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 26, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Jim - I see that you're starting to get some flack the other direction (for cancelling the contest) ...
Tom and I are good friends and go way back. He already knows I now owe him one.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 26, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Does full ownership transfer include all slightly different compositions as well? How concerned would someone need to be about copyright infringement for using a "like image" made during the same time as the image transfered to the buyer?
That is a great question and one I have though about too! I also think the question applies regardless of the type of transaction (RM, RF or full ownership). I would think that other than direct duplication of the file (or "in-camera" dupes), any variation on the photo (light, camera angle, etc.) creates a different image. If I had a number of like images, I might try selling those as well to the same buyer (for more $$, of course).
Posted by Paul Grecian on January 26, 2007 at 5:05 PM
I would think that the situation with RM and RF would be different because I still own copyright on those images and can't infringe on my own copyright. I could of course infringe on the copyright of the image I just sold full ownership on because it's no longer my copyright.
So ultimately, the future of stock is determined by each indivduals own assessment of value. Since a digital file has no inherent value I assume you start at zero and try to work your way up. So then what next? Logically I would think you would look into what similar usage rights have sold for to similar companies, publications etc. You would check the Photographer's Market, ask people who have sold images before, try to get a real world idea of what that usage has brought. You certainly can't use your costs as a determining factor because the buyer doesn't care what it cost you. So it has to be a relative determination, relative to other sales of the same kind by other photographers? On what basis would I try to determine the images value based on anything else? Value to me? How do I figure that out? What's "fitting" to me? A shoe box full of old slides have no value, so a company offers me $20. They may have paid much more, but on what basis do I negotiate if I don't have a relative understanding of what others, and yes what Pros, have gotten. Lets just talk about how we determine value of our work here a bit and not just the future of stock. On what basis are people making their determination of whether you're getting a fair price.
Paul
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 26, 2007 at 6:57 PM
I would think that the situation with RM and RF would be different because I still own copyright on those images and can't infringe on my own copyright. I could of course infringe on the copyright of the image I just sold full ownership on because it's no longer my copyright.
If you have an exclusive license agreement, it would be the same - you have no right to license the image to anyone else for the duration of the contract. In a transfer of ownership, it's essentially the same as exclusive rights but with no time limit.
If you have "like photos" I would put them on the table as well so the buyer is aware of them. They can either buy them all or just the one, but at least they know the others exist and opens a conversation as to what your intent is with the others. If they want to truly secure "the look" of the photo(s), they might be smart to negotiate for all of them.
Since the transfer of ownership type of sale has traditionally been taboo, there is probably not as much precedent for pricing. What an image is worth comes down to what the buyer is willing to pay and what you are willing to accept. In a way, I like this - I am not bound or influenced by pricing established by an association to support a certain business model. If I can get $10,000 for that awesome photo in my collection, great. If I can get $20 for the shoe box of old dusty Kodachromes I was getting ready to throw in the garbage, that's great too.
I do not think that the transfer of ownership transaction should ever be the primary objective, but I don't think it should be left out as an option either. For some buyers, "renting" an image may be accpetable. For others, they may want to "buy" the image outright. Why not be prepared to do either?
Posted by Mike Moats on January 26, 2007 at 8:11 PM
I was disapointed to see the contest was cancelled. I do understand Jim's position as not to create problems within this great community. I posted one of my images as soon as I read about the contest. I am a professional nature photographer and I would sell any one of my images for $1000.00 and give them full rights forever, and that is my choice to do so. I have total confidence in my ability to replace any image in my portfolio with another one as good as what I sold. I believe that there are so many saleable images out there waiting to be shot, that I'm not gonna lose sleep over giving rights away on a image. I wouldn't sell any image RF for a dollar, but my ears perk up when I hear $1000.00. But if someone wants to sell their images for a buck, go for it. Everyone here has their standards and what each images is worth to them, and I respect each photographer for their choice on how to conduct their business. I live in a area (Detroit) that has the worst economy in the country, and when times get tough you have to become creative in your business practice or you die, and I'm not gonna let that happen to me. I need that printer, its scary doing art shows and not haviing a back up printer
There are to my mind two topics being discussed; stock photography and the contest. As I have posted my thoughts on stock on other occasions may I make an observation on the contest.
It is one thing to announce that there is a contest by some manufacturer or supplier and another to actively work in conjunction with one. To my mind to actively engage in promoting a contest is to establish an affiliation with that institution.
To me, one of the appealing aspects of NPN is that, with the exception of a few sponsors, it is a largely proprietary free zone. While technical information, experience and recommendations are freely exchanged, the flame wars that seem to spring up on some proprietary sites don't appear here.
To be frank I'm undecided on the matter currently, though if we are to work with others in this fashion then we should engage all those who would be interested or be neutral and accept no affiliation. That is up to Jim and the membership to determine.
Dave
Posted by Paul Grecian on January 26, 2007 at 9:34 PM
Jim,
I don't understand. Negotiation doesn't happen in a vacuum where nobody knows what things are worth.Worth is based on precedent. So Company X calls and says they want your image with rights (whatever kind) and they ask your price, what do you say, where do you begin? I suspect you have to check sources, people, websites, etc. You don't just make up a number do you? Or do you say make me an offer? How do you evaluate that offer? You can also ask questions about usage like what budget does the whole project have to determine what part the photography will play. You ask about distribution, size of reproduction, time of use, whether the image will be sold to anyone else. All these things affect value right? You have to know the relative worth based on usage to know how to price. How do you ever get to $10,000. (or a penny) if you don't know when to ask for it reasonably and when to reject an offer that should be higher?
Mike - on what basis did you decide $1.00 is too little for RF?
Paul
Posted by Mike Moats on January 26, 2007 at 9:56 PM
Hey Paul, Everyone has their own comfort level when pricing images, mine doesn't go down to a dollar, but I don't judge anyone else if they choose to sell at this price. If in the future the market will only pay a dollar for an image then I'll have to decide if I can still make a living or move on to another career. At this point I don't have any problems getting the prices I need to make a living.
Posted by Tom Webster on January 26, 2007 at 10:07 PM
Jim wrote:
Tom and I are good friends and go way back. He already knows I now owe him one.
Jim, you probably owe me a couple you forgot about!
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 27, 2007 at 8:45 AM
Paul, IMO you need not be concerned about "use" in a transfer of ownership sale. That whole model is based on the idea that the buyer is willing to "rent" the photo and that you can keep on "renting" the photo to others.
If you "rent" anything (a tool, a house, a car), the price is based on how long you rent it for and/or how much it is used (usage). In an outright sale, usage no longer matters because the new owner can do what ever they want with it.
The quality of the photo, the negotiating skills of the photographer, and the needs of the buyer for that particular photo will all play a role in what it ultimately sells for. And no thanks, I don't want some book or association telling me how much I should be asking. I may get more or be willing to accept less than the "accepted book value" - that is my right to decide and no one else's business.
Posted by Kevin Thompson on January 27, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Does full ownership transfer include all slightly different compositions as well? How concerned would someone need to be about copyright infringement for using a "like image" made during the same time as the image transfered to the buyer?
Paul
Here's the question I would like to have answered. This is the way I would have approached the contest and I would like to know the legal ramifications of selling "like images" to different competitors?
Good question Kevin. That's been the accepted standard among photographers for a long as I can remember (and hence the proverbial recommendation to shoot "In Camera" dupes for simultaneous submissions), but I've never seen the actual legal verbage backing it up or anywhere it has been tested in court.
On the purely empirical side, I've got a submission in right now which includes three slightly different comps of the same subject standing in the same setting. No change of clothing or pose, rather I simply slightly altered my shooting position or framing. They are simply variations I shot so the client had the option of "fine tuning" for their own use and best drop-in of text and graphics.
Whichever they select (for a cover BTW), I would have clear documentation that they had rejected the others. If I sold one of those to a competitor, the original client would have a very tough time prevailing in court I think, simply because they had rejected them. But is that strong enough "proof" if the second client buys, or for that matter if publication of the first would qualify as "prior use" in a contest where it was forbidden. In the last case (including the HP contest, as I recall), they might fuss but I'm not sure they would have much of a legal leg.
Come to think of it, if my memory is correct and the downloaded rules for the HP contest included a prior use ban, wouldn't that have pretty well precluded any of us pros from submitting our perpectual money makers? If so, it kinda turns the whole lost income screech back into the molehill it really is.
Jim, does the stock photographer spend a lot of time approaching potential clients or does the stock agency provide that service? Since you suggest looking for niche markets that you could serve well it would appear the photographer is out to find clients rather than wait for clients to find him/her.
Also if you sold an image to a client, such as for the cover of a magazine, or to an ad agency for a ad campaign, it would seem to be very difficult to sell the same shot again if you retain the rights to it. Another magazine certainly would not be interested because it was already used by a competitor. The same shot used in another ad campaign might confuse consumers who have seen it in another campaign.
So how do you resell the photo once it has been used? And if you find another client for the same photo are you obliged to tell him who and where it was used before? Sometimes I think the client is more looking for a photographer and not a photograph who could provide their photo needs and requirements.
I have absolutely no experience or knowledge of stock photography and am interested to learn more.
Thank you.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Posted by Jim Erhardt on February 2, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Will, I'm not the most qualified person on NPN to answer this, but here are my thoughts...
In terms of promoting your work, some stock agencies may do so. But I think the photographer still has to do so themselves. I'm hoping some day that we can offer this through PhotoPortfolios.
In terms of licensing and other use, it will depend on the photo buyer and their requirements. Sometimes prior use may be OK, but other times not. In all cases, I think disclosure of prior use is the right thing to do so they can make an infored decision.
I hope this helps!
Posted by Mike Sellers on September 4, 2007 at 8:46 AM
What does it say about the corporate mentality when they decide to use this group of largely amature weekend photographers to get their photos as cheaply as possible? Would they have had to pay more money to go thru regular channels like stock agencies or directly to photographers themselves? Why would they feel the need to use this strategy? I would feel differently had HP paid the same for images from members on NPN as they would have otherwise.The mentality of "here is what we are willing to pay-take it or leave it" is an insult to us all.It does seem like the "sweat shop mentality" to me.Is this HP`s idea of serving the photo community by trying to see how cheaply they can get their needed images? Well,I don`t have to buy HP for my next printer since Epson and Canon are making pretty nice printers! I don`t blame anyone for selling their images to HP thru this contest but if they were only willing to pay $500.00 per image some people would still have sold to them.
Posted by Mike Sellers on September 4, 2007 at 11:54 AM
On the subject of selling your image and depriving yourself of any future sales from that image here is a link to Byron Jorjorian`s website. He has a course on how to set up your own stock business.There are several images on this page that have sold many times for a nice total profit. http://www.e-b-a.com/marketing/marketing_sample.pdf
Posted by Mike Moats on September 4, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Hey Mike S.
I don't see corporations acting any different then the rest of us. I reseach the best prices when I buy for myself or my photo business. Our society is all about getting the cheapest price. That's how the internet sales have exploded because people support those cheap prices. No one cares that their hurting the local retailers, the same as no one cares about buying a foreign cars and hurting the american auto worker, which affected many of my friends and family members that worked for the big three. Sadly the idea is that if it doesn't affect me, its ok. Look at all the mom and pop businesses that went under as soon as the Walmarts, Kmarts, Home Depots, Barnes & Nobles, Starbucks, Office Max came to town, but you know what, every one supported those big corporation by buying those producet to SAVE a buck. I don't see these companies as acting any different than the way we act, it just hits home more when it effects what we do, sell photos. If you what to survive in this business as these companies fugure ways to get cheaper photos you have to become more creative or look for another line of work. I negotiated a creative deal with HP that worked for them and will work out very well for me financially. Mike, I totally respect your opinion as you have a right to say what you feel, but I just wanted to point out a different viewpoint.
Discussion
35 repliesIn the thread linked above, I have made the comparison to the changes that have taken place in the plumbing and hot-water heating industry. Just as the "Mega Home Center" has had tremendous impact on how the the typical home owner "consumes" P&H products and sevices, so will the growing supply of "hobbyist photography" impact the buying habits of photo buyers, as seen in the now-terminated HP contest.
So what is the stock photographer to do to adjust to the changing economic environment of their industry? Is simply fighting the trend and sticking to their "traditional guns" enough?
In my view the whole concept is flawed. Nature stock never was a viable stand alone business for full time photographers. For many photographers of all experience levels it is and has been a place for some income but certainly not a raise your family, pay the mortgage, pay the bills middle class job.
The fact is a bear photo shot in 1970 is just as salable today as it was when made. Nature stock just never has been a full time livable model.
Check and see how many stock agencies are looking for new nature photographers to join their business model.
The people who are really being hurt are the people who would like to make photography part of there income. The people who want to take a vacation and have photography sales from that trip be a way of justifying there expense. Those are the guys who should be concerned.
form, a stock photograph is a commodity. A commodity is only worth what
someone is willing to pay for it. In today's electronic world, there is so much
more of all grades of this commodity being made available. For lack of a
better analogy, what was once a hand crafted cottage industry is now mass
produced and easily distributed. Today's reality is that it's a buyer's market.
I feel it is not always realistic for non-pros to expect or hold out for pro level
compensation. If that were the case the buyers would automatically go to
their regular pro stock sources. If someone pays pro prices, they are more
than likely to deal with a pro shooter. If the cost is the same, why go through
the trouble and doubt of dealing with an unknown amateur when you can
have the peace of mind of dealing with a known pro supplier. This leaves
someone with no pro aspirations completely out of the loop.
I have a job that pays the bills and the few photo sales I make help a bit to
finance my avocation. I do not actively market my work but I always ask for
what I perceive to be fair compensation. Maybe I've been selling myself
short, but most attempts at raising prices end in no sale. I have turned
down quite a few sales because of pricing and the potential buyers simply move
along until they find someone willing to meet their price point. We all
have to draw our own bottom line.
What troubles me more are arguments turning this into a morality issue.
Someone not demanding "professional rates" may or may not be under pricing
their work. To question someone's values, principles or ethics over the
pricing of their own work is ridiculous and the implications are insulting.
Agree or disagree,,,,,,fine. Give me a reasonable argument. But please lay
off the holier than thou, it's for your own good crap. As for killing
the profession, as long as people need images, there will be a market.
How it all shakes out is anybody's guess but I'm pretty sure it won't look
like yesterday's or even today's market.
I work in an industry where we had to compete against foreign businesses
that were government subsidized. They were constantly undercutting our
prices and gaining customers. But through aggressive reorganization and creative
sales techniques, we outlasted them all and are the last man standing. We now
are in a sold out position for the forseeable future. Will this last? Only until someone
comes out with a better product at a cheaper price or we do something dumb to screw
it up.
Please correct me if there is some gross flaw in my thinking.
Best Regards,
David
HP has figured out that they don't need to pay tens of $1,000s of dollars for an image. Some may find it offensive or distasteful, but it's smart business. I suspect that they'll have no problem setting up a successful contest somewhere that gets them their images for their price. Someone will supply them with the images. Of course, as consumers, those who are offended have the choice to do business with some other printer company as a form of protest.
I find it peculiar that many of those who are so opposed to the $1000 HP deal have likely purchased camera equipment on the internet from some e-company that is selling for less than a brick-n-mortar store in their hometown. Isn't it the same market dynamic? - pay only as much as you have to - but it's somehow seen as distasteful because now we're on the 'losing' end of the deal.
It's a darwinian world; adapt or become obsolete....
I think the biggest dissappointment with the resistance to the contest was the tactic used that David referred to - the casting of doubt on one's ethics because they would have participated. It's a good thing indeed to educate and encourage others to get the right price - for which I'm sure we're all grateful - but something altogether different to insuate low moral standards because some (many?) thought "the deal" was fair and would have participated.
Once all of the information was placed on the table - what the contest entails and the ensuing discussion of how the compensation was not up to the standards a pro would get, I think each person had the right to determine whether they wanted to participate or not. This is another point that I feel strongly about - one can appreciate the education on what they should/could receive for compensation, but I suspect many did NOT appeciate the pressure/lobbying applied to discourage participation.
Now for some insight - the first page of thumbnails in the HP gallery was filling up quickly early in the day. But as the discussion dragged on and protests to the contest grew stronger, photos started being deleted by those who posted them. It was at this point I knew it was over.
Something else not discussed up to this point is how a manufacturer passes on their costs of production to the consumer. Do high-priced stock photos inflate the price of HP products? Obviously the cost of photography is built into their consumer pricing, as are all other costs of making the product. Would HP pass on the saving from using hobbyist photos to the consumer? Who knows, but we know for sure they would certainly pass on any costs that went higher.
So, back to the intent of this thread - if I was a pro stock photographer, what would I do to survive in these changing times?
I believe the first thing I would do is reorganize my inventory of images and separate the ones of highest value from those of marginal value. If a pro's inventory is anything like mine, I would end up with far fewer "valuable" images than less-valuable ones. At that point, I might create a program to offer to clients like HP - here is a selection (of my less valuable images) that they can choose from that I am willing to deal with. Perhaps I do not surrender complete ownership, but I offer them exclusive use at a price that would make them not want to have to deal with the amateur. I offer them some reasonable protection from the threat of lawsuits. If they agree to use my photos exclusively for a certain use, I would sweeten the deal. I would do everything possible to make my company easy to do business with. I would listen to their needs and look for ways to help them without "giving it all away." In the business world, it's all about relationships and understanding the needs of your clients - whether you agree with those "needs" or not. The old tactic of "this is what it's worth - take it or leave it" would have to be shelved as it no longer applies in a buyer's market.
From there, I would look for niche markets that I could serve well. For example, HP is looking for photos that are colorful and have areas of sharp focus - photos that would make impressive prints. Anyone who has been around NPN for even just a while will have learned how to do this! They are not looking for your top-shelf photos of rare species or exotic locations, simply photos that can demonstrate the capability of a printer! Even I could do this in my backyard or a local park over a summer weekend. So hypothetically I take hundreds of photos over a weekend, let them pick 10 and ask for $10,000 for complete ownership of those 10 photos. How many here have ever made that much money over a weekend doing something you really enjoy? I've been self-employed most of my working life and for me, this is a no-brainer. Am I going to get sentimental and worry about my "works of art" that I am giving up forever? Not in the least - I can go back and take more, and if my client is happy with the service I proivided, they will be back for more. It's not about art - it's about business - understanding the needs of my customer and supplying them with what they need.
Innovate. Think outside of the box. Understand your client's needs and then look for ways to fill that need. HP, like any other company, will find someone to work with them.
PS - if any NPN member is interested in working with HP, contact me using my email link below. I can forward your contact info to the right person.
In any case, this may be a bit off topic, but you mention the cost of photos increasing the cost of the printer. This is probably only partially true. When you're dealing with the volume of printers HP is, you are trying to set your pricing to maximize revenue, regardless of the production costs. So the price is determined to get the highest (price x #-sold) value. As they raise the price, the number sold goes down and vice-versa - and there's an ideal point in there somewhere. Anything they save on marketing or advertising or photo purchasing likely just increases their profit. (Which, as a well-run company, they should try to do.)
Of course, there are other factors (public perception, marketing, psychology, recouping costs) affecting the price as well, but individual company expenses don't have too much power to move the price I don't think.
Good point. Eventually higher costs will make their way to the retail price tag. Lower costs may not, but may help hold current prices as other costs rise.
We all know that the photographer owns all rights to their photos - this is copyright law, and something we would never give up against our will. What is odd is that according to some, we should not sell complete ownership of the same photo - only rights to use it. But if we own "full rights" to our photography, don't we also have the right to sell it to a new owner under any terms we feel are fair?
At the same time, if we decide to sell complete ownership of the photo, don't we have the right to negotiate the price with the buyer? Wouldn't pressure from other "photo sellers" to sell at a certain price be anti-competitive, i.e., in voilation of anti-trust law?
So I guess in a nutshell this is my POV - if I possess all rights to my photography, I also have the right to sell that photography for whatever terms I feel are fair, and that it is in voilation of anti-trust law for me to conspire with other photographers to assign an arbitrary value (based on some outdated formula) and "fix the price."
I don't want to impose my standards on anyone nor do I believe in forming professional groups to come up with industry standards (union mentality). All I can do is control my own behaviour and my business model. I have my images priced at a value that makes sense to me and gives me a decent profit. If someone wants my photos this is the price they pay period. Simple.
So far I am making a good living as nature photographer . What other people do with their businesses is their 'business". If it effects me in a negative way, then I must adapt... and not expect others to change for me. If things are not working, then make the changes necessary to survive. Stock will be around for a long time - it is just played by different rules now. What is all the fuss about?
Darwin
Great insights and careful thinking by everyone so far. I think your comparison to the Mega Home Center can be extended in its impact on individual businesses and photography specifically. I've watched Walmart enter many marketplaces to the delight of consumers and the distress of small business. The hand-wringing, zoning battles and lawsuits are standard, but Walmart not only prevails, but prospers. They wouldn't prosper if people didn't walk through the doors, instead remaining loyal to the long term professionals in their own communities. Aint gonna happen.
Look closer at the small local businesses that manage to survive, and in fact may thrive, as Walmart enters a community and many small businesses fail. Those that continue to flourish provide better service and professional employees than Walmart, even as they have to adjust prices. They adjust inventories, improve warranties and provide more than price. Heck, In certain market sectors retail prices at Walmart are lower than the wholesale prices accessible to small businesses! The businesses that fail insist on doing things as they have always done, relying on customer loyalty and the "morality" of their case to keep the cash register ringing. Aint gonna happen.
Our own photo business continues to thrive today because we concentrate on service and quality, making those the medium of exchange rather than price, meanwhile broadening and diversifying our offerings. Sure we lose sales to discount sources, but even those customers come back to us when quality and service are more important than price.
Narrowing my ramblings to the HP contest specifically, in the introduction you pointed out that it was aimed at photos languishing in files rather than anyone's prime, money-making images. Businesses call it dead stock or idle inventory and homeowners call it junk. Whether it is sold in a Super Sale, fingered in garage sales or piled in a dumpster by unsuspecting heirs, the stuff is ultimately moved out. Some of it is worth a lot more than the owner knows, and that's the lure for bargain hunters. There would be no Antiques Road Show on PBS if the dead inventory in stores or junk in closets didn't contain some overlooked treasure. But most of it is not treasure!
HP was simply asking to paw through our dead stock and junk to find hidden treasures, but willing to pay a quite a bit for it when they found it. How was their proposed usage different than any customer pawing through volumes of RF images? Compared to RF prices for photographers $1000 a pop is a heck of a generous settlement, and I think you recognized that.
The whining and chest beating that forced you to withdraw the contest has been deeply saddening for me to read through. In a Walmart world, I can guarantee most of the detractors are going to have to fold up shop on their professional dreams to support their moral stand. It's being done by businesses in small towns all across the country, and frankly their former clients don't miss them.
Would I as a successful pro have participated in the HP contest. Heck no! I didn't like the lifetime terms they proposed. But if they had made that a 1- or 2-year license I would have dived headfirst into my dead stock. And truth be known, comparing a $1000 payment with the average 1- or 2-year income for a photo, I'd probably have submitted more than dead stock.
If I was an amateur would I have entered the contest in spite of the lifetime license? You bet your bippy! $1000 is $1000, and that's a heck of a payment for a photo that is more likely to be chucked by my heirs than sold by me, no matter how much I might dream about quiting my day job and becoming a pro. That ain't gonna happen either.
Darwin, you and I have butted heads before on technical issues but, I have to say, you have made the most responsible and professional statement of any of the "professional" photographers who frequent NPN. My hat's off to you.
Do not kid yourself, when "professional" photographers tell amateurs not to accept anything but top dollar for their images. These "professionals" are not doing it "for the good of the industry". These "professionals" are telling the amateurs this for the good of their own business. These "professionals" either do not want to change their business model, or do not have the means to change their business model, to adapt to a changing market place. I, personally, am tired of hearing all of the sniveling and self-pity spewed forth by these "professionals" on all of the Internet forums. Either adjust to a changing market or find something else to do. Sell hardware. Don't make the amateur photographers responsible for supporting your own flawed business model. That is your responsibility!
On the other hand, please keep up the whining and the sniveling. While you are busy complaining about the market place, others like myself, are taking advantage of your distress and are marketing our images through newer business strategies. Your whining and sniveling does only good for my business.
"Professional" photographers complain that amateurs selling their work for less than top dollar is immoral and bad for the industry. As Bill the Cat would say, "Pttttthhhhhppppp!" "Professional" photographers have no moral leg to stand on. Morals are a personal issue, not an industry issue. There is nothing immoral about a photographer setting his/her own prices for their images based on their own valuation and selling images for those prices, even if it is not "top dollar". That is the right of the photographer as the owner of the images. "Professional" photographers do not have the "right" to expect every other photographer, amateur or pro alike, to support their pricing structure. Either adjust or get out of the business but do not expect me to support anybody else's pricing structure but my own.
There is so much talk about "potential value". However, I have real bills to pay that require real money, not "potential" money, to pay them. I even have potential bills coming up that I wish I could pay with "potential" earnings. It would certainly make my life easier. The fact of the matter is, I had to come up with a business plan that puts real money in my pockets and allows me to pay the real bills and potential bills and still allow me the luxury of staying in business. I love exploiting the markets the "professionals" ignore because it is below their dignity and standards. Please, keep ignoring those markets. I love to stay busy!
Jim, I am very disappointed that you felt the need to pull the plug on this contest. IMHO, I think you are trying to be too political. This is just like a congressman who caves-in under the constant pressure of some special interest group. Even though some members may have been pulling images from the contest there are many members who would have benefited from the contest. It is nice to have some working photographers joining in and posting on NPN. There is a value in their membership but after all of the statements you have written about the pros needing to adapt to changes in the market place, pulling the plug on this contest looks to me like an abrupt about-face and caving-in to that particular special interest group. Either you stand behind your convictions and say this contest is "good" or call into question your own convictions.
Enough said, I'll go back to happily making and marketing my images.
(Hat's off to Hank, too.)
Paul
Is that really anybody's business other than the photographer's and HP's? For what it's worth, my advice would be to accept any offer that meets your own valuation of your image. Accept or reject, that is the photographer's business and HP's business.
Since I would ask a fitting (for me) price for full ownership transfer, I wouldn't give a hoot what they do with it afterwards - it's now their's to do what they want with. For me, a slide or RAW file is no different than any other possession I may own and decide to sell. I personally see nothing wrong with full ownership transfer, though understandably those who operate stock photography agencies will feel differently as their whole biz model is based on recurring income and the licensing of only "rights to use."
I truly believe that business model is already doomed - companies like HP want to "own" and no longer "rent." RF has greatly lowered the price of stock photography and made it a commodity. To avoid embarrassing situations of the same photo being used by someone else at the same time, I can fully understand the need for exclusive rights. Low prices and the need for exclusive rights makes the the desire for full ownership understandable in today's market.
Someone is going to step up and fill the need - and I'd bet the ranch on that.
I'm such a wuss sometimes...
But you can only get as much as HP is willing to pay due to competition, regardless of what you think your work is worth. If HP doesn't feel the need to pay that much anymore, then they won't and you simply won't get the sale. They'll ALWAYS find the cheaper way.
And Anil - That post was one that made me question some of this in the first place. If it's the one I'm thinking of, there was some anger directed toward you for selling cheaply - which seemed incredibly unfair and wrong.
Jim - I see that you're starting to get some flack the other direction (for cancelling the contest) but I'd like to say that I understand you have to do what's best for the site and community as a whole - you have to be political. In this case, keeping the contest likely would have done more harm than good...so "caving" (if that's what it was) seems OK to me. I'd hate to lose any of the good things about this site due to something like a small contest.
Paul
Tom and I are good friends and go way back. He already knows I now owe him one.
That is a great question and one I have though about too! I also think the question applies regardless of the type of transaction (RM, RF or full ownership). I would think that other than direct duplication of the file (or "in-camera" dupes), any variation on the photo (light, camera angle, etc.) creates a different image. If I had a number of like images, I might try selling those as well to the same buyer (for more $$, of course).
So ultimately, the future of stock is determined by each indivduals own assessment of value. Since a digital file has no inherent value I assume you start at zero and try to work your way up. So then what next? Logically I would think you would look into what similar usage rights have sold for to similar companies, publications etc. You would check the Photographer's Market, ask people who have sold images before, try to get a real world idea of what that usage has brought. You certainly can't use your costs as a determining factor because the buyer doesn't care what it cost you. So it has to be a relative determination, relative to other sales of the same kind by other photographers? On what basis would I try to determine the images value based on anything else? Value to me? How do I figure that out? What's "fitting" to me? A shoe box full of old slides have no value, so a company offers me $20. They may have paid much more, but on what basis do I negotiate if I don't have a relative understanding of what others, and yes what Pros, have gotten. Lets just talk about how we determine value of our work here a bit and not just the future of stock. On what basis are people making their determination of whether you're getting a fair price.
Paul
If you have an exclusive license agreement, it would be the same - you have no right to license the image to anyone else for the duration of the contract. In a transfer of ownership, it's essentially the same as exclusive rights but with no time limit.
If you have "like photos" I would put them on the table as well so the buyer is aware of them. They can either buy them all or just the one, but at least they know the others exist and opens a conversation as to what your intent is with the others. If they want to truly secure "the look" of the photo(s), they might be smart to negotiate for all of them.
Since the transfer of ownership type of sale has traditionally been taboo, there is probably not as much precedent for pricing. What an image is worth comes down to what the buyer is willing to pay and what you are willing to accept. In a way, I like this - I am not bound or influenced by pricing established by an association to support a certain business model. If I can get $10,000 for that awesome photo in my collection, great. If I can get $20 for the shoe box of old dusty Kodachromes I was getting ready to throw in the garbage, that's great too.
I do not think that the transfer of ownership transaction should ever be the primary objective, but I don't think it should be left out as an option either. For some buyers, "renting" an image may be accpetable. For others, they may want to "buy" the image outright. Why not be prepared to do either?
It is one thing to announce that there is a contest by some manufacturer or supplier and another to actively work in conjunction with one. To my mind to actively engage in promoting a contest is to establish an affiliation with that institution.
To me, one of the appealing aspects of NPN is that, with the exception of a few sponsors, it is a largely proprietary free zone. While technical information, experience and recommendations are freely exchanged, the flame wars that seem to spring up on some proprietary sites don't appear here.
To be frank I'm undecided on the matter currently, though if we are to work with others in this fashion then we should engage all those who would be interested or be neutral and accept no affiliation. That is up to Jim and the membership to determine.
Dave
I don't understand. Negotiation doesn't happen in a vacuum where nobody knows what things are worth.Worth is based on precedent. So Company X calls and says they want your image with rights (whatever kind) and they ask your price, what do you say, where do you begin? I suspect you have to check sources, people, websites, etc. You don't just make up a number do you? Or do you say make me an offer? How do you evaluate that offer? You can also ask questions about usage like what budget does the whole project have to determine what part the photography will play. You ask about distribution, size of reproduction, time of use, whether the image will be sold to anyone else. All these things affect value right? You have to know the relative worth based on usage to know how to price. How do you ever get to $10,000. (or a penny) if you don't know when to ask for it reasonably and when to reject an offer that should be higher?
Mike - on what basis did you decide $1.00 is too little for RF?
Paul
Jim, you probably owe me a couple you forgot about!
If you "rent" anything (a tool, a house, a car), the price is based on how long you rent it for and/or how much it is used (usage). In an outright sale, usage no longer matters because the new owner can do what ever they want with it.
The quality of the photo, the negotiating skills of the photographer, and the needs of the buyer for that particular photo will all play a role in what it ultimately sells for. And no thanks, I don't want some book or association telling me how much I should be asking. I may get more or be willing to accept less than the "accepted book value" - that is my right to decide and no one else's business.
Here's the question I would like to have answered. This is the way I would have approached the contest and I would like to know the legal ramifications of selling "like images" to different competitors?
On the purely empirical side, I've got a submission in right now which includes three slightly different comps of the same subject standing in the same setting. No change of clothing or pose, rather I simply slightly altered my shooting position or framing. They are simply variations I shot so the client had the option of "fine tuning" for their own use and best drop-in of text and graphics.
Whichever they select (for a cover BTW), I would have clear documentation that they had rejected the others. If I sold one of those to a competitor, the original client would have a very tough time prevailing in court I think, simply because they had rejected them. But is that strong enough "proof" if the second client buys, or for that matter if publication of the first would qualify as "prior use" in a contest where it was forbidden. In the last case (including the HP contest, as I recall), they might fuss but I'm not sure they would have much of a legal leg.
Come to think of it, if my memory is correct and the downloaded rules for the HP contest included a prior use ban, wouldn't that have pretty well precluded any of us pros from submitting our perpectual money makers? If so, it kinda turns the whole lost income screech back into the molehill it really is.
Also if you sold an image to a client, such as for the cover of a magazine, or to an ad agency for a ad campaign, it would seem to be very difficult to sell the same shot again if you retain the rights to it. Another magazine certainly would not be interested because it was already used by a competitor. The same shot used in another ad campaign might confuse consumers who have seen it in another campaign.
So how do you resell the photo once it has been used? And if you find another client for the same photo are you obliged to tell him who and where it was used before? Sometimes I think the client is more looking for a photographer and not a photograph who could provide their photo needs and requirements.
I have absolutely no experience or knowledge of stock photography and am interested to learn more.
Thank you.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
In terms of promoting your work, some stock agencies may do so. But I think the photographer still has to do so themselves. I'm hoping some day that we can offer this through PhotoPortfolios.
In terms of licensing and other use, it will depend on the photo buyer and their requirements. Sometimes prior use may be OK, but other times not. In all cases, I think disclosure of prior use is the right thing to do so they can make an infored decision.
I hope this helps!
I don't see corporations acting any different then the rest of us. I reseach the best prices when I buy for myself or my photo business. Our society is all about getting the cheapest price. That's how the internet sales have exploded because people support those cheap prices. No one cares that their hurting the local retailers, the same as no one cares about buying a foreign cars and hurting the american auto worker, which affected many of my friends and family members that worked for the big three. Sadly the idea is that if it doesn't affect me, its ok. Look at all the mom and pop businesses that went under as soon as the Walmarts, Kmarts, Home Depots, Barnes & Nobles, Starbucks, Office Max came to town, but you know what, every one supported those big corporation by buying those producet to SAVE a buck. I don't see these companies as acting any different than the way we act, it just hits home more when it effects what we do, sell photos. If you what to survive in this business as these companies fugure ways to get cheaper photos you have to become more creative or look for another line of work. I negotiated a creative deal with HP that worked for them and will work out very well for me financially. Mike, I totally respect your opinion as you have a right to say what you feel, but I just wanted to point out a different viewpoint.