Earlier today I was contacted by a water bottling company about using one of my waterfall images on the front of their product, small containers of bottled water. A typical client of mine, but the similarities ended when they asked to use the image for free. At first, I was surprised and almost immediately turned down their request. However, they are a very large bottling company offered a small photo credit. This type of vast exposure sounds too good to turn down, but still it seems a corporation of this size should be willing to offer at least some monetary compensation. I'm asking other photographers with an established business in photography what they would do here. Thanks for your suggestions.
Marc, I'm sure this will generate a lot of heated debate but one fact to keep in mind is that at the current state of the stock market, if you don't agree to this use, there are likely others who will.
I can't tell you what the right thing to do is or whether there even is a right thing, but speaking for myself I would likely respond with a polite request to discuss fair compensation.
Guy
Posted by Richard Wong on March 2, 2006 at 5:55 PM
I think you'll be hard pressed to find any photographer on here or any other board who would encourage this type of deal. If it was a mom and pop store product that's one thing, but if it's really the type of company you say it is then they need to pay up really quick or I'd hit the high road. Is a little credit that won't get you anywhere other than maybe a little ego boost worth your credibility as a young professional photographer?
I guess that's part of the question too, Richard. Do you really think a little photo credit "won't get me anywhere"? I understand that the vast majority of people ignore such things, but I'd like to think there are at least a few people out there who might really enjoy the image (it's one of my favorites) and perhaps contact me regarding it's use or purchase in the future. Many thousands of bottles a day is quite a bit of free advertising, however insignificant the credit is. How does this "hurt my credibility" if no one else knows the image was supplied without compensation? You raise valid points though.
Photo credit on the label of a bottle of water means virtually nothing to your career, IMO. I believe your intention in the long run is to make photography a full time endeavor, one that puts food on the table? I wouldn't recommend starting by giving away your work for free particularly to a company that can easily afford to pay. In fact, using your image on their product qualifies as an advertising sale and should be worth a considerable chunk of change.
I have turned down several offers in the past to use my work for free in exchange for a credit line. I sleep just fine at night.
Several past threads have dealt with the issue of giving away our work without compensation. Everyone can decide for themselves what they feel comfortable doing but the more photogs that give their work away for free the more harm comes to our "industry" as a whole.
I'm with Guy on this. It's tough to decide, but to help you make your decision, I'd research how much an image for corporate brand labels is worth.
You might not get that much in the current stock market and have to negotiate for less, but you're standing on the edge of giving away something valuable. How valuable? I'm negotiating for exclusive rights on an image for corporate i.d. use right now by a larger corporation than I think you're describing, but in my case we're hovering around the price of a new Toyota. I sold one in another country, and the payment for that was the major component in the down payment on our studio building. Get the picture?
It's all a question of how many zeros and where the decimal point resides. At present, you're looking at a decimal point with nothing but zeros on either side of it. Surely a successful corp thinks their own corporate identity, as represented by your photo, is worth more than that!
Editorial Photographers has an item in their site http://www.editorialphoto.com/ called War on Photographers. It and other items discuss this sort of subject.
Dave
Posted by Ron Niebrugge on March 3, 2006 at 12:04 AM
What are you hoping to obtain with this publicity? It seems to me the best case scenario would be if a corporation really liked one of your shots and wanted to feature it as a big part of a new product placement to help create a positive image. This is the kind of use that typically pays in the thousands and is a nice boast to any month. But wait, that is where you are right now.
I have never found photo credits to be of much value. If you are really excited about having your name on water bottles, come of with a value of the publicity, and reduce your price by that amount. Maybe you could knock $200 -$300 or maybe $500 off the final price if they included your name.
There are plenty of threats to the business these days – we are seeing more and more royalty free, and even some halfway decent RF photos. It used to be the place people dumped their bad stuff. You still need to approach this with confidence – they wouldn’t contact you if they didn’t want your image. Despite all the gloom and doom, our activity and rates continue to climb.
The other thing to keep in mind – when it comes to photography, people’s perception of your work is something that is hard to change. If you become perceived as a source for cheap or even free photos, it is very hard to ever change that perception.
When it comes to water - image is everything, and your photo is critical, maybe more important then the actual water. They are going to profit greatly from your image - you should as well!
Posted by Randy Beacham on March 3, 2006 at 12:09 AM
Hi Mark,
Companies like this are used to paying thousands of dollars for marketing and sales work. The only reason they are asking a photo for no compensation is because there's so many photographer's today who have no clue how to run a business that they are willing to give something worth thousands of dollars away for nothing.
You ask 'how does this hurt my credibility." For one thing, in the advertising and commercial photography world photography credits are never listed, which doesn't really matter to the photographer since the pay is so much higher than editorial photography. The only time a credit line is used in this kind of market is because the company involved pulled the wool over a photographer's eyes, so to speak, with the line about "exposure." So, if you're hoping to get exposure in the advertising and commercial work forget it, since the only thing you're advertising is the fact that you don't know how to run a business and you'll give away something worh thousands of dollars for nothing. Is that the kind of exposure you want?
The only thing you might hope to get out of a situation like this is a few print sales from people who saw and liked your photograph. However, since it's on a bottle and a small photo I even doubt you'd get that kind of sale from the deal. I've only been in the business of licensing photos for about seven years, but in all that time I can count on one hand the number of times I've resold the use of a photo because it was seen elswhere--and most of those were print sales to individuals who saw my photos that were used as covers on magazines.
Every situation for selling photos is different; I often use the "gut feeling" which basically means if I feel I'm getting the shaft I can feel it in my gut and this situation certainly qualifies for that. If I were you I wouldn't send an email back ranting and raving about asking something for nothing, nor would I agree to it, but I would send an email back saying politely and professionally that you would be happy to discuss licensing the use of the photo based on industry standards for advertising usage. If they like the photo enough they will pay for it. Or they may feel that there's enough gullible photographers out there that it's worth the time to keep fishing for something for nothing. Randy
They're playing you for a sucker. The only reason a large company chooses not to budget money for these types of uses is because they know that photographers will let them get away with it. Does the guy that designs the label get paid. What about the guy or gal that drives the truck, sweeps, the floor. Come on, dude! In 16 years in the business, the only thing you'll get is an ego stroke. Nobody looks at a water bottle and looks for a credit line and thinks ohhh I want that photo. It just doesn't happen that way - no matter what they'd like you to think. You want exposure - head to Crater Lake this weekend and stand naked in the wind at 3 AM.
Your images are so good, I'm already having a hard time believing you sell them as RF, but franky I'm almost jaw dropping astonished that you can't even find it to stand on principles at RF prices. I mean really, how hard is it to ask for even a couple hundred dollars?
You shoot some great images, and I really respect your talent. But how you see the value of your work in this industry, especially with this post, leaves me nearly speechless. If I could reach thru the computer and give you one of those "I shoulda had a V8" smack upside the forehead, I'd have to ask - What are you thinking? Promo value? From a water bottle. Nobody rarely ever pays attention to credit lines in magazines.
I may not be clear on how I feel on the subject...
Your photos are worth gold. You sell them for the price of copper. This company offers you a wooden nickel and an ego stroke, and you're thinking this could turn out to be a good deal?
I'm not in the business and know next to nothing about whether a credit line and exposure is good or bad. But think on this -- just because they promise a credit line doesn't mean they will deliver it. Then what? OK, You sue -- I guarantee they have more lawyers and more money for lawyers than you do. They can make it more expensive than it is worth for you and then you end up with no credit and having to spend money and maybe still not getting a credit. Or worse, you end up alienating other possible clients because they don't want to deal with someone who will possibly sue them. Not saying this will happen, but is it worth the risk?
Do not give your work away for free. If they really are a "very large bottling company", then they make "very large dollars" from their product and spend "very large dollars" advertising it. Don't get sucked in by the lure of a photo credit. They have money. Ask to negotiate a fair compensation with them.
Have you ever looked for a photo credit on a bottled beverage product? Have you ever seen one? Think about the consumer in this situation. They couldn't care less who took the photo on the bottle. They will drink the product and toss the container away, having never looked for a single photo credit.
As Hank says, this is a kind of corporate identity. You should be compensated for it fairly. Do they want exclusive rights to the image? That will cost them even more.
Posted by Lori Kincaid on March 3, 2006 at 9:19 AM
I'm with the others: I wouldn't consider this deal without fair compensation. Fotoquote, which is an industry standard for rights-managed stock pricing, gives median prices from $610 to $3,355 for this usage depending on the number of bottles (from 1,000 to 20 million) and the upper end of the range is more than $5,000. And this is for non-exclusive use. if they want exclusivity, that adds another dimension as Hank pointed out. BTW, if this image has already been sold as RF, ethically you shouldn't turn around and sell it later as rights-managed and you certainly can't sell it for an exclusive use.
I can give you more specifics on pricing if you have the number of bottles. Hope this helps
Lori
Posted by Marc Adamus on March 3, 2006 at 10:18 AM
Thanks for all the advice. We all know RF has become a much more substantial part of our industry in recent years, partially for the better and other times not. I sell my best images RM, but have made more from repeated RF sales (a few sales/week). It's so easy for anyone to find exactly the image they are looking for now at an affordable price, so I've found it difficult to stay competitive even if I have stronger images.
If you look at the majority of my images, it's clear I never intended to become a commercial photographer but if someone wants to use my images in this manner, I will at least consider it and try to get a fair price (maybe that fair price isn't what it used to be though). Obviously I'm new at this and am discovering we are in a time of rapidly changing and diversifiying methods of selling photographs. Is this a 'war on photographers'? No, it's just how business changes with everything else. If they can do it for cheaper, they will.
I discussed the issue of fair compensation with the bottling corp. yesterday evening, not wanting to give away an image free. They would not give me what I believed to be a fair price (for 250,000 bottles/day) so I declined to work with them any further. No doubt they will find one of the other five million photographers in the world with a waterfall shot willing to let them use it on their bottles.
I don't see what can possibly be done about this. How do we get top dollar for our work in this day and age? Seems practically hopeless to me. A big reason why I feel the need to sell a significant portion of my work RF ($100-$300/image). Keep in mind, I am a photographer for the sake of art, not advertising. Still, I'm sure there are better ways to market my images and all of your advice there is most appreciated.
Posted by Richard Wong on March 3, 2006 at 11:50 AM
"Keep in mind, I am a photographer for the sake of art, not advertising. "
I think most photographers here fall into that category but the fact that you're selling your work as stock does make you a commercial photographer as well. Btw, RM can be sold within that price range too depending on the use. The difference is that the potential income upside to an RM image is a lot higher. If you were to find 3/4th of your images on a single bulk royalty free stock CD mailed off to half the art people in this country as a promo, would that make you feel good? Your images become free after that point. There's only so many times you can go to the well before it dries up.
Posted by Ron Niebrugge on March 3, 2006 at 12:06 PM
Marc,
I took a look at your site – you work is flat outstanding. It kills me to think you sell that as Royalty Free.
You mention you never intend to become a commercial photographer and that you do it for arts sake – then why dump that stuff as royalty free for a quick buck? I suppose money can be a powerful motivator. Ironically, I believe over the long haul you would actually make so more money with RM. If you are intent on the RF model, at least go with a high end outfit like Getty.
The decision is your own, and I don’t mean to be attacking your choices – it is hard to bring this up without sounding like an attack. I bring this up for one reason, we don’t know what the future might bring, so don’t limit your choices. Let me use myself as an example. Photography was a passion for me, and for years I never thought it could be something I could make a living at. Fortunately I maintained the control over my work and maintained my work’s value and now live an amazing lifestyle. There aren’t others running around with unlimited rights to my work. Giving your work away for nothing early in your career has hurt so many artists over the years including musicians. You need to protect you work like it is gold, because it is. Once you sell an image as RF, you can never go to RM.
Clients that value good photography are still out there and still pay fair rates. We sold an image of the Golden Gate Bridge for $5,000 two weeks ago. You know how many people have that shot! Most magazines still pay more the RF rates – there are so many opportunities out there – many of the best ones are not available for RF photos.
As a final note, don’t be surprised if the bottling company comes back to you in a couple weeks. I hope they do!
You've explained yourself really well Marc, and thanks for that. I have zero actual experience with RF, other than seeing it in the market, and I suspect no one else here has ever tried it. In a pure business sense, it looks like an individual choice between a few sales and no sales. I hadn't thought about the bigger question someone raised regarding participation and its effect on other sales.
I kinda feel like you took a couple of whacks up the side of the head for asking an honest question, the bruises (hopefully) balanced by contribution of info useful to you, rather than mere flames. In rereading my post, it could be taken as criticism of you, but it wasn't intended that way. Instead I was hoping to encourage you to go for some buxx. Sounds like you did that and got turned down. In my book that pretty well confirms the motivation and character of the water weasels.
Over and above that, further discussion of RF probably deserves a thread in the Hot Topics forum.
In the meantime, you asked a serious question about how to improve your marketing.
My message is already long, so I'll only make a couple of points, then kick it out there.
A big part of asking for fair market price for images is the more basic decision that you simply won't sell them for less- a willingness to pass up unfair price offers or request for free images. That's a huge personal question, and I think each of us answer it differently. I give away rights to a very few images each year, exclusively in support fo causes I'm already devoted to. I also pass on sales with too low a price, but take some others when larger issues loom, as in lower priced sales as part of a larger deal for contract photography services. I.e., the discount on stock can be used to sweeten the deal for large, major dollar contracts. It's pretty easy math to discount my stock price a few hundred $'s for single use in exchange for extra thousands in contracts.
I don't have stock with any agencies, both because we do our own stock sales and because of some of the exclusivity issues. I'm out of date on agency norms, but am currently being recruited by two of them. time to get educated. We do sell 10-20 images a year to one agency, based upon them approaching us for specific images. Our discussions to date might contain useful concepts for you, pointing to a way to get more sales through agencies: They want unique images not already in their files from 20 other photographers; and, they mostly want shots of people doing something, even standing in front of iconic scenes. The one we're likely to go with said this in so many words: "Every Tom, Dick, George, Susie and Sally has landscapes of national parks. But not a one of them puts people in the shots, and that's what our clients want."
Enough already! This is too long, and it's time for others to follow through with serious answers to your serious questions.
Posted by Gary Crabbe on March 3, 2006 at 12:23 PM
Marc:
Gosh how I'd love to spend some time talking with you about this...
But for now I'll just say this; You seem to offer contradicting statements. You say Artist vs Commercial, but you seem to act more like Commercial vs. Artist. You're images are Professional Quality. You sell your professional quality photos. You portray yourself as a pro / PT pro / aspiring pro. - So that tells me you WANT to be in business selling your photos.
There are two internalized ways to do business in this world, and it has to deal with how you see yourself and the value you have in your product / service / time / effort. Imagine you couldn't do photography anymore, but instead had to sell cars. Would you choose to be the little corner lot with the used cars and a tailer office, or the high glass dealership with the Hummers & Jaguars in the window? It's all about how you want to be seen in the big picture.
You can price yourself in the market and run your business based on these two internalizations. You can operate your pricing principles based on fear; fear that you'll lose something if you're priced to high, or fear that someone else will offer the same product or service for less. The other road is to operate your pricing principles based on value. You determine in your own mind what you feel you're worth, and price according to the value and benefits that your product or service can deliver to a client.
Imagine standing your standing in the middle of a road, and two sets of people are walking past you on either side. On one side is the group lookig for the cheapest, best deal they can get, and their prime motivation is "How little money do I have to spend or how much money can I save?" On the other side of the road is the group that is looking for the best deal they can get. But instead of looking for the cheapet, they care about what's the best they can get based on what they value, and will pay more for better quality or value. Now in one hand you have a stack of cards advertising your business selling used 1996 Yugos, and in the other, you have a stack of cards advertsing your new arrival of Lexus sedans. Which cards do you want to spend your time handing out?
Translate this to Photography. You wouldn't sell a 30X40 print for $45.00 would you? But you're OK giving a client thousands of dollars worth of use for a couple hundred? In other worlds, we see a zillion photographers on craigslist, all trying to be the cheapest, handing out cards for used Yugos, and its the same race to the bottom. The other photographers you don't see on craigslist are all busy handing out cards to the lexus crowd, pushing the value of their talents and skills, and can afford to advertise themselves in places other than CL.
Finally, just to let you know how much I think of your talents and where you should be going; I've got a ton of work for paying clients, but right now I thought it was a better value of my time to write this, just for you, and deliver it on the ASAP.
Now I gotta get back to work - but not before I plead with you to check out the SAA (link on my weblog) and get yourself a Jr. Membership.
Cheers.
Posted by Marc Adamus on March 3, 2006 at 12:40 PM
Thanks for all your helpful advice thus far. I don't feel it to be any sort of attack on my decisions, as I'm here to learn. While I am an experienced photographer, I struggle with the business related aspects of it and want to be confident I'm making the right decisions for my interests in the long run. Sorry to be unclear in the art vs. advertising statement. All I meant was that I would continue shooting landscapes every bit as much as I do now if I never made another dollar of profit from them. But if I CAN make bucks doing this, I will, and it's important for me to find the best ways to do so working with what I have but I'm never going to shoot and SUV add in a National Park. I really appreciate so many of you taking the time to offer advice. Gary, I'll go check out that link.
I think the RF vs. RM debate is certainly a hot topic and Ron raises a very strong point about protecting ones images. Also, it's scary to think how badly one could get ripped off by offering unlimited use of an image to anyone. I recently came to terms with a major calendar publisher for use of several of my images. Had this client purchased these images RF (not an option) I would have lost all ability to negotiate a fair price for the high profile use involved, which would have meant a substantial loss in profit.
Posted by Gary Crabbe on March 3, 2006 at 12:59 PM
Marc:
At the SAA check out the publically available White Papers.
Like Gary, I have been a long time advocate of SAA and in my opinion anyone interested in selling stock should be a member and spend some time reading there – and asking questions of the forums. There are some very experienced photographers there; most aren’t nature, but most are willing to share their wisdom.
Well I’m on the road and need to get going myself – best of luck Marc – and don’t sell your Luxus’s for Yugo prices!
Well, Paul. More and more photographers are selling RF these days. More sales of each image but less money from each sale. It's an interesting debate I've heard both sides to. With the RF market expanding in recent years, you have to think about how many sales you are loosing by selling for significantly more RM but at the same time how much you could stand to loose through unregulated use of your images as you mention. I don't think it's a simple choice at all. Some good discussion on this above.
PS - I don't sell all images RF.
Posted by Carl Donohue on March 3, 2006 at 6:03 PM
Hey Marc,
An interesting discussion, and I'm glad to see folks here posting about this. You've got some very experienced and talented photgoraphers here offering advice.
I sympathise with you perhaps more than the other guys above, because I go through the same thing, all the time, and I'm in a similar situation to you (well, without such an extraordinary portfolio). I could've made some really nice money over the past 3 years if I'd made some of the sales I lost - lost because I priced them with what I figured to be fair stock pricing, but they found something that suited their needs for less - usually for free. It's a tough chew, but it's a healthy learning experience.
I can't offer much advice, but I will ask you some questions:
At what point would it seem unreasonable to give your work away for free?
Why would you give your work away to someone to advertise their product which they charge a premium price for (and that product, of all things, is water -- as if they have some 'right' to charge anything for water -- at least you're marketing something YOU produced and own??)?
Would you allow them usage without credit? If not, what do you expect to gain from a credit on a water bottle?
Let's say you gave them the image, and 2 months later, some ad agent in NY sees the image on a bottle of water, and says "I want to use that". On what grounds could you reasonably then charge them fair market prices for a RM usage when you'd just given the image away for free to someone else?
Have you looked up the records for this water bottling corporation and seen what their profit for last year was?
I've read, with interest, many of your comments on activism and environmentalism here, and on other forums. You appear to be somewhat "anti-corporatization", if I may say so. Why would you bend over for the very thing you resist as an activist in your enviromentalism?
Last year I got an email from a kid, in England, who had saved up his allowance from the summer in order to buy 2 of my images. A 10th grade kid paid me 3 months worth of his allowance so he could have 2 of my prints on his wall. If nothing else, I learned then and there that nobody has a valid excuse for wanting my work for free. I lose some sales in the learning process of marketing and selling my work, but that's better than allowing some large corporation to use it for free.
It's a tough gig man - really tough - you're a talented and hard-working photographer. Lots of photographers make a living selling stock, and they dn't have near the portfolio you do. If you can show me any pro photographers of your calibre, or higher, selling their images RF, I'd appreciate the link.
Carl, many pro photographers sell images RF as a means of marketing their second-rate or worse images, but certainly not thier best stuff.
I think the answers to some your questions have already been answered here. I didn't take a lot of discussion on this to convince me it would have been a poor choice to give away an image just for minimal exposure on millions of bottles each year, especially when they could have paid me well for it.
I have given away images for free before. To everyone from those "non-profit spiritual organizations" that always bother nature photographers to the Nature Conservancy and other environmental causes. While I probably shouldn't give away free images to those "spiritual" groups, I have no problems doing so for the Nature Conservancy and anyone asking why they don't get the same treatment will quickly understand my reasoning. The point at which it becomes unreasonable to give away work for free depends on many situational factors. It doesn't happen often though.
Posted by Carl Donohue on March 3, 2006 at 7:01 PM
Hey Marc,
I didn't mean for my reply to come off as speaking down to you - I hope it didn't appear that way at all. It's just that those are the questions that sprang to mind when I saw your comments.
The RF stuff I've seen has been, largely, by photographers who I've not really thought a lot of. I'm far from well-versed in the area though, so my question was sincere.
I agree with giving away images to conservation organisations .. probably more so than most pro photographers - probably to a fault.
Like I said, I understand the dilemma, because I run into the same thing all too often - and I don't think there's a "right" or "wrong" answer. And I know it's easy to read comments by pros and think "yeah, easy for THEM to say, they're making a great living right now selling all kinds of stock, and they have their foot/feet/paws/hooves in the door already, but it's harder for me". And it is. It's really hard, when you hope to get some publications under your belt, to turn down possible sales/credit, etc. But good things come to those who wait.
Just as an aside: I've been selling to TNC for years and they've been a very good client, including assignments. They Do have photo budgets, both on a National and Local level. I give them a good discount for sure - but there ain't nobody working inside the TNC offices for free.
Part of the extra problem is that when you give things away - people will devalue it. Just as a hypothetical example, lets say you gave the TNC a dozen images over time to use for this that and the other thing. Then the day comes when your a FT photographer, and you don't have that M-F steady paycheck anymore. How easy will it be for you to start asking for money for the same thing you've been giving away. - Let's then say you do realize that to stay in business, you decide you now have to ask them for money. By this time - the TNC will have grown used to getting things for free, and here you are all of the sudden needing $$$ to pay your bills. But unfortunately - the TNC has learned that they can get stuff for free - and they just turn their back on you and move on to the next guy who doesn't shoot 1/3 as well as you, but is willing to give their stuff away. Now you don't have money - or a client. The TNC has learned that a free meal though not as good is better than a good but more expensive meal. So what? The problem then is the quality of the images they use goes down, and suddenly, people that the TNC go to to support their efforts no longer see the incredible natural beauty worth saving, and then the TNC doesn't get the donor $$$ to keep up the conservation efforts.
It really does happen like that.
You don't get free food at the supermarket, the gas station doesn't give you free fuel, the power company doesn't give you free electricity.
It's OK to ask for $$$ even for places you support like the TNC. I show them my support my giving them significant discounts off my commercial rates.
If you're going to trade something of value for free photos, just be sure you are getting ACTUAL value, as opposed to potential value. Ask for advertising space, web site links, etc.. But the promise of 'exposure' is usually just as hollow - even from places you'd like to help.
Even if you ask for minimal compensation from someplace as worthy as the TNC - you're still reinforcing the fact that your work and time has value.
It's ALWAYS easier to climb down the pricing ladder than it is to climb up. Once a client sees you as the free or cheap resource, you'll almost never be able to get more out of them. You've been branded. And 93 times out of 100, that client would rather spend time looking for an alternate free or cheap source than pay you more than what you've asked for previously.
Finally - the more you insist on and believe in your own worth, the easier it will be to convince others that's what your work or time or efforts are worth.
Rebate forms for my opinions are available on my web site.
"Then the day comes when your a FT photographer, and you don't have that M-F steady paycheck anymore. How easy will it be for you to start asking for money for the same thing you've been giving away."
Gary, I can see your point but understand I'm quite poor. What few bucks I have go to taking pictures and the essentials. I don't have cash to donate to TNC and live in a state containing 13 different NC perserves that are easy for me to photograph. I had no interest in charging TNC for images and I don't suppose it would be more difficult for me to do this even if I was a full time photographer (but I'm not, so can't say for certain). Maybe it is naive to think that this does not impact the quality of thier images in some way - my images certainly don't - I don't know how many if any other photographers donate images to them, but if you're correct about a trend towards TNC trying to find free images, then you're right, I may have some impact on image quality and I really never thought about that aspect of it at all.
TNC has salaried positions, but those are vastly outnumbered by volunteers which I'm confident they don't devalue. These people give their hard work and energy just as it took my hard work and energy to capture the images I donated to them.
It's a complicated issue. Thanks for your thoughts on it.
Posted by Gary Crabbe on March 4, 2006 at 12:28 AM
Marc: I think the only reason I and others are all so vocal is 'cuz we care; we alll respect your work, and want you to succeed, as an artist driving a lexus vs. a struggling business owner driving a 1996 yugo. The TNC is a super worthy cause to give your efforts to, and if any worthwile organization is close to your passion, then by all means, you are and should be free to give stuff to them for free. On some of the smaller uses, I give them such huge discounts - it might as well be free. Usually it's just enough to cover my time needed to fill out a license and plug the info in my database. For small things it could be a mere $50.00 - $100.00 or the basic equivilant to what some might charge as a research fee. But it's something, and it adds up at the end of the day, and everybody got something out of the equation.
But don't get me wrong on this. There are times when giving stuff away is perfectly fine, and a justifiable part of conducting business. But as I said, it should be based on an actual value, For photographers like us, that could be an ad in a local newsletter, or even better, access to land or locations we otherwise wouldn't be able to photograph. Those things have value. Exposure from credit lines is no different from the Exposure you get standing naked on a glacier in winter. Sure - there's always a chance that you might get some business. I think I've seen it happen twice in the last 10 years. And if you add up each individual copy of a magazine and all the credit lines, that about gives you an equal chance that a Victoria Secret model will fall out of the sky and land on the glacier next to you.
I seriously gotta get back to work.
Posted by Marc Adamus on March 4, 2006 at 10:16 AM
I'd really like to thank everyone for giving their time here, Gary especially. It's given me a lot to think about as a 26-year old photographer just breaking into the professional market. I haven't sold all that many images through stock agencies yet and am now considering moving many of the images I do have with these agencies to RM. I think there is a time and place for both and I can see how RF can help a casual photographer make a few bucks, but it might not be the wisest thing for an aspiring pro to offer most of their images for sale this way. I also plan to be more firm about getting a good price for images, not caving in to requests for free stuff. It's up to us photographers to make good decisions for ourselves and the future of our industry. We must value the time and efforts it takes us to get these photographs.
Posted by Richard Wong on March 4, 2006 at 4:42 PM
You've gained my respect Marc, not that it matters much anyway. We're in the same boat, but like the cliche goes "The journey is the destination." I wish you the best on whatever path you take.
Anyways, I'm headed off to the local mountains. The snow and clouds are looking great.
I found a link to this thread on another forum. Just a quick note: I checked your images on Acclaim and second others here - your work is outstanding. And I don't agree that you don't sell your best work as RF. I think you -do- sell your best work as RF. Keep in mind that photographers seldom are the best judges of their own work. I liked some of the RF shots on Acclaim way more than the work that you profile on your own website, for example. Something to keep in mind in the future before selecting which (if any) work to license as RF.
Discussion
34 repliesI can't tell you what the right thing to do is or whether there even is a right thing, but speaking for myself I would likely respond with a polite request to discuss fair compensation.
Guy
I have turned down several offers in the past to use my work for free in exchange for a credit line. I sleep just fine at night.
Several past threads have dealt with the issue of giving away our work without compensation. Everyone can decide for themselves what they feel comfortable doing but the more photogs that give their work away for free the more harm comes to our "industry" as a whole.
You might not get that much in the current stock market and have to negotiate for less, but you're standing on the edge of giving away something valuable. How valuable? I'm negotiating for exclusive rights on an image for corporate i.d. use right now by a larger corporation than I think you're describing, but in my case we're hovering around the price of a new Toyota. I sold one in another country, and the payment for that was the major component in the down payment on our studio building. Get the picture?
It's all a question of how many zeros and where the decimal point resides. At present, you're looking at a decimal point with nothing but zeros on either side of it. Surely a successful corp thinks their own corporate identity, as represented by your photo, is worth more than that!
Editorial Photographers has an item in their site http://www.editorialphoto.com/ called War on Photographers. It and other items discuss this sort of subject.
Dave
I have never found photo credits to be of much value. If you are really excited about having your name on water bottles, come of with a value of the publicity, and reduce your price by that amount. Maybe you could knock $200 -$300 or maybe $500 off the final price if they included your name.
There are plenty of threats to the business these days – we are seeing more and more royalty free, and even some halfway decent RF photos. It used to be the place people dumped their bad stuff. You still need to approach this with confidence – they wouldn’t contact you if they didn’t want your image. Despite all the gloom and doom, our activity and rates continue to climb.
The other thing to keep in mind – when it comes to photography, people’s perception of your work is something that is hard to change. If you become perceived as a source for cheap or even free photos, it is very hard to ever change that perception.
When it comes to water - image is everything, and your photo is critical, maybe more important then the actual water. They are going to profit greatly from your image - you should as well!
Companies like this are used to paying thousands of dollars for marketing and sales work. The only reason they are asking a photo for no compensation is because there's so many photographer's today who have no clue how to run a business that they are willing to give something worth thousands of dollars away for nothing.
You ask 'how does this hurt my credibility." For one thing, in the advertising and commercial photography world photography credits are never listed, which doesn't really matter to the photographer since the pay is so much higher than editorial photography. The only time a credit line is used in this kind of market is because the company involved pulled the wool over a photographer's eyes, so to speak, with the line about "exposure." So, if you're hoping to get exposure in the advertising and commercial work forget it, since the only thing you're advertising is the fact that you don't know how to run a business and you'll give away something worh thousands of dollars for nothing. Is that the kind of exposure you want?
The only thing you might hope to get out of a situation like this is a few print sales from people who saw and liked your photograph. However, since it's on a bottle and a small photo I even doubt you'd get that kind of sale from the deal. I've only been in the business of licensing photos for about seven years, but in all that time I can count on one hand the number of times I've resold the use of a photo because it was seen elswhere--and most of those were print sales to individuals who saw my photos that were used as covers on magazines.
Every situation for selling photos is different; I often use the "gut feeling" which basically means if I feel I'm getting the shaft I can feel it in my gut and this situation certainly qualifies for that. If I were you I wouldn't send an email back ranting and raving about asking something for nothing, nor would I agree to it, but I would send an email back saying politely and professionally that you would be happy to discuss licensing the use of the photo based on industry standards for advertising usage. If they like the photo enough they will pay for it. Or they may feel that there's enough gullible photographers out there that it's worth the time to keep fishing for something for nothing. Randy
They're playing you for a sucker. The only reason a large company chooses not to budget money for these types of uses is because they know that photographers will let them get away with it. Does the guy that designs the label get paid. What about the guy or gal that drives the truck, sweeps, the floor. Come on, dude! In 16 years in the business, the only thing you'll get is an ego stroke. Nobody looks at a water bottle and looks for a credit line and thinks ohhh I want that photo. It just doesn't happen that way - no matter what they'd like you to think. You want exposure - head to Crater Lake this weekend and stand naked in the wind at 3 AM.
Your images are so good, I'm already having a hard time believing you sell them as RF, but franky I'm almost jaw dropping astonished that you can't even find it to stand on principles at RF prices. I mean really, how hard is it to ask for even a couple hundred dollars?
You shoot some great images, and I really respect your talent. But how you see the value of your work in this industry, especially with this post, leaves me nearly speechless. If I could reach thru the computer and give you one of those "I shoulda had a V8" smack upside the forehead, I'd have to ask - What are you thinking? Promo value? From a water bottle. Nobody rarely ever pays attention to credit lines in magazines.
I may not be clear on how I feel on the subject...
Your photos are worth gold. You sell them for the price of copper. This company offers you a wooden nickel and an ego stroke, and you're thinking this could turn out to be a good deal?
Answer: It's a good deal - for them.
Have you ever looked for a photo credit on a bottled beverage product? Have you ever seen one? Think about the consumer in this situation. They couldn't care less who took the photo on the bottle. They will drink the product and toss the container away, having never looked for a single photo credit.
As Hank says, this is a kind of corporate identity. You should be compensated for it fairly. Do they want exclusive rights to the image? That will cost them even more.
I can give you more specifics on pricing if you have the number of bottles. Hope this helps
Lori
If you look at the majority of my images, it's clear I never intended to become a commercial photographer but if someone wants to use my images in this manner, I will at least consider it and try to get a fair price (maybe that fair price isn't what it used to be though). Obviously I'm new at this and am discovering we are in a time of rapidly changing and diversifiying methods of selling photographs. Is this a 'war on photographers'? No, it's just how business changes with everything else. If they can do it for cheaper, they will.
I discussed the issue of fair compensation with the bottling corp. yesterday evening, not wanting to give away an image free. They would not give me what I believed to be a fair price (for 250,000 bottles/day) so I declined to work with them any further. No doubt they will find one of the other five million photographers in the world with a waterfall shot willing to let them use it on their bottles.
I don't see what can possibly be done about this. How do we get top dollar for our work in this day and age? Seems practically hopeless to me. A big reason why I feel the need to sell a significant portion of my work RF ($100-$300/image). Keep in mind, I am a photographer for the sake of art, not advertising. Still, I'm sure there are better ways to market my images and all of your advice there is most appreciated.
I think most photographers here fall into that category but the fact that you're selling your work as stock does make you a commercial photographer as well. Btw, RM can be sold within that price range too depending on the use. The difference is that the potential income upside to an RM image is a lot higher. If you were to find 3/4th of your images on a single bulk royalty free stock CD mailed off to half the art people in this country as a promo, would that make you feel good? Your images become free after that point. There's only so many times you can go to the well before it dries up.
I took a look at your site – you work is flat outstanding. It kills me to think you sell that as Royalty Free.
You mention you never intend to become a commercial photographer and that you do it for arts sake – then why dump that stuff as royalty free for a quick buck? I suppose money can be a powerful motivator. Ironically, I believe over the long haul you would actually make so more money with RM. If you are intent on the RF model, at least go with a high end outfit like Getty.
The decision is your own, and I don’t mean to be attacking your choices – it is hard to bring this up without sounding like an attack. I bring this up for one reason, we don’t know what the future might bring, so don’t limit your choices. Let me use myself as an example. Photography was a passion for me, and for years I never thought it could be something I could make a living at. Fortunately I maintained the control over my work and maintained my work’s value and now live an amazing lifestyle. There aren’t others running around with unlimited rights to my work. Giving your work away for nothing early in your career has hurt so many artists over the years including musicians. You need to protect you work like it is gold, because it is. Once you sell an image as RF, you can never go to RM.
Clients that value good photography are still out there and still pay fair rates. We sold an image of the Golden Gate Bridge for $5,000 two weeks ago. You know how many people have that shot! Most magazines still pay more the RF rates – there are so many opportunities out there – many of the best ones are not available for RF photos.
As a final note, don’t be surprised if the bottling company comes back to you in a couple weeks. I hope they do!
I kinda feel like you took a couple of whacks up the side of the head for asking an honest question, the bruises (hopefully) balanced by contribution of info useful to you, rather than mere flames. In rereading my post, it could be taken as criticism of you, but it wasn't intended that way. Instead I was hoping to encourage you to go for some buxx. Sounds like you did that and got turned down. In my book that pretty well confirms the motivation and character of the water weasels.
Over and above that, further discussion of RF probably deserves a thread in the Hot Topics forum.
In the meantime, you asked a serious question about how to improve your marketing.
My message is already long, so I'll only make a couple of points, then kick it out there.
A big part of asking for fair market price for images is the more basic decision that you simply won't sell them for less- a willingness to pass up unfair price offers or request for free images. That's a huge personal question, and I think each of us answer it differently. I give away rights to a very few images each year, exclusively in support fo causes I'm already devoted to. I also pass on sales with too low a price, but take some others when larger issues loom, as in lower priced sales as part of a larger deal for contract photography services. I.e., the discount on stock can be used to sweeten the deal for large, major dollar contracts. It's pretty easy math to discount my stock price a few hundred $'s for single use in exchange for extra thousands in contracts.
I don't have stock with any agencies, both because we do our own stock sales and because of some of the exclusivity issues. I'm out of date on agency norms, but am currently being recruited by two of them. time to get educated. We do sell 10-20 images a year to one agency, based upon them approaching us for specific images. Our discussions to date might contain useful concepts for you, pointing to a way to get more sales through agencies: They want unique images not already in their files from 20 other photographers; and, they mostly want shots of people doing something, even standing in front of iconic scenes. The one we're likely to go with said this in so many words: "Every Tom, Dick, George, Susie and Sally has landscapes of national parks. But not a one of them puts people in the shots, and that's what our clients want."
Enough already! This is too long, and it's time for others to follow through with serious answers to your serious questions.
Gosh how I'd love to spend some time talking with you about this...
But for now I'll just say this; You seem to offer contradicting statements. You say Artist vs Commercial, but you seem to act more like Commercial vs. Artist. You're images are Professional Quality. You sell your professional quality photos. You portray yourself as a pro / PT pro / aspiring pro. - So that tells me you WANT to be in business selling your photos.
There are two internalized ways to do business in this world, and it has to deal with how you see yourself and the value you have in your product / service / time / effort. Imagine you couldn't do photography anymore, but instead had to sell cars. Would you choose to be the little corner lot with the used cars and a tailer office, or the high glass dealership with the Hummers & Jaguars in the window? It's all about how you want to be seen in the big picture.
You can price yourself in the market and run your business based on these two internalizations. You can operate your pricing principles based on fear; fear that you'll lose something if you're priced to high, or fear that someone else will offer the same product or service for less. The other road is to operate your pricing principles based on value. You determine in your own mind what you feel you're worth, and price according to the value and benefits that your product or service can deliver to a client.
Imagine standing your standing in the middle of a road, and two sets of people are walking past you on either side. On one side is the group lookig for the cheapest, best deal they can get, and their prime motivation is "How little money do I have to spend or how much money can I save?" On the other side of the road is the group that is looking for the best deal they can get. But instead of looking for the cheapet, they care about what's the best they can get based on what they value, and will pay more for better quality or value. Now in one hand you have a stack of cards advertising your business selling used 1996 Yugos, and in the other, you have a stack of cards advertsing your new arrival of Lexus sedans. Which cards do you want to spend your time handing out?
Translate this to Photography. You wouldn't sell a 30X40 print for $45.00 would you? But you're OK giving a client thousands of dollars worth of use for a couple hundred? In other worlds, we see a zillion photographers on craigslist, all trying to be the cheapest, handing out cards for used Yugos, and its the same race to the bottom. The other photographers you don't see on craigslist are all busy handing out cards to the lexus crowd, pushing the value of their talents and skills, and can afford to advertise themselves in places other than CL.
Finally, just to let you know how much I think of your talents and where you should be going; I've got a ton of work for paying clients, but right now I thought it was a better value of my time to write this, just for you, and deliver it on the ASAP.
Now I gotta get back to work - but not before I plead with you to check out the SAA (link on my weblog) and get yourself a Jr. Membership.
Cheers.
I think the RF vs. RM debate is certainly a hot topic and Ron raises a very strong point about protecting ones images. Also, it's scary to think how badly one could get ripped off by offering unlimited use of an image to anyone. I recently came to terms with a major calendar publisher for use of several of my images. Had this client purchased these images RF (not an option) I would have lost all ability to negotiate a fair price for the high profile use involved, which would have meant a substantial loss in profit.
At the SAA check out the publically available White Papers.
Well I’m on the road and need to get going myself – best of luck Marc – and don’t sell your Luxus’s for Yugo prices!
One of the best things all photographers, "pro" and amateur alike, can do is what you just did....refuse to give your work away for free.
PS - I don't sell all images RF.
An interesting discussion, and I'm glad to see folks here posting about this. You've got some very experienced and talented photgoraphers here offering advice.
I sympathise with you perhaps more than the other guys above, because I go through the same thing, all the time, and I'm in a similar situation to you (well, without such an extraordinary portfolio). I could've made some really nice money over the past 3 years if I'd made some of the sales I lost - lost because I priced them with what I figured to be fair stock pricing, but they found something that suited their needs for less - usually for free. It's a tough chew, but it's a healthy learning experience.
I can't offer much advice, but I will ask you some questions:
At what point would it seem unreasonable to give your work away for free?
Why would you give your work away to someone to advertise their product which they charge a premium price for (and that product, of all things, is water -- as if they have some 'right' to charge anything for water -- at least you're marketing something YOU produced and own??)?
Would you allow them usage without credit? If not, what do you expect to gain from a credit on a water bottle?
Let's say you gave them the image, and 2 months later, some ad agent in NY sees the image on a bottle of water, and says "I want to use that". On what grounds could you reasonably then charge them fair market prices for a RM usage when you'd just given the image away for free to someone else?
Have you looked up the records for this water bottling corporation and seen what their profit for last year was?
I've read, with interest, many of your comments on activism and environmentalism here, and on other forums. You appear to be somewhat "anti-corporatization", if I may say so. Why would you bend over for the very thing you resist as an activist in your enviromentalism?
Last year I got an email from a kid, in England, who had saved up his allowance from the summer in order to buy 2 of my images. A 10th grade kid paid me 3 months worth of his allowance so he could have 2 of my prints on his wall. If nothing else, I learned then and there that nobody has a valid excuse for wanting my work for free. I lose some sales in the learning process of marketing and selling my work, but that's better than allowing some large corporation to use it for free.
It's a tough gig man - really tough - you're a talented and hard-working photographer. Lots of photographers make a living selling stock, and they dn't have near the portfolio you do. If you can show me any pro photographers of your calibre, or higher, selling their images RF, I'd appreciate the link.
Thanks man - good luck with it.
Cheers
Carl
I think the answers to some your questions have already been answered here. I didn't take a lot of discussion on this to convince me it would have been a poor choice to give away an image just for minimal exposure on millions of bottles each year, especially when they could have paid me well for it.
I have given away images for free before. To everyone from those "non-profit spiritual organizations" that always bother nature photographers to the Nature Conservancy and other environmental causes. While I probably shouldn't give away free images to those "spiritual" groups, I have no problems doing so for the Nature Conservancy and anyone asking why they don't get the same treatment will quickly understand my reasoning. The point at which it becomes unreasonable to give away work for free depends on many situational factors. It doesn't happen often though.
I didn't mean for my reply to come off as speaking down to you - I hope it didn't appear that way at all. It's just that those are the questions that sprang to mind when I saw your comments.
The RF stuff I've seen has been, largely, by photographers who I've not really thought a lot of. I'm far from well-versed in the area though, so my question was sincere.
I agree with giving away images to conservation organisations .. probably more so than most pro photographers - probably to a fault.
Like I said, I understand the dilemma, because I run into the same thing all too often - and I don't think there's a "right" or "wrong" answer. And I know it's easy to read comments by pros and think "yeah, easy for THEM to say, they're making a great living right now selling all kinds of stock, and they have their foot/feet/paws/hooves in the door already, but it's harder for me". And it is. It's really hard, when you hope to get some publications under your belt, to turn down possible sales/credit, etc. But good things come to those who wait.
Good luck man.
Cheers
Carl
Just as an aside: I've been selling to TNC for years and they've been a very good client, including assignments. They Do have photo budgets, both on a National and Local level. I give them a good discount for sure - but there ain't nobody working inside the TNC offices for free.
Part of the extra problem is that when you give things away - people will devalue it. Just as a hypothetical example, lets say you gave the TNC a dozen images over time to use for this that and the other thing. Then the day comes when your a FT photographer, and you don't have that M-F steady paycheck anymore. How easy will it be for you to start asking for money for the same thing you've been giving away. - Let's then say you do realize that to stay in business, you decide you now have to ask them for money. By this time - the TNC will have grown used to getting things for free, and here you are all of the sudden needing $$$ to pay your bills. But unfortunately - the TNC has learned that they can get stuff for free - and they just turn their back on you and move on to the next guy who doesn't shoot 1/3 as well as you, but is willing to give their stuff away. Now you don't have money - or a client. The TNC has learned that a free meal though not as good is better than a good but more expensive meal. So what? The problem then is the quality of the images they use goes down, and suddenly, people that the TNC go to to support their efforts no longer see the incredible natural beauty worth saving, and then the TNC doesn't get the donor $$$ to keep up the conservation efforts.
It really does happen like that.
You don't get free food at the supermarket, the gas station doesn't give you free fuel, the power company doesn't give you free electricity.
It's OK to ask for $$$ even for places you support like the TNC. I show them my support my giving them significant discounts off my commercial rates.
If you're going to trade something of value for free photos, just be sure you are getting ACTUAL value, as opposed to potential value. Ask for advertising space, web site links, etc.. But the promise of 'exposure' is usually just as hollow - even from places you'd like to help.
Even if you ask for minimal compensation from someplace as worthy as the TNC - you're still reinforcing the fact that your work and time has value.
It's ALWAYS easier to climb down the pricing ladder than it is to climb up. Once a client sees you as the free or cheap resource, you'll almost never be able to get more out of them. You've been branded. And 93 times out of 100, that client would rather spend time looking for an alternate free or cheap source than pay you more than what you've asked for previously.
Finally - the more you insist on and believe in your own worth, the easier it will be to convince others that's what your work or time or efforts are worth.
Rebate forms for my opinions are available on my web site.
Gary, I can see your point but understand I'm quite poor. What few bucks I have go to taking pictures and the essentials. I don't have cash to donate to TNC and live in a state containing 13 different NC perserves that are easy for me to photograph. I had no interest in charging TNC for images and I don't suppose it would be more difficult for me to do this even if I was a full time photographer (but I'm not, so can't say for certain). Maybe it is naive to think that this does not impact the quality of thier images in some way - my images certainly don't - I don't know how many if any other photographers donate images to them, but if you're correct about a trend towards TNC trying to find free images, then you're right, I may have some impact on image quality and I really never thought about that aspect of it at all.
TNC has salaried positions, but those are vastly outnumbered by volunteers which I'm confident they don't devalue. These people give their hard work and energy just as it took my hard work and energy to capture the images I donated to them.
It's a complicated issue. Thanks for your thoughts on it.
But don't get me wrong on this. There are times when giving stuff away is perfectly fine, and a justifiable part of conducting business. But as I said, it should be based on an actual value, For photographers like us, that could be an ad in a local newsletter, or even better, access to land or locations we otherwise wouldn't be able to photograph. Those things have value. Exposure from credit lines is no different from the Exposure you get standing naked on a glacier in winter. Sure - there's always a chance that you might get some business. I think I've seen it happen twice in the last 10 years. And if you add up each individual copy of a magazine and all the credit lines, that about gives you an equal chance that a Victoria Secret model will fall out of the sky and land on the glacier next to you.
I seriously gotta get back to work.
Anyways, I'm headed off to the local mountains. The snow and clouds are looking great.
I found a link to this thread on another forum. Just a quick note: I checked your images on Acclaim and second others here - your work is outstanding. And I don't agree that you don't sell your best work as RF. I think you -do- sell your best work as RF. Keep in mind that photographers seldom are the best judges of their own work. I liked some of the RF shots on Acclaim way more than the work that you profile on your own website, for example. Something to keep in mind in the future before selecting which (if any) work to license as RF.