i have a bit of a bee in my bonnet

dirtyghettokid

i get contacted now and again through flickr about people wanting to use my photograph in something. why is it that NOBODY wants to PAY for use of a photo?
it's quite annoying that no one values the work of a photographer. they always want a photo for free and give the crap line "but i'll give you a text credit, it will be good for exposure" YEAH for OTHER people to come along asking for free photos!

like would they go to an art gallery and ask to take a painting and not pay for it? or go to the shop and ask for something but say they can't pay?

it's just BS IMO.

i've been asked a fair few times and actually got an email this morning, but it's the same thing "we don't have money to pay" :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

i have never made a cent off my photography, despite plenty of people wanting to use my photos.

do you guys earn money through single image use? i wouldn't even know what to charge....

thanks for listening to my lil rant and please do share your stories!

PCPhoto

if you get contacted through flickr then maybe you should sign up to allow Getty manage/sell your images.

they set up a deal with Flickr a few years ago and while they take a percentage ... at least you dont have to respond to idiots claiming "they'll give you credit" or "we don't pay for images"

as far as I'm concerned ...if you don't pay for images ...you can only use your own images because you are not getting mine !!

the most I have made from any one image is around €2000-€2500 but its not through flickr - it was an image printed in the national papers (I am still waiting for some of the payments)

if you do not want to sign up to Getty then if/when you are next asked you can tell the person that Getty would sell the image for X amount (you can see the price list on Flickr) but you are willing to let them use it for Y amount.....if they refuse...its their loss.

jpb1974

Photographers do it too... "looking for models", "sitters needed"... but are often not willing to pay.

That's just life... accept that it is that way, ignore people that don't want to pay you & move on.

Paulw

jpb1974 wrote: »

Photographers do it too... "looking for models", "sitters needed"... but are often not willing to pay.

Normally when photographers look for models, they are willing to provide the model with a number of images, which is a win-win for both, if both are willing.

Not exactly the same really.

jpb1974

Great if you wanted some photos of yourself but comparable to "free admission to the gig", "pitchside access to the game" if you ask me... the kinda things that you're told on the internet not to accept as payment... they don't pay the bills.

sineadw

I'd agree with Paul here - CD for shots is a like for like professional proposition for a lot of photographers and models, and really isn't the same as free admission to a gig.

@OP - just ask for payment. They soon stop bothering you

jpb1974

It's easy to agree when you're a photographer but I'd bet there's many a model sick and tired of "I'll give you a disc of shots" if you sit for me whilst he/she is thinking "how the f am I going to pay next month's rent?".

Personally I really don't care less either way... but when you read SO many "same old, same old" comments here about "this doesn't pay the bills" and "that doesn't pay the bills" and then to have people asking for "free sitters" it really does smell of hypocrisy at times, in my humble opinion of course.

Credit, Free Access, a disc of photos... if it's hard cash you're after then they really are one in the same.

Just putting it out there... like I said... at the root of it I don't really care... people are free to make their own choices, I just believe there should be some level of consistency in people's approach to these things.

magicbastarder

i'll roll out the hoary old chestnut - how many photographers here have never downloaded or sourced an album without paying for it?

AnCatDubh

I understand your pain. BUT at least they've asked, and you can respectfully decline their offer of no monetary value. Thus, in some way, they understand there is value to what you have created and which they are seeking - albeit they are cheeky enough to expect that value without any form of monetary payment being made.

I think its the ones that don't ask you which you need to be concerned about - those that just lift your work without contacting you for permission - all in the expectation that they won't get caught.

We see it all the time on the forum. "XYZ used my images - what to do" type of thread. There's a few running at the moment.

sheesh

send them this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE

Paulw

jpb1974 wrote: »

It's easy to agree when you're a photographer but I'd bet there's many a model sick and tired of "I'll give you a disc of shots" if you sit for me whilst he/she is thinking "how the f am I going to pay next month's rent?".

And you also get models contacting photographers, asking for a shoot with a Cd of images, in exchange for him/her sitting for the photographer to boost their portfolio.

Nothing wrong with that. Both get something of value from the shoot.

A disc of images to the model has a value. Usage of model images in a portfolio has a value to the photographer. Win, win.

Every photographer needs some sort of portfolio starting out, to bring in business.

jpb1974

And you also get models contacting photographers

Of course you do... nobody is denying that.

What bothers me is the hypocrisy about these parts and on most internet photography forums -

"Looking for models, not willing to pay, will provide photos for free*"

Result: Nobody bats an eyelid.

"Looking for someone to photograph my wedding for free. Good experience on offer"

"Looking for someone to cover a gig, free* passes for you and your friend on offer"

"Looking for someone to do the game, free pitch side access"

"Want to publish your photo, will give credit"

Result:
Uproar
"10 reasons never to do stuff for free" posts
Why credit will never make you famous
Free gigs don't pay the bills
You're shafting the pro wedding photographer
etc.

Not every model wants another free CD of images... sometimes cash is what counts. I've a cousin in the UK and she has a pain in her face with the "can't pay, will give images on CD" offers and also commented that some of the stuff you end up with on the CDs would never make her portfolio because they're simply not up to scratch.

All I'm really trying to say here is that sometimes photographers need to take off their blinkers.

(* I giggle at the free bit, it's not free, you're earning whatever the "reward" is supposed to be)

gbee

dirtyghettokid wrote: »

"but i'll give you a text credit, it will be good for exposure" YEAH for OTHER people to come along asking for free photos!!

Absolutely. Muggins there in that mag that we KNOW does not pay for nay pics, get Muggins for our next issue.

The ONLY ones that count are the ones that will pay, you'll be more thought of. The only credit you need is your name on the cheque. In fact you're often better off not getting a credit as the magazine's affiliations may rub negatively back on you.

AnCatDubh

jpb1974 wrote: »

I've a cousing in the UK and she has a pain in her face with the "can't pay, will give images on CD" offers and also commented that some of the stuff you end up with on the CDs would never make her portfolio because they're simply not up to scratch.

so, what you are saying is that your cousin in the UK has the same pains as the OP here, and also has the same pain in declining any of the "kind" offers.

All I'm really trying to say here is that sometimes photographers need to take off their blinkers.

I don't disagree but would qualify by suggesting that "sometimes some photographers need to take off their blinkers". It can be a little much on an open forum to tar everyone as being the same.

Some photographers are well aware of the value of their work v others work, what are the appropriate/acceptable times and/or terms and conditions under which you 'trade' services, or whether they are simply looking for something for nothing. That said, I'm personally not against photographers (or models for that matter) who wish to give their time/services in exchange for the value received from a collaborator (photographer or model) of a known standard as a matter of their choice.

I also personally don't think a photographer should approach a model seeking to do a TF session unless that model has it clearly stated that he/she is available to do TF work. The default should be to expect you will have to pay for someones time unless they have clearly stated on their portfolio that they are available for TF work. I'm ok with the idea of an open call by either a photographer or model to say "if you are interested and find it acceptable to trade time/services with them" so long as it is by mutual consent.

Thus, i completely understand where the OP and your cousin in the UK are coming from

dirtyghettokid

thanks for all the replies guys!
i'm all for bartering, but in most cases i just get offered a text credit or nothing.

i'm probably going to ask for a fee and if they decline then that's that. no skin off my nose, i don't care if they don't wanna go with it.

i'm just fed up of people constantly wanting photos for free and not valuing the work of a photographer which happens all too frequently. maybe it's just me? lol

i wouldn't like to be bound in the same group as the photographers that ask models, etc. to do things for free... work is work, if you need something, you pay. if not, then you don't get it!

alfalad

On the asking models to work for photos, one important point is what if the photo's are no good, poor quality and the sort they wouldn't even want taking up hard drive space, then they have worked for nothing and that is an important point as a lot of photographers looking for models to work for free do so to practice as they need experience, heighting the chance of the photo's not being good. So i would very much agree with jbp. Bad photos on a cd are worth less than a credit i would think.

But equally I feel that if you want to use a photo you should pay for it, so i feel for the OP. I certainly would be careful that they then don't steal the photos from your Flickr.

By the way I can see why you get requests as you have some great shots!

jpb1974

"sometimes some photographers need to take off their blinkers". It can be a little much on an open forum to tar everyone as being the same.

We could split hairs over semantics, but seriously... to assume that I meant "every single photographer" would really just appear to me as an exaggeration for arguements sake... it certainly wasn't the intention.

stcstc

I do agree to a certain extent with jpb1974

if someone asked for something free from a photographer on here, wow there is uproar

i get it all the time

recentaly got a call from a photographer, asking for prices for some contemporary mounted prints for a charity

i was requested to make it a 'good deal' ie cheap. but the photographer the proceeded to ask me what they could charge for doing the photos as they needed to make good money

now is it me or is that not a good deal :-)

PCPhoto

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'll roll out the hoary old chestnut - how many photographers here have never downloaded or sourced an album without paying for it?

I'll jump up on my high horse and say I haven't

I've paid for ALL of my software ... have bought maybe 5 albums in my lifetime (32yrs) and not really into music.

I do agree though ... some photographers expect people to sit/model for them for free in exchange for prints but then refuse to work for free if requested.

there is a fine line between doing a job for free and doing the job for a reasonable amount - if someone is looking for an image from you I believe they should be willing to pay, however I also believe that if someone wants models to pose they should be willing to pay.

As stcstc said above - he offered a reasonable rate but the person wanted it for free, in this case I would have asked the photographer if he/she was doing anything for free ? it all costs time and money.

Misa-san

In a bizzare case of (slightly related) coincidence, I had an email today through Flickr from someone contacting be about licenced use of one of my images in an app of sorts. The website of the company does state clearly that they offer profit-sharing to the photographers they work with.

The inherent nature of the internet has me instinctively sceptical - how to distinguish an honest publisher from another case of "I'm a Nigerian prince, give me your bank account details"

smash

Does anyone use the getty option on flickr. I'd be interested to know how they calculate their pricing and do they get access to private as well as public photos etc?

pete4130

If people don't want to pay, then don't supply. It's simple.

People don't realise the value/cost of good photography. If its good enough or they want your images enough then they'll pay.

There's no need to get a bee in a bonnet about it.

City-Exile

jpb1974 wrote: »

Great if you wanted some photos of yourself but comparable to "free admission to the gig", "pitchside access to the game" if you ask me... the kinda things that you're told on the internet not to accept as payment... they don't pay the bills.

Lets say I sit in the mud, at the side of the pitch, in the pouring rain, on a cold winter night, taking pictures of a football match, do you think the clubs aren't glad of the exposure? Damn right they are! Also glad to have images to use in their match programmes, on their websites, etc.

You're very misguided if you think it's all win for the photographer, at the expense of someone else.

That reminds me, I need to pay the €400+ to renew my insurance, to allow me to sit at the side of the pitch.

jpb1974

Lets say I sit in the mud, at the side of the pitch, in the pouring rain, on a cold winter night, taking pictures of a football match, do you think the clubs aren't glad of the exposure? Damn right they are! Also glad to have images to use in their match programmes, on their websites, etc.

What on Earth has this got to do with my comment you quoted? Are you suggesting that I am knocking sports photographers? If you are then I'm not sure where that came from.

You're very misguided if you think it's all win for the photographer, at the expense of someone else.

Where did I state that "it's was all win for the photographer, at the expense of someone else"? Are you sure you're not exaggerating my comments for the benefit of your own arguement?

That reminds me, I need to pay the €400+ to renew my insurance, to allow me to sit at the side of the pitch.

Sorry, but you're losing me again. What has this to do with any of my comments on this thread? Are you trying to suggest that it's perfectly fine for photographers not to pay models, rather just offer images on CD as it's cheaper and because they have more important bills to pay? Seems like that... maybe

Eirebear

jpb1974 wrote: »

Sorry, but you're losing me again. What has this to do with any of my comments on this thread? Are you trying to suggest that it's perfectly fine for photographers not to pay models, rather just offer images on CD as it's cheaper and because they have more important bills to pay? Seems like that... maybe

No, what he's suggesting is that he is already paying for "pitchside access to the game" much like a gig photographer at one point or another will need to pay for "Free access to the gig".

I understand where your coming from, but the correlation between gig/sports and tf model shots isnt entirely the the same in my opinion.

TF deals with a model, in my experience, are sorted out between the model and the photographer - normally as it's mutually beneficial to both, be it for portfolio or to try something out.
If the photographer has a budget to work with, is making money from the shoot and can afford to pay the model - then i would suggest that the photographer is taking adavantage, much the same way as photographers complain about working for free.

However that is different for gig/sports tog's who have to do all the legwork before during and after their shoot in order to sell the pictures, or even get themselves a "credit" on a website somewhere.
The only people who really gain exposure in this situation are the musicians and clubs in my opinion - yeah the photographer gets some folio stuff, but nowhere near the exposure the other parties recieve.

As for the comment about "Poor Photos" ( I know, it wasnt you who said it) i feel i need to pick up on that.

Do you honestly think that any photographer goes out with the intention of creating bad/unuseable images?
Any model who is asked to do TF will usually get a look at the photographers folio/sample images before agreeing to anything, so that point is entirely moot.

jpb1974

what he's suggesting is that he is already paying for "pitchside access to the game"

Thanks for clarifying this. Unfortunatley I don't believe it was ever a bone of contention in the context of this discussion, so I am still a bit confused as to how this is being interpretted by the poster question.

the correlation between gig/sports and tf model shots

However that is different for gig/sports tog's who have to do all the legwork before during and after their shoot in order to sell the pictures, or even get themselves a "credit" on a website somewhere.

I was merely attempting to highlight examples of 'supposed rewards' that people offer instead of money. I was never attempting to draw any sort of correlation between gigs, sports and model photography in any other way.

As for the comment about "Poor Photos" ( I know, it wasnt you who said it) i feel i need to pick up on that.

Do you honestly think that any photographer goes out with the intention of creating bad/unuseable images?

Nope.. but unfortunatley that doesn't mean that they won't. A CD full of 'below par best efforts' might be heart warming but for anyone aspiring to put together a decent portfolio or to pay the rent they're absolutley useless.

iamnothim

dirtyghettokid wrote: »

do you guys earn money through single image use? i wouldn't even know what to charge....

Around 2.5 years ago I was contacted by a new york ad agency, through flickr, for permission to use one of my photos in a print ad for a big ish sports/clothing company. They paid 500 dollars for it and it was usage was limited to print only, U.S only, for 1 year. I think the finished ad ran in a few issues of some sports magazine. Nothing huge. A year later, after I had forgotten about it, they contacted me again saying the client wanted to run the same ad again this season and would another 500dollars be okay. That was nice.

PCPhoto

well done .... can we see the image ?

its great to get recognised.

(going by pro rates you were taken advantage of ...but money is money)

alfalad

Eirebear wrote: »

Do you honestly think that any photographer goes out with the intention of creating bad/unuseable images?
Any model who is asked to do TF will usually get a look at the photographers folio/sample images before agreeing to anything, so that point is entirely moot.

Ok of course they won't try and create poor images, but sometimes it happens. Poor lighting in the room, photographer trying something new etc and again if they are looking for a model for free as they want to practice this will heighten the risk. Past preformance does not guarentee the same quality results especially if they are trying something new, so even if a model looks at his portfolio and all looks good they could end up disappointed with the results. So an arrangement of I will pay you X but of you like the photos and want them that will be payment in kind would probably be better for all parties.

iamnothim

PCPhoto wrote: »

well done .... can we see the image ?

its great to get recognised.

(going by pro rates you were taken advantage of ...but money is money)

yeah, I figured I probably was. But sure, I'll take the thousand quid over nothing any day. They could easily have ripped it from flickr without asking and I never would have known, not to mind used it the second year without paying.

the original is still on flickr here http://www.flickr.com/photos/daramunnis/714995500/. Not the best photo I've ever taken...

They turned it into this:

The Snipe

I thought it was print only :P

magnumlady

AnCatDubh wrote: »

I understand your pain. BUT at least they've asked, and you can respectfully decline their offer of no monetary value. Thus, in some way, they understand there is value to what you have created and which they are seeking - albeit they are cheeky enough to expect that value without any form of monetary payment being made.

I think its the ones that don't ask you which you need to be concerned about - those that just lift your work without contacting you for permission - all in the expectation that they won't get caught.

We see it all the time on the forum. "XYZ used my images - what to do" type of thread. There's a few running at the moment.

I agree. I really don't have a problem if people ask first. It's when they don't ask and remove my watermark that I get annoyed about.
Most of the time the pics have been used for charities or I've been sent a copy of the magazine/book they've appeared in.