Ownership of Photos - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

12/06/2006 12:22:25 PM · #1

I need help--- I'm creating a proposal for a photography job in which by photos will be bought. What is a reasonable "price" to put on a photograph? I'll be giving this commmity full ownership to use my photographs in whatever they so choose. So... what I'm wondering is what is a good price to charge per photograph? I've never done anything like this before and I'm in dire need of help! Thanks.

_eug

Nikon D50

12/06/2006 12:26:52 PM · #2

This comes up in the Forums occasionally. Search on ~~Rights~~ Selling Rights.

The gist will be:
- Why give up yours rights/income on the images?
- If you are going to do it. Charge heavily for it because you'll lose future income by going this route.

Selling Rights to images.

Message edited by author 2006-12-06 12:32:20.

Mark

Canon EOS-600D/T3i Rebel

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

12/06/2006 12:28:49 PM · #3

Is it an exclusive contract, or do you actually sell the rights? Basically if you wanted to, could you still sell the photo to someone else to use also, or would that not be allowed? Will you be selling the image files or prints? It is hard to say without a lot of details.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

12/06/2006 12:32:38 PM · #4

What it is, is me taking photographs throughout the county and then giving an outdoors committee the right to use the photos in brochures and other things to promote our county. The photos would then become as it says in the letter "property" of them. Meaning they would have unlimited use of them.

_eug

Nikon D50

12/06/2006 12:40:54 PM · #5

Originally posted by Shea927:

Sounds like they are demanding that you give away full copyright by saying it becomes their propery. Price goes up the more they ask for and this is the most they could ask of you.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/06/2006 12:44:53 PM · #6

So any ideas of prices?

Spork99

OM System OM-1

12/06/2006 12:57:42 PM · #7

I would say somewhere in the $5,000 - $10,000 per image range.

Remember that by selling all rights, you cannot use the images yourself in any way. That means you can't print it, post it online, nothing. They do not have to credit you in any way, shape or form.

There is almost no good argument for selling all rights to an image. Talk to them about usage and licensing. You can license whatever rights they want and still retain the right to use the image for self promotion/personal use.

Unless you are a county employee. Then, if you take the photos as a part of your job, then they already own all the rights since it's a "work for hire" situation.

Message edited by author 2006-12-06 13:00:29.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/06/2006 02:24:40 PM · #8

Ditto what Spazmo99 says -- there's no reason to not negotiate a perpetual, unlimited license rather than give them ownership; that would reasonably be more in the $250-1000 range as a stock image, and still assures them that they can continue to use/re-use the image without having to come back to you for permission (or pay you again).

If they want exclusivity -- so you can't license the image to others or use it yourself, then they need to pay at least another order of magnitude higher ...

alanfreed

Nikon Z9

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

12/19/2006 09:03:54 PM · #9

Hannah, is this for PA Great Outdoors, out of curiosity? I used to shoot for them back in the 80s...

alanfreed

Nikon Z9

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

12/19/2006 09:24:36 PM · #10

I don't mean any disrespect to the others who have posted here, but I have to ask... why is it that every time someone asks what to charge for something related to photography, people start posing outrageous numbers without really considering the factors involved?

You're suggesting $5,000 to $10,000 per image, from someone who is just beginning to embark in a photo career, putting together a proposal to do work for a county that is in a reasonably economically depressed area (with a total of 20,000-ish residents in the entire county) from a group whose operating budget isn't likely to be a whole lot more than that $10,000 for their whole year (not *too* much of an exaggeration here...).

I don't know Hannah well (I do believe I've met her), but I do a lot of work with her dad and think very highly of her family... and I'm originally from the same town... so I know who we're talking about, and I'm fairly sure that I know the organization she's hoping to work with.

Having shot a ton of stuff for them years ago, I have a pretty good understanding of the situation there. And I promise you if she goes in there and suggests $5,000 to $10,000 per image, everyone in the room would pee their pants laughing and then ask her, "Seriously... what are you proposing?"

When I shot for this group, they paid me a fair rate for mileage, and a modest amount per photo they used. Sometimes they'd use them in a brochure... some of them were advertising shots... whatever. It made no real difference to me if it showed up in more than one publication; it was just more material I was able to save and show to others who were interested in my work.

Starting out, like Hannah is, it was good experience and some extra money. And to try to convince her that she'll be able to snap a few shots and be able to retire on the income is just a little far fetched...

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

12/19/2006 10:10:23 PM · #11

Ha ha -- thank you Alan!

muckpond

Nikon D200

12/19/2006 10:22:57 PM · #12

i've never really understood typical photo pricing structures. graphic designers more often than not get paid per hour for something like a logo design. once the job is done, the client owns the rights to the work and does whatever they need to with it.

why is photography so different?

FireBird

12/19/2006 10:29:56 PM · #13

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Starting out, like Hannah is, it was good experience and some extra money. And to try to convince her that she'll be able to snap a few shots and be able to retire on the income is just a little far fetched...

In that case I suspect that she should ask for $500 up front costs, reasonable mileage costs, and $25 per photo with the provision that she receive credit for the photos on all materials. This assuming that she's using her camera, lens, and automobile.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/19/2006 10:43:07 PM · #14

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Only for outright sale, which is why I never recommend that. An unlimited license at a reasonable price would suit everyone's needs better.

What if she just happens to submit that one "special" image (beginner's luck, say), and the organization puts it on cards, calendars, and coffee mugs, and ends up making thousands (that would be nice), but the photographer now has no rights to make anything further off it. That's not "right" either.

I also often give non-profits and other "deserving" customers substantial (20-80%) discounts ...

The steepness if price is for the exclusivity, not necessarily the "quality" of the images.

Cam

Sony DSC-F717

12/19/2006 11:04:02 PM · #15

Originally posted by GeneralE:

The steepness if price is for the exclusivity, not necessarily the "quality" of the images.

Yeah right.

Lets see some of your shots, or my shots...or anyones shots that are worth 10k but your wont give them up because they are so exclusive.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

12/19/2006 11:08:52 PM · #16

Originally posted by muckpond:

I never got this either. I do have an opinion on it but it'll probably just piss some people off. :)

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/21/2006 07:12:49 PM · #17

Originally posted by alanfreed:

THANK YOU, ALAN!

half the time, those outrageous responses are entertaining, the rest of the time, they just make me wince, thinking that someone might take them seriously. it's a lot easier to spit those numbers out in a forum than it is to actually say them across a table to a living, breathing buyer who has options. it's so much different, selling photography in the real world, for a living, as opposed to arm-chair quarterbacking it in cyberspace...

no disrepect, intended either, just my opinion.

PhantomEWO

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/21/2006 07:33:22 PM · #18

Why not use the standards already set. Unless the photo is really a once in a life time event go to Alamy or Myloup and see what stock photos sell for. So the original question, real easy, don't ask DPC go to a photo selling site and see what's happening.

muckpond

Nikon D200

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

12/21/2006 08:20:16 PM · #19

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by muckpond:
i've never really understood typical photo pricing structures. graphic designers more often than not get paid per hour for something like a logo design. once the job is done, the client owns the rights to the work and does whatever they need to with it.

why is photography so different?

I never got this either. I do have an opinion on it but it'll probably just piss some people off. :)

actually, i'd like to hear it. :)

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/21/2006 08:36:40 PM · #20

Originally posted by skiprow:

Originally posted by alanfreed:
I don't mean any disrespect to the others who have posted here, but I have to ask... why is it that every time someone asks what to charge for something related to photography, people start posing outrageous numbers without really considering the factors involved?

THANK YOU, ALAN!

half the time, those outrageous responses are entertaining, the rest of the time, they just make me wince, thinking that someone might take them seriously. it's a lot easier to spit those numbers out in a forum than it is to actually say them across a table to a living, breathing buyer who has options. it's so much different, selling photography in the real world, for a living, as opposed to arm-chair quarterbacking it in cyberspace...

no disrepect, intended either, just my opinion.

Again, I just posted my opinion on what selling the copyright is worth. Anyone reading this thread is free to do as they please. I agree, it would be outrageous to expect that much for most images. Without a licensing agreement, the photographer could not even use the images for self-promotion, could not in any way assign her name to those without permission.

I always advise against selling all rights to images. I have never done so and I never will unless obscene amounts of money are thrown my way. Doing so without such compensation is what's unprofessional. Bringing a licensing agreement that meets everyone's needs to the table is professional, it makes it a win-win situation.

It's far from unreasonable or unprofessional to license images for a fair price, while allowing the photographer to retain copyright. If she wants to do it for free, thee should still be an agreement assigning rights. Pros do this all the time, it's how things work. How is promoting the use of an agreement that allows both parties to get what they want for reasonable consideration a bad thing?

The purchaser who would suggest to a new photographer that they sell the copyright for so little is either naive about licensing themselves or they are trying to take advantage of the photographer's naivetÃ©.

Message edited by author 2006-12-21 21:12:52.