Riiiiggghhhht . . . that'll happen. Without knowing anything about the magazine except the circ of 200k, I'd venture a guess at about $350 as a price that should be satisfactory to both the editor and the photographer, assuming it's printed at, say, 1/4 page.
I'll admit though, that it IS a $million shot!
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
That sounds about right....if they published it 'after' they got permission. If your copyright is breached then there are often damages associated .
I am in a workshop this week, and the more I study the business side of photography, I find that most of our issues with copyrights and use come down to educating our clients when we shoot and have them sign model released. The more I hear of these illegal uses, the more it makes me want to talk to the clients before I shoot and they sign. I had images stolen before I had my SM site.
I think 200,000 for editorial use is worth more than $350
In response to my request to talk with managing editor she says, "is that going to cost anything?"
UGH! If I have to educate her on the implications of what she is trying to do, and why it's not "cool with me"..... it's going to be very difficult to avoid embarrassing and upsetting her.
In response to my request to talk with managing editor she says, "is that going to cost anything?"
Ugh. How about "do I have to pay to buy that magazine on the newsstand? Or how about "they want you to write them an article for publication, is that going to cost them anything or do you get a salary or commission for that?" In short, why should the photo for the article and the magazine be free, but not the writing of the article and the selling of the magazine?
Ugh. How about "do I have to pay to buy that magazine on the newsstand? Or how about "they want you to write them an article for publication, is that going to cost them anything or do you get a salary or commission for that?" In short, why should the photo for the article and the magazine be free, but not the writing of the article and the selling of the magazine?
Well, to be fair it is a "Member Magazine"....not a magazine on the newsstands. But marketing collateral (brochures, ads etc) still are subject to the same licensing protocol. People don't understand licensing and copyright, but those marketing folks do...guaranteed!
Here is my short, sweet, non threatening attempt at a response...
Is that going to cost anything?
For a publication of that nature, a licensing fee is standard practice. I will also need to know technical specs from them as to sizing and resolution, color space and file format required for their press.
I am sure the managing editor won't have a problem contacting me; they are likely well-versed in the routine!
Riiiiggghhhht . . . that'll happen. Without knowing anything about the magazine except the circ of 200k, I'd venture a guess at about $350 as a price that should be satisfactory to both the editor and the photographer, assuming it's printed at, say, 1/4 page.
I'll admit though, that it IS a $million shot!
Really? i find it rather....ordinary myself...
But anyway, I was thinking the same thing, around $300 given that it's marketing collateral and not a true "magazine."
I buy photos ALL THE TIME for our marketing efforts, and I work for a university...so even non-profits don't expect free photos. The only time I ask for license waivers is when I am literally producing educational materials. And even then, I'm using the product photos eagerly supplied by the pharma manufacturing companies.
It's not like this magazine goes to the post office and says, "hey, we want to mail these 200K magazines for free!" it's just part of production costs.
But anyway, I was thinking the same thing, around $300 given that it's marketing collateral and not a true "magazine."
For what its worth, nearly two years ago I licensed a photo for $350 for an 8th grade Texas mathematics text book. This was a spec photo I took at a kart race, not a photo on assignment, and they somehow found my photo.
If a state school text book can afford to pay for photos, surely a magazine can.
Still no word from the editor, but the client emailed me back and said "the editor already has purchased stock photos but does not pay individuals for photos as she prefers to use employee and grandkid photos. I really want the girls in the magazine so i'll just take some myself and send to her. Thanks anyway."
How does she think those stock photos get taken? Surely not by "individual photographers".
So I'm the bad guy for not immediately fawning over such a nice "favor".
That's ridiculous, but I'd assume she probably has no clue because it took me a long time and I still don't fully understand submission and sale of stock photos. Seems like stock is a ripoff to me.
Canon 40D : Canon 400D : Canon Elan 7NE : Canon 580EX : 2 x Canon 430EX : Canon 24-70 f2.8L : Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM : Canon 28-135mm f/3.5 IS : 18-55mm f/3.5 : 4GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2 x 1GB Sandisk Ultra II : Sekonik L358
Well, I guess I just lost an opportunity on principle. I think they really expected me to just blindly submit a high res photo and have no contract or real "terms" let alone money exchange. I think I was most upset that it was told to me as an afterthought, instead of someone approaching me and asking my permission. And then stonewalling when I simply asked to be put in touch with the editor.
I think the client just wanted her kids in the mag no matter what, and didn't want me messing it up for her. So now I have, and I'm sure she won't forget that.
I have a history of burning bridges this way; it's just not in my nature to help others take advantage of me. But maybe that would be a better feeling than being the assertive "bad guy!" Although I bet if I were a man the client wouldn't have tried to play me like this; women are expected to give the business away because it's the "polite" thing to do. /rant
Still no word from the editor, but the client emailed me back and said "the editor already has purchased stock photos but does not pay individuals for photos as she prefers to use employee and grandkid photos. I really want the girls in the magazine so i'll just take some myself and send to her. Thanks anyway."
How does she think those stock photos get taken? Surely not by "individual photographers".
So I'm the bad guy for not immediately fawning over such a nice "favor".
Its this simple. The magazine doesn't want to pay, that's their choice. Nobody can force anyone to buy anything or fork over money. Except the government. (shameless plug for www.fairtax.org!) She wants pics of her kids in the magazines and she is willing to take the pics and give them to the magazine. That is her choice and she's free to do so. If she wants better pics than she can get herself she could hire someone (like you...) And, all along these same lines, nobody can force or expect you to hand over the fruits of your labor for free.
After my brief few years in photography, fortunately not as a primary source of income, I have to admit I also find pricing difficult. I'm sure your client is thinking "you have already taken the photograph, I've already paid you for it, its just sitting on a hard disk, why do you need more $$$ for something you've already taken and sold?" And frankly I think it boils down to (someone please tell me if I'm wrong, why I'm wrong, and how to better explain this!) is a difference between cost-pricing and value-pricing. And photography, it seems, is usually value-priced. There is extra value in seeing that image in a magazine, hence the extra cost. There is extra value in a full-page photo versus a quarter-page, hence the extra cost.
Well, I guess I just lost an opportunity on principle. I think they really expected me to just blindly submit a high res photo and have no contract or real "terms" let alone money exchange. I think I was most upset that it was told to me as an afterthought, instead of someone approaching me and asking my permission. And then stonewalling when I simply asked to be put in touch with the editor.
Well, you could still contact the editor right? Find out who the editor is and email her. Seems silly of them to accept a photo without making sure the employee took or has rights to reproduce the image. Also seems silly for your client to have assumed that you would just give her whatever she wants for free. Heck, even if you DO burn the bridge - probably less stress on you if that is what she is like. Ya know?
I think you did the right thing and handled it well. I probably would have caved because I would have though "OMG! Someone likes my picture!" But then, I'm no pro.
"... I really want the girls in the magazine so i'll just take some myself and send to her. Thanks anyway."
...
I have a suspicion that the images your relative (step aunt) takes on her own may not be quite as good.
It sounds like your stepmother (I hope I understood that relationship correctly) understands the proper way to do things and hopefully she will support you. So what if her sister wants "something for nothing". Does she always have to get what she wants?
Wish your relative "good luck" and hope she gets the message that you will not be taken advantage of.
Well, I guess I just lost an opportunity on principle. I think they really expected me to just blindly submit a high res photo and have no contract or real "terms" let alone money exchange. I think I was most upset that it was told to me as an afterthought, instead of someone approaching me and asking my permission. And then stonewalling when I simply asked to be put in touch with the editor.
I think the client just wanted her kids in the mag no matter what, and didn't want me messing it up for her. So now I have, and I'm sure she won't forget that.
I have a history of burning bridges this way; it's just not in my nature to help others take advantage of me. But maybe that would be a better feeling than being the assertive "bad guy!" Although I bet if I were a man the client wouldn't have tried to play me like this; women are expected to give the business away because it's the "polite" thing to do. /rant
"Although I bet if I were a man the client wouldn't have tried to play me like this; women are expected to give the business away because it's the "polite" thing to do. /rant"
I am now lighting the match.......strike........there there dear, here's a tissue, dry your eyes, put your apron on and go back to the kitchen. Hummmm, is that lighter fluid I see being poured on the floor around my feet? (no rant)
It ain't about being male or female. It's just people, deal with it.
"Although I bet if I were a man the client wouldn't have tried to play me like this; women are expected to give the business away because it's the "polite" thing to do. /rant"
I am now lighting the match.......strike........there there dear, here's a tissue, dry your eyes, put your apron on and go back to the kitchen. Hummmm, is that lighter fluid I see being poured on the floor around my feet? (no rant)
It ain't about being male or female. It's just people, deal with it.
Sam
I honestly dont know where you are going with that sam but it does not quite sound right to me.
"Although I bet if I were a man the client wouldn't have tried to play me like this; women are expected to give the business away because it's the "polite" thing to do. /rant"
I am now lighting the match.......strike........there there dear, here's a tissue, dry your eyes, put your apron on and go back to the kitchen. Hummmm, is that lighter fluid I see being poured on the floor around my feet? (no rant)
It ain't about being male or female. It's just people, deal with it.
Sam
I totally deserved that..it's probably more about the fact that I don't like being the bad guy, whereas men generally don't seem to feel "guilty" about asserting their rights.
But thanks for the condescending apron remark, I got a laugh out of it! Although I don't really understand the fire part....
it's just not in my nature to help others take advantage of me
And that attitude will go a long way toward keeping you sane and not bitter. If we let others take advantage of us, it festers and we become hateful. Good for you.
And . . . I still think something doesn't smell right. Any magazine photo editor knows you don't publish a photo without knowing the providence. Methinks Mom was thinking to pass off your photo as hers and got caught.:tough
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
It smelled like fish...
Just more growing pains.
You already learned when you give an inch people take a mile. You raised your prices and maybe need to rethink how you explain your model release.
This is just more reason why photogs need to stop giving stuff away.
If anyone should have control over the picture getting into the contest, it's you.
Doesn't matter man or woman, people want to go the path of least resistance. She tried and got caught. The next thing is will she try and shoot the same pose w/ her own camera to get a shot in the mag? Then you'd have to fight her and the magazine on that.
Only thing she regrets is telling your stepmother I bet.
Canon 40D : Canon 400D : Canon Elan 7NE : Canon 580EX : 2 x Canon 430EX : Canon 24-70 f2.8L : Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM : Canon 28-135mm f/3.5 IS : 18-55mm f/3.5 : 4GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2 x 1GB Sandisk Ultra II : Sekonik L358
This has been an interesting thread to follow. I think you did the right thing Lynne, and I wouldn't lose any sleep over 'burning bridges'. What I would do though, is consider some verbiage to add into your portrait 'contracts' that offers clients an explanation regarding copyrights and what they can and cannot do with the images they have paid for. And of course, this would be something they would sign up front. Even if it's a friend or family member and you're not charging them, you could give them a contract showing no charge, but read them the verbiage and ask them to sign. I know you had some issues a while back with some wedding photos being 'shared' on a website without you being compensated. It's happening too often. I'm sure others before you have learned this hard lesson and could offer some ideas along that line. (Might not be a bad idea to have this verbiage posted on your website info page as well.) There does seem to be a whole lot of confusion regarding copyrights and I guess it is up to us as photographers to state the rules up front and educate our clients. After all, think about how many waivers you sign in a year's time for a variety of businesses. It's standard practice. (It's a darling shot BTW! )
I agree with Saurora, meanwhile, don't stress yourself out regarding the issue, it's a done deal as far as i can see. Look into the future and make sure nothing like this happens again.
If your client going to take a picture for them to be published, see if you can get a copy of that issue so we can see the picture :eat
Comments
$ 2,000
Glass: Sigma 70-200 f2.8 | Sigma 20 f1.8 | Canon 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM
Riiiiggghhhht . . . that'll happen. Without knowing anything about the magazine except the circ of 200k, I'd venture a guess at about $350 as a price that should be satisfactory to both the editor and the photographer, assuming it's printed at, say, 1/4 page.
I'll admit though, that it IS a $million shot!
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
I am in a workshop this week, and the more I study the business side of photography, I find that most of our issues with copyrights and use come down to educating our clients when we shoot and have them sign model released. The more I hear of these illegal uses, the more it makes me want to talk to the clients before I shoot and they sign. I had images stolen before I had my SM site.
I think 200,000 for editorial use is worth more than $350
Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
http://flashfrozenphotography.com
UGH! If I have to educate her on the implications of what she is trying to do, and why it's not "cool with me"..... it's going to be very difficult to avoid embarrassing and upsetting her.
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Well, to be fair it is a "Member Magazine"....not a magazine on the newsstands. But marketing collateral (brochures, ads etc) still are subject to the same licensing protocol. People don't understand licensing and copyright, but those marketing folks do...guaranteed!
Here is my short, sweet, non threatening attempt at a response... For a publication of that nature, a licensing fee is standard practice. I will also need to know technical specs from them as to sizing and resolution, color space and file format required for their press.
I am sure the managing editor won't have a problem contacting me; they are likely well-versed in the routine!
Thanks!
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
Really? i find it rather....ordinary myself...
But anyway, I was thinking the same thing, around $300 given that it's marketing collateral and not a true "magazine."
I buy photos ALL THE TIME for our marketing efforts, and I work for a university...so even non-profits don't expect free photos. The only time I ask for license waivers is when I am literally producing educational materials. And even then, I'm using the product photos eagerly supplied by the pharma manufacturing companies.
It's not like this magazine goes to the post office and says, "hey, we want to mail these 200K magazines for free!" it's just part of production costs.
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
If a state school text book can afford to pay for photos, surely a magazine can.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
How does she think those stock photos get taken? Surely not by "individual photographers".
So I'm the bad guy for not immediately fawning over such a nice "favor".
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
dak.smugmug.com
I think the client just wanted her kids in the mag no matter what, and didn't want me messing it up for her. So now I have, and I'm sure she won't forget that.
I have a history of burning bridges this way; it's just not in my nature to help others take advantage of me. But maybe that would be a better feeling than being the assertive "bad guy!" Although I bet if I were a man the client wouldn't have tried to play me like this; women are expected to give the business away because it's the "polite" thing to do. /rant
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
Quick pricing from fotoquote - rights managed, limited use - Medium range
Usage TermsUnited States, Editorial, Magazine Editorial.Trade, 1/4 Page, Up to 25,000
PriceUSD $ 233
So that is a "range of what they should be paying if they bought it legit.
You can add to that what you seem fit.
Michael
After my brief few years in photography, fortunately not as a primary source of income, I have to admit I also find pricing difficult. I'm sure your client is thinking "you have already taken the photograph, I've already paid you for it, its just sitting on a hard disk, why do you need more $$$ for something you've already taken and sold?" And frankly I think it boils down to (someone please tell me if I'm wrong, why I'm wrong, and how to better explain this!) is a difference between cost-pricing and value-pricing. And photography, it seems, is usually value-priced. There is extra value in seeing that image in a magazine, hence the extra cost. There is extra value in a full-page photo versus a quarter-page, hence the extra cost.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Well, you could still contact the editor right? Find out who the editor is and email her. Seems silly of them to accept a photo without making sure the employee took or has rights to reproduce the image. Also seems silly for your client to have assumed that you would just give her whatever she wants for free. Heck, even if you DO burn the bridge - probably less stress on you if that is what she is like. Ya know?
I think you did the right thing and handled it well. I probably would have caved because I would have though "OMG! Someone likes my picture!"
I have a suspicion that the images your relative (step aunt) takes on her own may not be quite as good.
It sounds like your stepmother (I hope I understood that relationship correctly) understands the proper way to do things and hopefully she will support you. So what if her sister wants "something for nothing". Does she always have to get what she wants?
Wish your relative "good luck" and hope she gets the message that you will not be taken advantage of.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
"Although I bet if I were a man the client wouldn't have tried to play me like this; women are expected to give the business away because it's the "polite" thing to do. /rant"
I am now lighting the match.......strike........there there dear, here's a tissue, dry your eyes, put your apron on and go back to the kitchen. Hummmm, is that lighter fluid I see being poured on the floor around my feet?
It ain't about being male or female. It's just people, deal with it.
Sam
Maybe im misinterpreting your post ??
I totally deserved that..it's probably more about the fact that I don't like being the bad guy, whereas men generally don't seem to feel "guilty" about asserting their rights.
But thanks for the condescending apron remark, I got a laugh out of it! Although I don't really understand the fire part....
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
And that attitude will go a long way toward keeping you sane and not bitter. If we let others take advantage of us, it festers and we become hateful. Good for you.
And . . . I still think something doesn't smell right. Any magazine photo editor knows you don't publish a photo without knowing the providence. Methinks Mom was thinking to pass off your photo as hers and got caught.:tough
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Just more growing pains.
You already learned when you give an inch people take a mile. You raised your prices and maybe need to rethink how you explain your model release.
This is just more reason why photogs need to stop giving stuff away.
If anyone should have control over the picture getting into the contest, it's you.
Doesn't matter man or woman, people want to go the path of least resistance. She tried and got caught. The next thing is will she try and shoot the same pose w/ her own camera to get a shot in the mag? Then you'd have to fight her and the magazine on that.
Only thing she regrets is telling your stepmother I bet.
dak.smugmug.com
If your client going to take a picture for them to be published, see if you can get a copy of that issue so we can see the picture :eat
www.intruecolors.com
Nikon D700 x2/D300
Nikon 70-200 2.8/50 1.8/85 1.8/14.24 2.8
You guys have really made my day with your support!!!
I definitely will work on my policy/education with clients about this type of thing. I'll share it with y'all to use when I do.
And I'm definitely going to try to get a copy of the magazine and see what beat me out!
Seriously, you guys rock...thanks...I stress out about disappointing/saying no to folks far more than I should.
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
For those of you who did not see my link to this already.
Mr. Harlan Ellison
Nikon D4, Nikon D3, Nikon D3
Nikon 14-24 f2.8, Nikon 24-70 f2.8, Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR II, Nikon 50 f1.8, Nikon 85 f1.4
Nikon 300 f2.8 VR, Nikon 200-400 f4.0 VR II, Nikon 600 f4.0 II, TC-1.4, TC 1.7, TC 2.0
(1) SB-800, (2) SB-900, (4) Multi Max Pocket Wizards
that's fantastic. If it was "PG" I might even send her a link!!!
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
Oh that is so awesome! This guy is just a little passionate about the subject and rightfully so!!!!
This is a fantastic interview...Loved it
But: Publishing a pic out of a magazine here would be the exact same legal "mistake"... right?