Free or Charge? If charge how much?

[Aushiker]

I have received the attached email. My thinking is as it is a commercial usage they should pay for it. Assuming that is the way to go, any ideas on the price to request? If I use Pixsy as a guide around US$400 would be reasonable?

Thoughts?

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[ektar]

Sounds like a commercial use to me. I'd say consult whatever pricing resources there are out there and ask for that. The question I would have is how do you keep track of whether they use it without permission and payment.

 

[KBeezie]

Even if it's for textbooks, it's still commercial since they're selling those textbooks to various places, be it public schools or private institutions.

Also I'm not sure how the laws work in Turkey versus Australia. But I would definitely provide a price for what you think is fair considering the context, and with in mind that you probably won't be able to track how they use it, other than what you gave them permission for.

I noticed that particular statue, any images of it that appear in a google search, will not show up when filtered, labeled for commercial usage (not even for non-commercial use). So probably why they haven't just snagged one off a general web search.

I do think they're hoping for free with the way it's worded but maybe they'll negotiate. As Ektar said, it'd be hard to track so would just have to take them at their word in such case.

 

[Aushiker]

Thanks everyone.I do use Pixsy to try and track usage but I suspect Turkey falls outside of Pixsy's list of countries that they will seek damages if they just use it without permission. I can only ask, but cannot stop them.

 

[PakkyT]

No idea what the pricing scheme in Turkey might be but I just recently sold an old photo to a US magazine to be used as a small photo in a sidebar for an article. $75 USD. I was happy to get that because the photo was only a 2MP shot taken on an old Nokia mobile phone.

 

[ijm5012]

I believe Getty or AP have tools to help calculate the price based on usage.

But yes, you're absolutely correct that this is commercial use. They're not giving the books away for free, so you shouldn't be giving your work away for free either!

 

[Keeth101]

As PakkyT mentioned, $400 may seem not to bad to you but it equates to 2,351.80 Turkish Lira, which may be ridiculously too much in their mind.

Just saying.

 

[tkbslc]

They're not giving the books away for free, so you shouldn't be giving your work away for free either!

Is it "work" if you did it already did it for fun? If you already have gainful employment in another field and this is your hobby?

I mean it's not like asking for a free commissioned piece where you are being asked to do additional tasks for free. It's something you already did and posted on line because you wanted people to see it and you enjoyed creating it.

I would presume that text book making is not a common hobby and printing text books has incremental costs. Digitally sharing an existing photo does not.

As PakkyT mentioned, $400 may seem not to bad to you but it equates to 2,351.80 Turkish Lira, which may be ridiculously too much in their mind.

Just saying.

To put it more in perspective, that is close to the average monthly salary in Turkey.

 

[zzffnn]

I don't know the answer but wonder (this thread made me think of this question, so I would ask for opinion here)

Should there be a pricing difference between these types of photos:

A) a commonly available (from elsewhere) snap shot that photographer took along the way of a casual family road trip and that did not took any extra time at all;

B) a unique photograph that the photographer specifically composed beforehand in mind and that took hours to obtain (as main purpose of a trip);

C) a photo that falls between A) and B), for example, a photo that came from a planned hobby photography trip, that one bird in flight keeper shot out of that 50 unusable shots.

I made a poll, if you want to vote and follow there: Fee structure difference between types of photos

I am guessing that there should be a difference, judging from the legal arguments presented in the court battle related to that monkey selfie photo.

There is a difference between charging $1, $50 and $200 for one photo, I assume?

I apologise, if this has been well discussed before.

 

[Bidkev]

.
.
I'm no longer a pro and despite my kids and grand- kids thinking that I'm a grumpy old fart, I like to think that I'm far from "precious" so my answer is based on MY attitude to my photography. If I like it, I save it. If I save it, I guess someone else might like it, and perhaps pay for it, so I upload it to stock...................but..................they can't like it (pay for it) if they don't find it, so tagging is the cash cow...................but I'm not a dairy farmer.........I'm too laid back to worry about milk aka money. If they find it outside the stock agency, perhaps on flickr or via a google of forums, and ask for use, then direct them to your stock agency where they can negotiate with them.....................I'm past all that shlt where as a pro you think about your images being stolen....................You've really got to be top notch internationally recognised for your images to be worth stealing for commercial gain. If your images are stolen/used without permission, the kind of people doing that, will not be deterred by legal threat.......they have already used it. You may have what you consider to be a unique image and worry about it being stolen, but seriously? I f you had that sort of image would you be frequenting a forum such as this? if you're not a pro, consider the theft of your images as a compliment......as long as they're not being stolen for financial or political gain, just ................chill

 

[PakkyT]

Should there be a pricing difference between these types of photos:

No. Differences in pricing are related to how much the person who wants to use it is willing to pay to get it which will be related to such things as how readily available are other alternative shots that can be used instead.

Interestingly, when I find my own photos being used without my permission or the ones that are asked for, most often they are not may favorite shots or the ones I spend more time artistically trying to capture my vision. Instead most photos people want are mundane almost stock photo type stuff. I find it funny when photographers make these wonderful shots that they clearly spent a lot of time taking and edit, adding their watermark, looking for illegal uses on the internet, etc. but really these are shots whose market is limited to prints for people's living rooms or offices and are not likely to be stolen (except maybe to make a print for their living room in which case the photographer will never know).

The shots that will be stolen are the ones people want to use for their blogs, articles, company web site, etc. where they simply wants something to pictorially represent their article, blog, or website. My super arty farty shots rarely get used, but I have found ones like...

An off the cuff shot I took for no particular reason of an EMPTY hockey locker room being used on blog about things like Youth Sports.

[Image removed due to pending VerticalScope switchover. I do not agree with expanded licensing grab in their Terms of Service.]


A head shot of my son when he was younger in his hockey helmet got lifted by a dentist for a post about protecting kids teeth in sports...

[Image removed due to pending VerticalScope switchover. I do not agree with expanded licensing grab in their Terms of Service.]

Also because my son's initials are ADT and I tag his photos on Flickr with "ADT" I had another site selling security equipment using a bunch of my shots because the web building service they used kept putting my ADT tagged shots in his web pages (lazy owner apparently not even looking at his own pages).


Just found this one the other day on the main page for a Los Angeles lawyers office. He thought it was free to use. When I offered to let him continue using it for a fee he asked how much but I guess thought my $200 asking price for perpetual use on his website was too high. Wonder what he charges per hour for his services?

[Image removed due to pending VerticalScope switchover. I do not agree with expanded licensing grab in their Terms of Service.]


This one was being used by an online newspaper, who you would think would know better, for articles related to this tunnel having some closures due to work being done...

[Image removed due to pending VerticalScope switchover. I do not agree with expanded licensing grab in their Terms of Service.]


and the list goes on and on. None of the above are particular noteworthy and all of them were simple photos I took going about life like we photography hobbyists tend to do. Despite the kind of boring content, these are the sort of things you see infringed on the most and also the type of shots you often get contacted for to use.

The above are just some of the ones I found being infringed on. In addition I have been contacted by various websites, magazine, etc. asking to use photos. Some don't want to pay anything and depending I might let them use it for free, photo credit and a hard copy if a magazine or such. Other times I tell them no thanks (if I know they have deeper pockets and could afford to pay) and many other times we work out a fee for use.

I am guessing that there should be a difference, judging from the legal arguments presented in the court battle related to that monkey selfie photo.

I think you are completely mixing apples and oranges here. That was about Copyright law and nothing to do about how photos should be priced.

 

[MPrince]

Is it "work" if you did it already did it for fun? If you already have gainful employment in another field and this is your hobby?

I mean it's not like asking for a free commissioned piece where you are being asked to do additional tasks for free. It's something you already did and posted on line because you wanted people to see it and you enjoyed creating it.

I would presume that text book making is not a common hobby and printing text books has incremental costs. Digitally sharing an existing photo does not.

I'm not a pro, I pursue photography for fun. But if someone wants to use one of my images to generate income, then they have to pay me to use the image. It doesn't matter why I took the photo. It doesn't matter if millions of people can look at the photo for free. If someone plans on profiting from my photo, then they don't get to use the image for free. Simple as that. I don't ask for much, but if someone expects to profit from me, then they have to share that profit with me, even if it's only a small amount.

 

[tkbslc]

I'm not a pro, I pursue photography for fun. But if someone wants to use one of my images to generate income, then they have to pay me to use the image. It doesn't matter why I took the photo. It doesn't matter if millions of people can look at the photo for free. If someone plans on profiting from my photo, then they don't get to use the image for free. Simple as that. I don't ask for much, but if someone expects to profit from me, then they have to share that profit with me, even if it's only a small amount.

You are free to feel that way. Facebook and Flickr already generate income from the aggregate of all our photos anyway, so it's kind of hard for me to draw that line so firmly.

If we are talking Coca Cola, maybe I agree with you. Some textbooks for kids in a less fortunate country? Happy to lend my photos.

 

[Aushiker]

Thanks for all the comments. I did give the publisher an opportunity to make an offer and they offered to pay $US50. Given they are an educational publisher with a limited distribution I am going to accept that offer.

I think it is a fair compromise.

 

[AussiePhil]

You are free to feel that way. Facebook and Flickr already generate income from the aggregate of all our photos anyway, so it's kind of hard for me to draw that line so firmly.

If we are talking Coca Cola, maybe I agree with you. Some textbooks for kids in a less fortunate country? Happy to lend my photos.

Sorry to step on Andrews thread...

yeah I can take that same hard line, the difference being i choose which photo's i place on Flickr and Facebook with the knowledge that views may well drive their respective revenues however if someone wishes to use one of my photo's outside of those places then they can damn well ask permission and we can discuss terms.
I'll bet that said textbook publisher is not loosing money or donating services and is prepared to pay something.
I had a local University ask me a very similar question for a photo published on Flickr for use in their overseas promotional material for enticing overseas students.... a quite lucrative business by the way.... when asked exactly which image or images they were inquiring about and offering to discuss licensing terms I was greeted with complete and total silence, not even a courtesy email to say no not interested. My gut says they used it anyway but illness and inertia has not seen me follow up on this. I likely may have licensed it free of charge for single use but we never even got to talk terms.

anyway it's great to see that Andrew has a compromise

 

[PakkyT]

I had a local University ask me a very similar question for a photo published on Flickr for use in their overseas promotional material for enticing overseas students.... a quite lucrative business by the way....

I had a similar thing happen to me. One of the major University Presses wanted to use a photo of mine of a pygmy hippo (which I took long ago at the zoo and it wasn't even a good photo) for some book on conservation of the species. They played up the conservation part and that they were a "non-profit" and wanted the photo for free. Of course most Universities & university presses are "non-profit" but they make a lot of money. They are hoping people confuse "non-profit" with "we're a charity", which they definitely are not. I declined to allow them to use the photo.

Other times I have let photos of mine be used for free depending on who it is and the use, but the above rubbed me the wrong way.

 

[Aushiker]

Well so much for the US$50 offer. When I agreed they came back trying to get out of it. I said no. Radio silence kicked in. Ah well an interesting experience anyway.

Thanks everyone for your contributions.

 

[Wisertime]

Well so much for the US$50 offer. When I agreed they came back trying to get out of it. I said no. Radio silence kicked in. Ah well an interesting experience anyway.

Thanks everyone for your contributions.

They found a sucker somewhere to do it for free probably.