Giving images away for free

Liberalis

Liberalis

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,172
Name
Kris
Edit My Images
Yes
Yes I will admit, I have stolen this from another forum, but it does make good reading......

"There have been countless threads on this forum from people asking for a price for anything from a single photo to be published to how much to charge for a shooting assignment.

Some say they don't want to make any money from this photo just a few bucks. Others say they don't want any pay at all just a photo credit to get their name out there or to see it in a paper with their photo credit.


Quick tell me the name of the photographer who took the last shot you saw in your local paper that made you say WOW!! What a shot! Can't remember his name? Nobody will remember yours either


There are also threads which talk about using some of these online stock agencies, which pay next to nothing.

Now consider this, if you support one of these online agencies by supplying them with images or, if you are willing to give your images away just for a credit consider the ramifications of those acts.

Let's say that a year down the road you and the little Mr/Mrs decide you want to buy some lake front property for a weekend home and possible to retire to in the future. How can you afford this? Hey I know, I can start selling my images instead of basically giving them away.
So now you start looking around for someplace to represent you, a stock agency or a photo agent. Hmmmm, your having some trouble finding one now. Why? Because editors have used Istock or some of the other give away stock agencies and have found that they can find something on there which will meet their needs. Why pay another agency $800 for that stock photo when they can get one for $4.00?
You finally get in contact by telephone with an editor at The Best Damn Stock Agency in the World. You explain you have quite a collection of great images. He asks if you have ever sold any of them. "Yes, lots of them on istock.com" CLICK "Hello? Hello?"

Now you decide that maybe you will call the paper that ran your hs football shots for the last 4 years and see if they would be interested in hiring you to cover the local hs sporting events, nothing major in the way of pay. Maybe $75 a game. Guess what? They would love to have you do it but, it doesn't pay anything. Why should they start to pay you now. You have been doing it for 4 years at no charge. You won't work for free anymore? Fine, Johnny Gotshots has a new camera and has been bugging them for the last 3 months with wanting to submit his shots from the hs game.

Maybe you can contact a calendar company and see if they would be interested in taking a look at your landscapes and wildlife shots. Nope, they don't accept submissions anymore. All their images come from istock or a similar agency. Sorry but we have stockholders who are now making $35 a share instead of $2.00 and they love it.

Oh there will always be sources which will pay "pro" rates but, they will have a strict list of people whom they accept images from and you ain't on that list now nor will you be on it in this or anyother lifetime. Because of your actions in the past there is no longer a market for your photos that will pay you. Your work now has no value and the freebie agencies and photo credit only guys are where you can look to to see why the market is gone.
So you have to tell the Mr/Mrs that there is no way we can afford that lakeside cottage, sorry dear.

One thing you have to understand, any image you create has value. Some more than others. If someone contacts you and wants to use that photo for X use, it has a value. If they are not willing to pay you for it's use then it has little value, to them at least. They will find something suitable for their needs and some other schmuck will be thrilled that his photo was used. Guess what? You both got paid the same....nothing!

Now consider this, remember the shot of President Clinton shaking hands with people and Monica Lewinsky is in the crowd with her little beret on? How much revenue did that single photo generate? My guess would be close to $100,000 and I would be willing to bet that when the photo first ran, nobody knew who Monica Lewinsky was.

How about the shot of Jack Ruby sticking his gun in the belly of Lee Harvey Oswald? Oswalds mouth open showing the agony of pain from that gun shot. How much revenue did that generate? Probably more than 1/4 of a million $$$.
Ok so those were both newsworthy events, you don't ever shoot stuff like that. Everyone has seen a shot of the NYC skyline, the Jefferson Memorial at night reflecting off the water, how about a shot of a palace guard at Buckingham Palace? Not really newsworthy really but, still anyone of those images have raked in enough money to buy the entire line of Canon L lenses.

Can you afford to give away a single image that may turn into one of those once in a lifetime shots?

Give away your copyright, sell it for .20 a download over the internet, sell it for a photo credit and then think of how you will feel when all of a sudden you see that image which you have hanging on your wall and are so proud of being republished everywhere. In magazines, on TV programs, billboards, ads in magazines and newspapers.

When you get that sick to your stomach feeling because you gave that image away and now you realize that one image alone, made more in the last 6 months in revenue than you will make working 40 hours a week for the next 10 years, put the gun down and send ol' IndyJeff and email. Let me know that image is yours and you wished more than anything in the world you would have heeded the advice given by KennyG, VWPilot, RFMSports, Bloo Dog, myself and countless others to charge for your work because you now realize.....IT HAS VALUE!!!!!"

Discuss ?
 
I have to admit, I use online stock agency fotolia. I have a link on my web site to my portfolio with them. I must admit I send in shots I can't place elsewhere. Also today, I have emailed another agency with the intention of supplying images to them, also at the bottom of the email was a link to my website. Before I got to the bottom, I'd deleted from my website all reference to this cheapo stock site, and put a link to my tradition site, that I still have to send images through the post for submission.

I have always wondered about the future implications of supply to these micro sites. While I only have a small amount of images with them, as highlighted in the thread message it could have future implications. Not only that, but it is devaluing photography for the pro's with long established links in the more traditional libraries.

I do know of one photographer that used to supply a local paper for free, and created a demand that they needed his photo's. When that moment came, he stopped sending them in. He negotiated a fee, and then became an official paid photographer with his press pass. So it can work for some people. I personaly would supply a national for free, but would consider a local, with the known intention of getting on the paid books.

Hope I make sense.
 
I know this has been discussed on here before, with some people having very strong views. But with the advance in cameras and the lowering of prices, anyone can get a camera and capture newsworthy events. No way of stopping that, and media agencies know this, but at the end of the day a "Pro" wont submit to a free stock agency etc so the shots on there will never be Professional shots, granted some maybe good and usefull, but they will probably never be shots taken on a high end camera with a high quality lens. I have quite a few shots on a completely free stocl site, and I occasionally add a few more. The reason being I have found the site VERY usefull when I have been working on websites etc where there is no budget what so ever for £800 for one image of swimming pool.

In my opinion its a completely different league and it seems to be scaring some pros as they can see some of their market vanishing, but if they are taking excellent and usefull images there will always be a market for them. I think it has just raised the bar. Then on the flip side, however, the bar seems to be falling in some area especially newspapers where some frankly shocking photos are published. I can't see it making a huge difference in the end, there are always new magazines, newpapers, website being built that need quality images...I dont think it is really a market that can reach saturation.
 
I must say I agree, all images are of value and should not be given away or sold on cheap stock sites.

You only have to look at the way Alamy, Corbis, Getty have been reducing prices and cutting staff, due to editors using cheaper photos and just putting more of them in, and still saving money, they arent even bothered about the quality as one editor's comments I read say it adds to the grittyness of the image, its what people want.

Its the non pros that are driving the market down. As for the comment all i want is a name credit next to the picture, it gets you nothing, only bragging rites with your mates, get some back bone and ask for money, or are you going to give away all your shots ?, or if you asked for money are you scared the editor would not use your image, because if he had to pay they would use someone else's.

Put a proper realistic price on your work and others will appreciate it, put cheap throw away pricing on your work and people will do just that and treat it as throw away.

thats my little rant over on the subject now.

Mark
 
mho said:
Put a proper realistic price on your work and others will appreciate it, put cheap throw away pricing on your work and people will do just that and treat it as throw away.
Click to expand...



That's my credo and pretty much applies to 'everything' you do in life. It all comes down to respecting yourself, if you don't respect yourself no one else will.
 
It would make an interesting poll this thread. Who does and would, ... and who’s against it and wouldn’t.

I have no interest in giving my work to stock agencies, as far as I can tell its the owners of the agency that get rich on the talents of others...why people do it for the pennies seems simply daft to me.

Has any one actually made good money form supplying a stock shot through these agencies?
 
I uploaded one shot to a microstock agency, and so far it's sold twice. It has to sell one more time and I get 66p...Thats just silly.

I'll put my stuff for sale through Alamy, and if I sell them anywhere else, I'll charge more than the microstock agencies give me, thats for sure.

I think it's about valuing yourself. The above post has a very good point. If you don't put much value on your own work, why should anyone else?
There is some brilliant talent on these forums, and it does sadden me to think that they dont think otherwise, and might be willing to sell it for peanuts. Don't! :)

If I get less sales through valuing my work, then fair enough, I can live with that...lol

Seriously though, I have given my work away for free before now. One shot to a charity (which is a local charity, and I'd do it again in the same circumstance), and Ive done some work cheaply for a friend before now, which also, I'd do again. I'll still happily do a quick favour, but if its a stranger who should be paying, then I want them to pay proper rates.

It's not come to that yet, and I know the day it comes, I'm going to find it hard giving a price and sticking to it, but I think it needs to be done if I'm ever going to get any value from my photography.
 
I sell for kicks - photography is my hobby and escape from the day-to-day. On that basis i sell through my site and when someone buys i'm over the moon. If i never sell another shot, then fine, but i'll continue to price at what i consider fair for the time and effort that goes into the product and the costs of printing, P&P.

If photography became my livelihood it would become a job, not a passion. I guess the resident pro's we have should comment ;)
 
Yeah I see what you mean Jonny.
I'm torn between the two at the moment, it's a passion and a hobby, but ideally I would like to make it a paying profession in the future...So I'm in sort of limbo..lol
 
I think you will find 99% of pro's (people who earn a living from a photography related business) are in it beacause they are passionate about what they produce, everyone takes on jobs they dont really like, but you still put 100% into what you do. As the old saying goes your only as good as your last job. I have taken jobs where I cannot stand the subject matter ie football, but it still gets you when your there taking the pic's, you get a buzz out of it, this transfers to when your PP'ing the images upto the final print and delivery to your client. Even when its a corporate client and you get the call saying they loved your shots, thats superb, but you still have to run it like a business and cant get too sentimental about the money side of it.

I personally earn money from various parts of photography, ie theres the photography side of things, designing workfolow / storage solutions for induvidual photographers / companys, post prosessing of their work, stock / agency photos, and now due to demand, i'm setting up colour management workflow and profiling clients equipment etc.

I still get the buzz from doing all areas of this, and if i can make a living at it all the better for me, but I dont undervalue my work I take pride in it, and find if you do others do and respect you for it.

just my 2 pence worth.

Mark
 
You're a lucky man Mark :thumbs:
 
whitewash said:
is this the old "damn'd hobbyists stealing my livelyhood" debate again?


you gotta adapt to survive
Click to expand...


It's more of a "don't sell yourself short just so you can go 'ooooh my name is in a newspaper no one reads'"
 
Jimmy_Lemon said:
Then on the flip side, however, the bar seems to be falling in some area especially newspapers where some frankly shocking photos are published.
Click to expand...


totally, my mate had one case of this recenty when a Scottish National nicked a picture from a website we jointly administer, cropped it and posted a pixelated image in the paper. (please note the site is nationally used and is plastered with coipyright notices and to get an image from it you have to either retrieve it from your cache or do a screen dump)

A quick call to them with a "unless you sort it out now we are about to hit you with a large copyright infrngement invoice and our lawyers will be in touch" meant he was paid more than the going rate for the picture and they've now asked us to provide pictures to them at a specific rate :)

ANother thing to remember is that the going rate isn't that great compared to what some people think. £60/£70 a picture for sports in a national is about standard (at most) and for locals you will be lucky to get £20/£30 a pic unless it's something seriously newsworthy like David Beckham feeling up an air hostess etc.
 
natjag said:
How much would you charge a local Newspaper for sa picture of a local event, or news story?
Click to expand...

Example being a commission to do a local Gala Day, our local paper pay a half shift (£45) plus £0.30 per mile expenses.

If it's on spec submission of a single pic you will be lucky to get £20/£30 from a local.
 
divine_madness said:
It's more of a "don't sell yourself short just so you can go 'ooooh my name is in a newspaper no one reads'"
Click to expand...


nah you see ive seen many many many of these "discussions" about the same subject and they all seem to smack heavily of proffessionals getting angry because hobbyists are cutting down their earnings all wrapped up in a teflon coat of "your selling yourself short" to make it slide down easier....
 
whitewash said:
nah you see ive seen many many many of these "discussions" about the same subject and they all seem to smack heavily of proffessionals getting angry because hobbyists are cutting down their earnings all wrapped up in a teflon coat of "your selling yourself short" to make it slide down easier....
Click to expand...

Firstly to clarify i'm a hobbyist who would love to do photography full time but i do make cash from my pics.

I can see entirely where you're coming from but see it this way, what do you do for a living? lets take an example of an office worker paid £15,000 a year. Now if your employer was offered the services instead, albeit maybe the same quality as your work but maybe not quite as good but stilldoes what it's meant to, of a volunteer who was paid nothing or just expenses and you were out of a job? Can you adapt to that? how do you adapt to that?
 
ifotou said:
Firstly to clarify i'm a hobbyist who would love to do photography full time but i do make cash from my pics.

I can see entirely where you're coming from but see it this way, what do you do for a living? lets take an example of an office worker paid £15,000 a year. Now if your employer was offered the services instead, albeit maybe the same quality as your work but maybe not quite as good but stilldoes what it's meant to, of a volunteer who was paid nothing or just expenses and you were out of a job? Can you adapt to that? how do you adapt to that?
Click to expand...

No b****r would do my job either:
1. out of passion
2. as a hobby
3. for free

:D
 
whitewash said:
is this the old "damn'd hobbyists stealing my livelyhood" debate again?


you gotta adapt to survive
Click to expand...

I know what your saying but it is that same hobbyist that posts on this forum "I've just had my picture in print for no money at all its wonderful" then the next post they make is "how do i make money from this hobby because i cant" the answer is easy do what you should have done from the start research your subject/market and charge for your picture's. The hobbyist is a soft touch for pictures.

I would love to give my pictures and services away for free but the bottom line is I need to live and earn money. I do that by offering a service people want and are willing to pay for, too right you get a bit p***ed off when people offer up a crap photo / services for free, as they may get taken above your work some times, but the quality of my work is consistent, reliable and what the client wants / expects, so at the end of the day when you look at the bigger picture, I'm not that worried about the hobbyist / amateur as most (not all) don't have the drive / commitment to follow it through and it will soon show to the people it matters to.

So really its the amateur that has to come to their senses if they want to make the step to making a living out of photography and that is to charge for their work, and don't be afraid to ask for what's suitable for the quality of work you're producing, those that just want it as a hobby are in a very good position, as none of this affects them until the words "how do i make money at this game are uttered"

again just my 2 pence worth

Mark
 
:popcorn:

Wish I had something insightful for this debate but I don't. Other than I would never, ever submit to a microstock agency.

Interesting reading though. Carry on folks..
 
At the end of the day, companies pay for quality. Ergo, togs that devote time and resources to quality images will make a living. Quid pro quo.
 
mho said:
I think you will find 99% of pro's (people who earn a living from a photography related business) are in it beacause they are passionate about what they produce, everyone takes on jobs they dont really like, but you still put 100% into what you do.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Photography has changed my life completely and I know it will continue to take me places I'd never go normally. For that reason alone I'll stick with the few crappy jobs I'll get because the other awesome jobs are so so worth it.
 
Great thread.

I believe you should hold out for payment when in the general market. Occasional free or reduced cost images are worthwhile if it leads to a greater market but this can also be a folly.

I provide free images to my sport's magazine (which is run by our governing body) as they really cannot afford full rates and I want my sport to have a voice when talking to CAA/government. Their magazine attracts new members so it is the same as sending a donation in that respect.

Other times I have given photos to local rags with my family in the shots just so they can see themselves in the papers. Bit two-faced that eh!

Togs that sell other shots that are difficult to set-up cheaply are probably the worst type as they SHOULD know better but a difficult one to call.

I think my post probably indicates how difficult the decisions can be.
 
I submit to the some of the microstock sites that have been discussed, and while you only potentially get a small amount of money per download I dont class it as giving away my pictures. Getting sales is all about the amount of pictures you have, more pics more sales, therefore more money. Plus there is a lot of photographers making a heck of a lot money out of it. For me its just a hobby at the moment but you never know, however these stock sites have hepled me buy new equipment with the money I've made so I'm happy with it.
 
Its an interesting debate, and none if us know exactly where the market is going. The cheapo libraries do seem to be forcing prices down generally, and I, like many other amateurs, have no idea which of these libraries are good, bad, or indifferent. I certainly wouldnt feel confident enough in my work to submit it to Alamy, Corbis, etc, yet begrudge the idea of submitting them to a microsite for peanuts, so I stick to just showcasing them on my own website [in low res, small, copyright marked versions]

I think on the whole, the article is right, even as a 'serious hobbyist' [as I was called the other day] you should value your work, though by how much is probably down to individual choice. Like HUN, I have given a few images to non profit making organisations I have been involved in, and done a package deal for a small website & photography [for which I got paid today :woot: ], but here's the big question - why dont we have a thread here with reports/reviews of stock sites, the good, the bad and the ugly, so we all have more of an idea to begin with of who is offering what and how much? Perhaps some idea from more regular users of the procedures for submitting to these sites, that kind of thing? I know I am asking other members to do the work here as I have no idea about these sites, but it's our own future markets that are at risk in some ways, and perhaps we should all swap ideas on the best way of giving the hobbyists a dream and the pro's a living.
 
Jonnyreb said:
At the end of the day, companies pay for quality. Ergo, togs that devote time and resources to quality images will make a living. Quid pro quo.
Click to expand...

If only it was that simple, I have seen lots of companys including ones with massive (multi-million...) marketing budgets go for low quality freebie's over paid photographs. I have been told 'off the record' that their offical line is they dont buy photos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top