Image wanted for advertising

ynot said:
As many the advice before is different to the advice after.

It wasn't given away, i have something for it.
I did ask about budgets and how much are they looking to pay, the response was as predicted, no budget.

Please feel free to educate me, what should i have got for that image?
Click to expand...

What was the usage they intended for the image and its distribution in terms of volume and geography?

Also, would depend on licencing basis, RM or RF and whether or not they wanted exclusivity.

Edit: The email they sent you appears generic and to be a "rights grab". Another key point I picked up from it is that they are marketing to photographers. Would seem to me that unless peer recognition is the only goal, that any professional would probably consider photographers to be pretty far down the list in terms of target markets. They are trying to get something for nothing, thats for sure. Brilliant but entirely unethical business model.
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
As many the advice before is different to the advice after.

It wasn't given away, i have something for it.
I did ask about budgets and how much are they looking to pay, the response was as predicted, no budget.

Please feel free to educate me, what should i have got for that image?
Click to expand...

There is always a budget you just have to work harder to find what it is sometimes. Difficult to give you a figure without knowing the licence terms they wanted e.g. Duration - area - etc but it would be a hefty sum - and they would know that.
 
Ynot. I would recommend a communication exchange along these lines:

Business: "Hi, we absolutely love your photograph of the London skyline - you are the most awesome photographer we have ever seen on this planet, and your snap would be the perfect image to illustrate our product range - which reaches a high number of photographers globally. Could you let us have a high resolution JPEG?"

Ynot: "Hi, many thanks for the enquiry. Before we take things further I'll need to ask you for some more details about how my photograph will be used. Can you tell me if it would be for purely website use, and if so which websites. If there is to be any hard advertising then please let me know the sources and approximate print runs, and jurisdictions. Please also let me know the duration for which you would need to use the picture (eg 2 years, 5 years etc). Look forward to hearing from you"

Business: "Hello again, it would be for our main website only and possibly Internet promotion flyers to potential customers - likely to be twice a year with the distribution of around 12,000. The image would be low resolution for these but we would want a high-resolution version as it may go in and industry journal on three occasions - not sure if that is definite yet"

Ynot: "Thanks, that's very helpful. As you know this is how we calculate the licensing fee when photographs are used commercially (in somebody's marketing). For what you've asked you can get a pretty good idea of cost if you refer to one of the price calculators at a stock agency like Getty or Alamy. I don't have to charge as much as some of those photographers because I don't run a full-time photography business so my overheads are lower, and so my prices around 15% less. This would give us the figure of approximately XXXX for usage as you describe over three years. Please let me know if this covers your needs - the cost would be lower if your needs weren't as broad"

Business: " To be honest we weren't thinking of paying anything - all of the photographs we use are donated by the photographers we approach - it's a two-way benefit because they get their work out their on a respected business website - we can even include a photo credit if that would help?"

Ynot: "Thanks, but there really is no value in having your pictures published for a reduced or mitigated fee, if your target clients don't form the bulk of that website's or business's audience. Providing my work for no other purpose than to help your profits is unworkable, as I'm sure you must understand. Therefore I think the best alternative solution would be an exchange in kind - I do use your products already and I'm particularly interested in acquiring an X and a Y. Could you supply those in exchange for use of the photograph?"

Business: " Sorry, but we don't donate free equipment - we do expect free photos though"

Ynot: " In that case we can't do business I'm afraid. I don't have to tell you that your methods are thoroughly unethical and amount to a rights grab - I would imagine you and your colleagues get paid for the job you do, as do your website people, admin staff and cleaners. There's little possibility of your goods being sold to anyone without credible professional standard photographs to back them up - yet you feel the photographer should be the only person in the chain who receives absolutely nothing in return. I'm going to point this out to my friends on the several forums I spend time on, so they're aware of how you run your operation. I certainly won't be buying your equipment again. Tatty bye."
 
He did get some stuff true. However Lindsays communication is spot on and will serve well as a thread to point to for the next person who poses the question.

The replies to this all to often query fall into two categories for me :

The Amateur tog who is flattered and falls for the request and the Professional who understands the value of their images and charges for them, therein be the difference and at some point if the amateur wants to be a pro they will need to cross to the other camp !
 
Lindsay D said:
I realise that - my suggested dialogue was structured to cover both eventualities because in so many cases the photographer doesn't get anything at all.
Click to expand...

Perhaps for this thread it should have stopped at dialogue point 7 or not used Ynot's tag. Doesn't matter though.


Andrew Davies Photography said:
He did get some stuff true. However Lindsays communication is spot on and will serve well as a thread to point to for the next person who poses the question.

The replies to this all to often query fall into two categories for me :

The Amateur tog who is flattered and falls for the request and the Professional who understands the value of their images and charges for them, therein be the difference and at some point if the amateur wants to be a pro they will need to cross to the other camp !
Click to expand...

Or as has been pointed out often in these threads the amateur who has no interest in getting paid and is happy with the ego boost.

109th rule of acquisition "Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack": applies equally to the amateur after an ego stroke and the amateur chasing some long changed "full market value". Unless you're in the enviable position of setting your own rates the odds of getting the above £XXXX (15% less than Getty) are pretty much zero.
 
steveo_mcg said:
Perhaps for this thread it should have stopped at dialogue point 7 or not used Ynot's tag. Doesn't matter though.

109th rule of acquisition "Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack": applies equally to the amateur after an ego stroke and the amateur chasing some long changed "full market value". Unless you're in the enviable position of setting your own rates the odds of getting the above £XXXX (15% less than Getty) are pretty much zero.
Click to expand...

Steven, I used Ynot's tag precisely because a few posts further up he had specifically asked (I believe in response to Pookeyhead) what he should have said/done/charged in his dialogue with the client. There's no simple answer to that, because there is usually some back and forth and often a bit of negotiation and chitchat.

I would say that in this instance Ynot did indeed want to be paid, he sought advice here, but inexperience and possibly a lack of confidence influenced his choices (and he deserves some credit for getting something in return even if he does acknowledge it wasn't enough). I think he's learned from this and it's also a valuable thread for anyone else in a similar position.

When a business desires a commodity that you happen to possess then there is no distinction between amateur and professional. That business knows nothing about the person they are asking, or their background or experience - all they see is a photograph which they desire (in this case better than many of the images offered for sale at some of the agencies). So one's status as full-time pro or talented hobbyist is at this point irrelevant - I've been in business for a while but I get exactly the same enquiries as do many others here. Anyone can set their own rates and just because you're an amateur doesn't mean that 'market value' shouldn't apply. I've known plenty of 'amateurs' who are very good business people.

In my imaginary dialogue the non-figures stated are arbitrary (they can't be anything else, because we have nothing real to go on). I will also say that you're wrong to assume the chances of getting fair payment are zero. It will be in some cases, in which case you can move on. But in other cases obtaining payment will be no problem at all - those are the people you do business with. I have sometimes pushed my luck and quoted figure substantially above what I think are given business would be expecting - and they've come back without a blink and paid it. If your attitude is so defeatist then any hope of 'I'd like to one day make money from my pictures' (which is exactly what the OP has said) is cloud cuckoo talk.

Your position may be "c'est la vie" but I prefer "ask and you might get". And if they don't want to do business then why would you lose any sleep over it. The quest for flattery and empty ego boosts aren't the most noble of traits, because they rarely result in anything positive or worthwhile.
 
Last edited:
The other thing that struck me about this company is that I surmise the images are intended to sell their product.......but if the images used were not actually produced using "it" is that a form of misrepresentation???
 
Lindsay D said:
Steven, I used Ynot's tag precisely because a few posts further up he had specifically asked (I believe in response to Pookeyhead) what he should have said/done/charged in his dialogue with the client. There's no simple answer to that, because there is usually some back and forth and often a bit of negotiation and chitchat.

I would say that in this instance Ynot did indeed want to be paid, he sought advice here, but inexperience and possibly a lack of confidence influenced his choices (and he deserves some credit for getting something in return even if he does acknowledge it wasn't enough). I think he's learned from this and it's also a valuable thread for anyone else in a similar position.

When a business desires a commodity that you happen to possess then there is no distinction between amateur and professional. That business knows nothing about the person they are asking, or their background or experience - all they see is a photograph which they desire (in this case better than many of the images offered for sale at some of the agencies). So one's status as full-time pro or talented hobbyist is at this point irrelevant - I've been in business for a while but I get exactly the same enquiries as do many others here. Anyone can set their own rates and just because you're an amateur doesn't mean that 'market value' shouldn't apply. I've known plenty of 'amateurs' who are very good business people.

In my imaginary dialogue the non-figures stated are arbitrary (they can't be anything else, because we have nothing real to go on). I will also say that you're wrong to assume the chances of getting fair payment are zero. It will be in some cases, in which case you can move on. But in other cases obtaining payment will be no problem at all - those are the people you do business with. I have sometimes pushed my luck and quoted figure substantially above what I think are given business would be expecting - and they've come back without a blink and paid it. If your attitude is so defeatist then any hope of 'I'd like to one day make money from my pictures' (which is exactly what the OP has said) is cloud cuckoo talk.

Your position may be "c'est la vie" but I prefer "ask and you might get". And if they don't want to do business then why would you lose any sleep over it. The quest for flattery and empty ego boosts aren't the most noble of traits, because they rarely result in anything positive or worthwhile.
Click to expand...


I wasn't trying to imply an amateur would have no head for business I'm sure there are plenty of self employed people in other walks of life who take photos for a hobby and would be more than able to assess the worth of their work. People are free to value their time as they see fit .

My reply was simply that whilst ask and you might get might work, I expect more often quoting full stock rates will get you ignored. I further expect asking for any cash at all will get you ignored half the time being at least sensible might get you something and turning away a decent offer just because its lower than one might hypothetically get from a stock ageancy will leave you with an empty sack.
 
Last edited:
Stock agencies wouldn't exist if businesses didn't pay stock rates Steven. Nothing at all wrong with quoting them, they can be a good start to negotiations. If it gets you ignored then that suggests to me the client is one who isn't interested in paying any kind of fair rate, which would make them a nonstarter in my book. There's a big difference between getting 'fair payment' and 'something'.
 
Lindsay D said:
Stock agencies wouldn't exist if businesses didn't pay stock rates Steven. Nothing at all wrong with quoting them, they can be a good start to negotiations. If it gets you ignored then that suggests to me the client is one who isn't interested in paying any kind of fair rate, which would make them a nonstarter in my book. There's a big difference between getting 'fair payment' and 'something'.
Click to expand...

I'm sure companies will pay stock rates to stock companies, companies trawling flickr don't want pay stick rates (largely) or they'd save (expensive) employee salary and just get a shot from the stock agency and save time (and money).
 
Maybe the point is being missed here though Steven, we as photographers set the bar amateur or pro as to what we are willing to do and what we will give away. As time has gone on more and more amateurs and possibly even semi pros have been wooed into giving up financially viable images for a credit or some meaningless ego boosting byline. It therefore stands to reason that in every marketing 101 class in the world they are now teaching how to get your images for free from inexperienced photographers. I for one have no interest in seeing photography being belittled in this way and whether a hobbyist or a pro companies have a moral responsibility to stop ripping people off , photographers also have the responsibility to stop giving stuff away. It then follows that all of us would be paid a fair price for the images use.

Even hobbyist have costs and expenses travel kit etc in fact in some cases amateurs spend more. Why then give your image free to a company so they can make money from it with no form of payment ?
 
If you are going to let someone use an image for free ( and many here will say you shouldn't) then ask them to not only credit you but also put in a link to your web site - at least you can think of it as free advertising.
James
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
Maybe the point is being missed here though Steven, we as photographers set the bar amateur or pro as to what we are willing to do and what we will give away. As time has gone on more and more amateurs and possibly even semi pros have been wooed into giving up financially viable images for a credit or some meaningless ego boosting byline. It therefore stands to reason that in every marketing 101 class in the world they are now teaching how to get your images for free from inexperienced photographers. I for one have no interest in seeing photography being belittled in this way and whether a hobbyist or a pro companies have a moral responsibility to stop ripping people off , photographers also have the responsibility to stop giving stuff away. It then follows that all of us would be paid a fair price for the images use.

Even hobbyist have costs and expenses travel kit etc in fact in some cases amateurs spend more. Why then give your image free to a company so they can make money from it with no form of payment ?
Click to expand...


As I said before pride credit and an empty sack is worth the sack. I didn't miss the point, but it's up to the individual to set their own rates and they have to be realistic in the current market, the reality is large parts of the market doesn't value photographs so if you can put the genie back in the bottle let the music and film industry know, they'd love to hear from you.

Moral responsibility to any one but their employees and shareholders, yeah... Companies do every thing they can to make them selves more profitable that is their only responsibility. They could argue that savings in their marketing department mean the product they sell can be made cheaper to the public, or in the case of the local rag they can continue existing.[/S]
 
jbw said:
If you are going to let someone use an image for free ( and many here will say you shouldn't) then ask them to not only credit you but also put in a link to your web site - at least you can think of it as free advertising.
James
Click to expand...

James, a credit is actually your right - not something the user of your image offers you by means of payment. A credit is also generally worthless, as is a link to your site unless the image you've given away has been done so strategically - given to a place which is likely to attract a very high number of people representing your key client group (versus the potential commercial gain for which ever 'client' is getting your work for nothing - in that respect, I would limit that kind of arrangement to what I would describe as a 'worthy cause close to my heart'). That is not going to be other photographers, nor most members of the general public. I've had articles and features published in many of the leading photography magazines over the years, and I'm a brand ambassador for a major camera brand - never once has it brought me paying clients, just lots of questions about how I take my pictures and people asking about my kit. This is why payment is so important.
 
steveo_mcg said:
As I said before pride credit and an empty sack is worth the sack. I didn't miss the point, but it's up to the individual to set their own rates and they have to be realistic in the current market, the reality is large parts of the market doesn't value photographs so if you can put the genie back in the bottle let the music and film industry know, they'd love to hear from you.

Moral responsibility to any one but their employees and shareholders, yeah... Companies do every thing they can to make them selves more profitable that is their only responsibility. They could argue that savings in their marketing department mean the product they sell can be made cheaper to the public, or in the case of the local rag they can continue existing.[/S]
Click to expand...

Yes, you do have to be realistic when negotiating your pricing - no one is disputing that. But that doesn't mean that you hand over your work for free to any cheeky tw*t who asks for it, To justify that course of action with a credit is frankly delusional. Just because a business wants to improve its bottom line and has cut back on photography doesn't automatically dictate that the photographers they approach should meekly hand over their product. There is no argument whatsoever to support that.

Of course a business will do what it can to protect its profits - if they want to try and get photos (or anything else) for free they have every right to try. But if we can be mildly rational for a moment: why would I help a business other than my own achieve that (unless it were my favourite cause)? I really don't give a sh*t about their shareholders and I'm not on this earth to subsidise them. If I have something that somebody wants, but if they aren't prepared to pay for it, then the most obvious action is to refuse. If these businesses don't want to pay for photographs then my suggestion is that they learn to take those images themselves - that is the most fair and moral solution I can think of. The problem is, that might involve years of learning and dedication, investment in equipment and IT solutions .....and ultimately results which may not be high enough quality to promote their goods or services.

Pretty much every handbag I have has the designer's emblem displayed somewhere fairly obviously. Does that mean that I have the right to walk past the tills when I exit the shop? Could I simply argue that by walking around and displaying the handbag I will bring them sufficient business to mitigate their loss? And when I tell the people who admire it that I got it for nothing, chances are they'll try that tack as well. If I'm the editor of Vogue magazine then that would be grand, but if I tell the bag designer that I'm a business owner and I don't expect to pay for my bags for the sake of my shareholders (that might be a family, mortgage lender and so forth) would they then accept that they were being 'unrealistic' expecting me to pay?
 
Here's one that happened earlier….2012 actually.

Company sees image, asks photographer for a price, he asks the internet. Bloke who 'knows' stuff advises him. Photographer pockets $18,000!! That's $18,000 for one image, used in several different ways, to advertise a product. So basically, the same scenario, with some differences which determined the value of the usage.

More detail in the article.

If you have ever thought, 'it's not worth asking for a fee…' have a read of this….

http://petapixel.com/2012/08/21/this-photograph-earned-one-wedding-photographer-a-18000-payday/
 
ynot said:
It wasn't given away, i have something for it.
Click to expand...

What did you get? You said it was far less than you thought the image was worth. Just curious.. was the stuff they sent useful?

ynot said:
Please feel free to educate me, what should i have got for that image?
Click to expand...

What you thought it was worth... that's what you should have got.
 
Pookeyhead said:
What did you get? You said it was far less than you thought the image was worth. Just curious.. was the stuff they sent useful?



What you thought it was worth... that's what you should have got.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The bloke in the article I posted thought his image might be worth $1,000, he got $18k.
 
It maybe a sign of the times in which we are now in but for the first time ever i had a customer haggle with me by email the other day over the price of a print , the print was only £15 and they said i would have a 'deal' if i did it for a tenner. I ignored the email completely and threw it in the spam where it belonged , the customer rang up a couple of days later and tried to haggle by phone got told politely i did not do any discounts and he then paid the £15 and got his print.

I sort of understand the wedding clients when they have a budget of 20k going around trying to get deals but sometimes people just take the p.

Lindsay D said:
Pretty much every handbag I have has the designer's emblem displayed somewhere fairly obviously. Does that mean that I have the right to walk past the tills when I exit the shop? Could I simply argue that by walking around and displaying the handbag I will bring them sufficient business to mitigate their loss? And when I tell the people who admire it that I got it for nothing, chances are they'll try that tack as well. If I'm the editor of Vogue magazine then that would be grand, but if I tell the bag designer that I'm a business owner and I don't expect to pay for my bags for the sake of my shareholders (that might be a family, mortgage lender and so forth) would they then accept that they were being 'unrealistic' expecting me to pay?
Click to expand...

Love that , might have to try this out on the next company that asks for it for free !
 
Lindsay D said:
Yes, you do have to be realistic when negotiating your pricing - no one is disputing that. But that doesn't mean that you hand over your work for free to any cheeky tw*t who asks for it, To justify that course of action with a credit is frankly delusional. Just because a business wants to improve its bottom line and has cut back on photography doesn't automatically dictate that the photographers they approach should meekly hand over their product. There is no argument whatsoever to support that.

Of course a business will do what it can to protect its profits - if they want to try and get photos (or anything else) for free they have every right to try. But if we can be mildly rational for a moment: why would I help a business other than my own achieve that (unless it were my favourite cause)? I really don't give a sh*t about their shareholders and I'm not on this earth to subsidise them. If I have something that somebody wants, but if they aren't prepared to pay for it, then the most obvious action is to refuse. If these businesses don't want to pay for photographs then my suggestion is that they learn to take those images themselves - that is the most fair and moral solution I can think of. The problem is, that might involve years of learning and dedication, investment in equipment and IT solutions .....and ultimately results which may not be high enough quality to promote their goods or services.

Pretty much every handbag I have has the designer's emblem displayed somewhere fairly obviously. Does that mean that I have the right to walk past the tills when I exit the shop? Could I simply argue that by walking around and displaying the handbag I will bring them sufficient business to mitigate their loss? And when I tell the people who admire it that I got it for nothing, chances are they'll try that tack as well. If I'm the editor of Vogue magazine then that would be grand, but if I tell the bag designer that I'm a business owner and I don't expect to pay for my bags for the sake of my shareholders (that might be a family, mortgage lender and so forth) would they then accept that they were being 'unrealistic' expecting me to pay?
Click to expand...

le sigh...

Where did I say that a photographer should just hand over their image? The only point I have made on this is that sending off a demand for full GETTY rates to a cold caller is likely to get one ignored, not a great place for opening a negotiation.

The rest of your lengthy post I presume is a reaction to my comment to Andrew's nonsense about "Moral Responsibility" to photographers, which still applies, a company can and MUST do all it can to protect its bottom line. When you go to buy that handbag do you accept the first price that is put in front if you or do you check that your getting good value. If the first price was over £10k would you even consider it, would you shop around, negotiate, or would you just accept that maybe that's not the handbag for you (maybe it is, I don't know you).
 
Steven - Regarding your 'sigh' nowhere did I suggest that the full Getty price should be a demand - I have clearly stated that it can be a useful starting point to negotiations. I also know from my own experience that a lot of photographs, if they are unique or particularly desirable to a customer, can command a price much higher than the stock agency guide.

If you find my posts lengthy then you don't have to read them - I include stuff which might be useful to a variety of people happening upon this thread which is why my answers are generalised and not just aimed at you.

Comparing photography pricing with normal shopping practices isn't making any sense - like anyone else if I see something I want to buy I will check to see if there is price variation and if I can get a better deal somewhere. Whatever price the store has set will nevertheless meet their required profit margin, and they won't be selling that bag of carrots/pair of shoes/car for anything less - even if it's on sale, or if they allow for a bit of haggling. I don't think that the clothes we wear (particularly if they are unique and not that easy to source) or the cars we drive might be available within a price range of 0% to 100% depending on which shop we go to. Look, we know there are a lot of businesses who try it on, but there are also many who don't - and they are the businesses I work with. It really is that simple. If you or anyone else wants to take the 'empty sack' approach then of course you're free to do that - but the arguments in your favour don't stack up.

The notion that photographers will do anything they're asked to do doesn't just end with image usage - these days we're seen as really generous folk who will help anybody out because photography is our 'awesome passion' and we 'just love what we do'. This is why some of us, professional or amateur, get asked to shoot for free, to speak for free, to teach local competitors the ropes for free .... when there is absolutely nothing in it for us.

I think there's a lot of good stuff in this thread for any newcomer to pick through, but we're labouring over the same ground now so I'll wish the OP well. I hope he's gained some insight from his recent experience and some of the perspectives here.
 
Lindsay D said:
If you find my posts lengthy then you don't have to read them
Click to expand...

No you're are probably correct, these threads end up going round in circles and all involved just get aggravated. I'll leave it at that.
 
DT01 said:
Not necessarily. The bloke in the article I posted thought his image might be worth $1,000, he got $18k.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have stipulated that as a MINIMUM... you get what you think it's worth. You obviously can't assume everything you produce is worth a five figure sum, no matter who you are :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
Perhaps I should have stipulated that as a MINIMUM... you get what you think it's worth. You obviously can't assume everything you produce is worth a five figure sum, no matter who you are :)
Click to expand...

My point was that what you think it is worth and what you get are often very different.
 
Still appreciate most of the replies on here, some interesting views and certainly something to refer back to when (hopefully) I'm asked again.

I forwarded this thread onto them and the reply........

Thanks for sending over that thread, there are some interesting opinions on there. The honest truth is that we really don't have a budget for licensing images at the moment, we are a very small company, and hope to have one in the future. We are a community driven company, and through licensing user images we have helped to bring exposure to photographers and their work.

We do try and come to arrangements with photographers by sending out additional products, and if we do have a budget in the future we can make arrangements in exchange for a fee. In the meantime we do heavily rely on our community, and we try to give back as much as we can. Our intention is only ever to spread the word about what can be captured with Triggertrap, and never to take advantage of photographers.
 
ynot said:
Still appreciate most of the replies on here, some interesting views and certainly something to refer back to when (hopefully) I'm asked again.

I forwarded this thread onto them and the reply........

Thanks for sending over that thread, there are some interesting opinions on there. The honest truth is that we really don't have a budget for licensing images at the moment, we are a very small company, and hope to have one in the future. We are a community driven company, and through licensing user images we have helped to bring exposure to photographers and their work..
Click to expand...

Buuuuls*** - they have only exposed the photographer as someone willing to give their images away... I don't know anyone who has ever got paid work as a result of this sort of exposure
 
ynot said:
Thanks for sending over that thread, there are some interesting opinions on there. The honest truth is that we really don't have a budget for licensing images at the moment, we are a very small company, and hope to have one in the future. We are a community driven company, and through licensing user images we have helped to bring exposure to photographers and their work.
Click to expand...
My response to them would be that I am a small time freelancer earning average to reasonable money, and that I don't have a budget to be giving away images for free.

Works both ways.
 
DT01 said:
And here is their approach. This is hilarious….

'This is brilliant, Tony! That water is so smooth, it's insane! We'd love to talk about borrowing this photo, can you please drop us an email to hello@triggertrap.com (with a link to this shot) so we can talk about it some more? :)'

First of all, let's tell you how absolutely awesome you/your shot is.. (I agree with them FWIW :) )

'This is brilliant, Tony! That water is so smooth, it's insane!'

Now we've got you feeling all warm and fuzzy, we'll cloak our 'we know all amateur photographers are so naive they haven't got the first clue about the value of an image that we never have to pay for one' b****x with some more misdirection.

'We'd love to talk about borrowing this photo'

What????!!!!! You mean 'borrow' so you can just keep it on your hard drive and look at it from time to time then give it back in 6 months, that kind of 'borrow'? Or is it the, print off a 10x8 so you can have it on your desk in a tidy little frame for a year kind of 'borrow'?

I'm sure they would respond well to being inundated with requests to 'borrow' some of their gear with promises of exposure on Flickr! Wouldn't it be great to apply the same standards as they do? 'No, no, no, don't pay for it, just tell them you want to borrow it…' Tw@ts!

It's great that you got something out of this. I'm all for a bit of barter or trade and I'm glad it worked out for you but it's still loathsome in the extreme that companies, particularly those whose market is photographers, are such hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Talking of scammers and con merchants....take a look here at some of the backers comments that have not been deleted by Triggertrap.......

https://www.kickstarter.com/project...-redsnap-modular-camera-trigger/posts/1144189

AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE.
 
They are not "community-based". It's not a youth centre - they are a for-profit company, just not a very successful one judging by the Kickstarter debacle.
It is not a good thing for a company to admit they have no money to pay for stuff. That kind of talk spooks suppliers.

I would take the Alec Guinness approach - if they 'can't afford' to pay you now, you'll take 5% of revenue for a fixed period instead. ;)
 
It was your image to do as you please with so don't let people try and guilt trip you that you are killing commercial photography or all that rubbish. These sort of threads always come up and have done for years and commercial photography is still going. It's just a shame the company was just a small start-up and not a big fish that was willing to pay good money. I'd look at it like you did your bit for the little guy and helped them out and maybe you get some more bites or maybe you don't. You've got very nice photos and good processing skill and your work is in demand so you're on the right track already. Good luck.
 
Laudrup said:
I'd look at it like you did your bit for the little guy and helped them out and maybe you get some more bites or maybe you don't. You've got very nice photos and good processing skill and your work is in demand so you're on the right track already. .
Click to expand...

Great advice. Why don't we all 'do our bit for the little guy' - did you bother reading the link? In this case the guy in question is a criminal - accepting donations from members of the public because everyone is so happy to help him out. Meanwhile that money disappears (allegedly sunk into product development costs) and although this 'little guy' has an obligation to repay that money, he apparently can't (won't). He also has prior form. And here you are, advising forum members to help any charlatan who sticks his dirty little hand out - because that might bring us the satisfaction of some hits from someone else who wants a freebie.

There is absolutely nothing clever or noble in allowing a complete stranger to take advantage of you - and there are a lot of photographers out there who will conveniently cover their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears when that little assertion is raised. I will help any little guy who I love, care for, or who has helped me, or who operates a cause dear to my heart. But chancers (and there are a lot of them out there) looking for a one-way ride can go f*ck themselves.
 
Lindsay D said:
Great advice. Why don't we all 'do our bit for the little guy' - did you bother reading the link? In this case the guy in question is a criminal - accepting donations from members of the public because everyone is so happy to help him out. Meanwhile that money disappears (allegedly sunk into product development costs) and although this 'little guy' has an obligation to repay that money, he apparently can't (won't). He also has prior form. And here you are, advising forum members to help any charlatan who sticks his dirty little hand out - because that might bring us the satisfaction of some hits from someone else who wants a freebie.

There is absolutely nothing clever or noble in allowing a complete stranger to take advantage of you - and there are a lot of photographers out there who will conveniently cover their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears when that little assertion is raised. I will help any little guy who I love, care for, or who has helped me, or who operates a cause dear to my heart. But chancers (and there are a lot of them out there) looking for a one-way ride can go f*ck themselves.
Click to expand...

Funny how you can pick and choose who to help based on a whim or charge higher prices and 'push your luck' but if someone else tries it they can go f*** themselves. A bit hypocritical, no? In this situation there doesn't look to be an unlimited well for the hard-nosed to drain dry so the OP gets maybe some goods from a small startup and a little piece of credit that may lead to other things or it may not. Using your gimme gimme gimme approach it would have definitely led to nothing.

As for pros moaning about people giving it away for free, if a kid with an iPhone can deprive you of putting food on your table then get another job. The democratisation of the camera has already happened and the genie won't be going back into the bottle.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top