Originally posted by Dariusz Love it! Excellent excuse for lack of photographical talent (or opportunities)
I really hope that's a tongue in cheek attempt at humor, because it is quite snide otherwise. I completely agree with the sentiment that posting images in public forums is just asking for your image to be stolen. whether I have photographic talent or not you can debate all you want, but I also very rarely post images on public sites, including here on the forum for the exact reason oldnoob stated, I don't wish my images used without my permission. it is a very valid fear/concern and for you to dismiss this offhandedly as a lack of talent is in poor taste.
Originally posted by K David I concur with your point. TCR should have paid him (and probably did) some reasonable sum for using his image so much. Having had Pentax feature one of my photos on their Facebook stream, I'd be honored to see it used in marketing, but would hope they'd give me a call ahead of time and offer me some Pentax stickers or something.
My reaction to this is pretty visceral because I've tried to get paid photography gigs (architectural) and I have seen potential clients shy away from hiring a photographer because a previous one came after them for image use. Or, in one case, the tog licensed them the photos for a limited number of uses for one year and expected to have rolling income from the company every time his photo was used after that. I'm friends with the marketing manager at that firm and they won't hire me a photographer because of their past experience with one guy. That company is what I think about when I see a construction firm market itself with an un-level PnS photo that has a building that looks like its falling over. Photographers who conduct themselves poorly leave a bad taste is clients' mouths for every other photographer they could possibly ever work with.
while I can empathize with your frustrations, I see no reason a photographer can't ask what he feels is fair market value for his work. in the case of the color run photo, yes 300,000 and perpetual name usage is extreme, BUT his photo WAS used in a GLOBAL advertising campaign. he should get credit and compensated for that broad scope of use AND this TCR company should have paid a "fine" for unauthorized use. in terms of your architectural firm, they are the one that signed the contract, why wouldn't the photographer offer a limited license? he has every right to. and if the firm wanted a perpetual license, then they probably would have had to pay more. it possible the firm said "we will only pay x amount for image" and the photographer said "fine you'll only get x amount of usage out of my image". I find that totally reasonable. for the firm to use it against you, just sounds like an excuse because they do not/did not perceive any value in "professional" quality images as part of a marketing campaign. that's there own lack of business sense.
our photos as pros/semi/pros/aspiring pros are the result of hours of planning and execution, why shouldn't we get paid accordingly? do we get commission on any of the business our work may draw for the company that licenses our photos? not really, and it would be nearly impossible to track, but there IS an expected rate of return on investment that ANY marketing department can give you, so if your photo is part of or IS the main component of an X dollar figure campaign, that company is expecting it to generate X dollar figure of revenue. therefore the larger the campaign budget, the more we as photographers should be entitled to.
for me personally, any photo that any company would use, I would expect adequate compensation for the time and expense I incurred to make it. a couple "pentax stickers" here and there is not sufficient for me. if that's all one needs, and they are just happy with the exposure, more power to them, but to overlay your value system of photographs on someone else's work is unfair.
maybe this color run photo was the result of many hours of scouting and perhaps a larger than average travel budget to be present at the event. maybe it was just pure luck. maybe it was something in the middle. but again, why shouldn't he get paid by a company, a multi million dollar company no less, why shouldn't he get paid for his work?
---------- Post added 02-18-2014 at 10:15 AM ----------
Originally posted by panoguy It's actually a pretty good situation for the photographer. My biggest photography client requests a pretty exclusive and perpetual license, but when I told them how much it would cost for them to assert copyright on the images (a full buyout contract, which I've made prohibitively expensive), they balked and took the licensing agreement. Another client, from the US, provided me with their "standard contract" which included ownership of full copyright, and I pointed out that I live in and have my business in Canada. This led to more negotiations with their legal team, and eventually a very lucrative contract to include the full buyout. I don't relinquish copyright easily!
im cross posting this comment from another thread here in the forums (I hope panoguy doesn't mind) to further illustrate my point, and to show im not alone in my opinion regarding limited and perpetual licenses. it is entirely acceptable and expected business practice to protect your copyright. I have dealt with this several times in both my photography and publishing realms. companies want to make money off you as cheaply as possible, it's up to you to get as much compensation as possible, because once you sign that contract, there's no going back. it's also why many artists will sign a licensing contract for a specific term, so that after 1,2 4 years the value of the contract can be renegotiated based on the success of the campaign
I have actually TURNED DOWN business because I felt a company was not going to compensate me fairly. I'd rather NOT sell my work than give it away below what I deem fair market value