[sqrrl]

I don't use watermarks at all, instead I tend to be very careful where I put my photos out. That and I tend to embed my name in the copyright info.

I have had photos and even whole albums stolen before (had some numpty claim one of my albums as their student work - tutors used google image search to find me, embarrassing for everyone bar me), As far as i know this hasn't worked out for the parties involved. Another fun moment involved a prick I knew (when I was travelling, shared a room with this prick in a backpackers) actually pinching my camera when I was out and copying my card, then using my images to build websites for businesses - suffice it to say he didn't get paid a cent for his labor - I made sure of that (slightly vindictive, but he really pissed me off).

I suspect it is only newspapers and students who haven't realised that working out who took a photo is as simple as a right click.

[Kiwizinho]

Nice pics!

I get it with the watermarks, and yours aren't terrible compared to some I've seen (some on JetPhotos are frankly ridiculous) As you say, it's a sliding scale. Harder to get rid of, but if someone wants to, they will. It's one thing to "unknowingly" take a photo and use it, but for that paper to actually crop it shows intent and they bloody well should cop to it.

I'm having thoughts about adapting my watermarking sometime, probably when I switch software (hopefully soon, as I'm waiting on a beta of a new product!) but at the moment my theory is "make it easy for honest people to credit me, while not ruining the image." I've gone from no watermarking to giant (but very transparent), to subtle, to subtler over the years and the only feedback I've had was when it was quite obvious and people didn't like it. From memory, it was this style that got the comments. It's a bit more obvious when it's mostly sky.

Another kangaroo!
Your watermark looks reasonable. It's not unlike a bit of reflection taking an image through glass at an airport anyway. For someone interested in aviation, the plane is clear enough, but the image isn't suitable for someone to go off and put it into a publication. I must take the big tammy out and have a go at some aircraft. I heard something big flying around here in the last couple of days. I thought it sounded a bit like a C-17, but didn't manage to spot it, and I'm not sure if there have been any exercises going on in Marlborough currently.

I'd rather not use watermarks, but it really annoys me that people think because they wander around with phones in their pockets that can take photos, that photos are essentially worthless. As has already been discussed recently right here, when you start to think how to actually capture a particular image, you start to realise you need to invest potentially both time and money to get the shot.

That was precisely the story behind my Aussie photos. I had to spend a bit to get a lens I'm happy with, and was fully prepared to pay a lot more, as most people don't seem to part with the lens in question unless they change systems, but I got lucky and someone was changing systems while I was in Australia.
I still have a bit more of a shopping list before I can do all the kinds of photography I enjoy. I'll do that whether I make money out of it or not, but if other people want to make money out of my photos, I certainly expect to get something too.
If someone comes to me from a non-profit and asks to use an image of mine, I'll probably let them, although I do check, as 'non-profit' does not necessarily mean 'no money', and some have quite healthy budgets to cover all kinds of stuff, so if they're effectively asking me to volunteer my skills, I'll want to see how much of their other stuff they do with volunteers, or whether they have mostly paid staff.

[zkarj]

I was once approached by an agency acting on behalf of Air New Zealand, asking to use one of my photos for very specific things and asking how much I wanted. I spoke to my brother who is a graphic designer by trade and he chose what he thought was a fair price that he'd pay. When I went back with it, I never heard from them again.

It's one thing not wanting to pay the price (and as far as I know they didn't use the image) but I get so peeved when people simply do not respond. It's frankly rude. So it's not just hacks and students a photographer can get mad at.

[MarkJerling]

I was once approached by an agency acting on behalf of Air New Zealand, asking to use one of my photos for very specific things and asking how much I wanted. I spoke to my brother who is a graphic designer by trade and he chose what he thought was a fair price that he'd pay. When I went back with it, I never heard from them again.

It's one thing not wanting to pay the price (and as far as I know they didn't use the image) but I get so peeved when people simply do not respond. It's frankly rude. So it's not just hacks and students a photographer can get mad at.

How much did you ask? Somewhere between $250 and $600 is about the norm for a stock image. With some people, you simply don't hear back when you give a quote. Rude, but that's the way it is.

[zkarj]

How much did you ask? Somewhere between $250 and $600 is about the norm for a stock image. With some people, you simply don't hear back when you give a quote. Rude, but that's the way it is.

It was more than that. I'm no expert on the sale of photographs, but I wouldn't class this as stock photography. I looked for a definition and it can probably be used for just about anything that is not commissioned, but this passage caught my eye on Wikipedia.

Opined Megan Garber of The Atlantic in 2012, "one of the more wacky/wondrous elements of stock photos is the manner in which, as a genre, they've developed a unifying editorial sensibility. To see a stock image is, Potter Stewart-style, to know you're seeing a stock image. And while stock images' stockiness may be in part due to the common visual tropes that give them their easy, cheesy impact - prettiness, preciousness, pose-iness - there's part of it that's more ephemeral, too. Though they have little in common, shots of a German Shepherd typing on a laptop and a man contemplating the sunset can both be, in their special way, stocky."

The photo in question does not fit that genre, in my mind.

---------- Post added 08-15-2018 at 08:32 PM ----------

Also, my brother factored in the declared use of the image. E.g. using it on 5000 business cards would fetch a different price than on 10 billboards.

[sqrrl]

I tend to throw out a figure of $4-500 if it's just usage, seems to be about what people expect.

[MarkJerling]

It was more than that. I'm no expert on the sale of photographs, but I wouldn't class this as stock photography. I looked for a definition and it can probably be used for just about anything that is not commissioned, but this passage caught my eye on Wikipedia.



The photo in question does not fit that genre, in my mind.

---------- Post added 08-15-2018 at 08:32 PM ----------

Also, my brother factored in the declared use of the image. E.g. using it on 5000 business cards would fetch a different price than on 10 billboards.

I can't comment on the definition. Simply I'm referring to platforms such as getty images and what photos there seem to go for. I've had a few sales of some of my images and the figures I gave seemed to not have the buyer suck the air out of the room.

But, you raise an interesting point with regard to 5000 business cards or 10 billboards: Which one is worth more? 5000 business cards may be seen by a few thousand people. A billboard in a prominent location may be seen by 150,000 per day.

[zkarj]

I guess it's about market willingness. What's a photo actually worth? In materials, very little. In training and equipment, hard to quantify.

[Kiwizinho]

I guess it's about market willingness. What's a photo actually worth? In materials, very little. In training and equipment, hard to quantify.

Don't forget time, fuel etc. It might take a fraction of a second to capture an image, but you might have to drive for an hour or more and wait around for the perfect moment. If you allow at least minimum wage, covering not just time on a photographic project, but learning, mileage rates and depreciation and roughly how many images you take per year, it should be possible to quantify the actual minimum cost to make a photo, but the issue then is that it's possible to sell it multiple times, so how much should an individual use cost?

Popular entertainment such as cinema, Netflix, music etc works on the premise that what you pay as an individual to access creative content is far less than what it costs to produce, however due to economies of scale, content producers are able to make a profit.

I know with music and movies, if you want to use them in a commercial venue, there are different licensing rules that cost more than someone using for private domestic use.

I'm not quite sure how to apply these models to photography, but they do give a bit of an insight into the complexity of selling creative content.

[sqrrl]

The problem there is that in most industries people don't get paid to train, instead they pay for it.

If you look up info on freelancing there's some pretty good breakdowns, regarding overheads, hours, and so forth - but those assume a person is working full time.

When i sold a lot in galleries i used to work it at about $5k for an image series, which worked out to $500-800 typically for prints up to 11x14, more for larger prints obviously.

For me, where a business has wanted an image I'd already taken, they've mainly been people who wanted an image for their website or signage, that was usually $500 for a digital file (no way I'd be printing for that), If I was talking to a big company, or, I must admit, a company I didn't really like, I'd charge more.

That's not the same thing as people who have engaged me to do product photography, advertising or the like - I charge by the hour with a minimum number of hours for that. Usually $100-150/ph with a minimum of 4hr.

That's just me, I don't do it for a living, most people who do probably charge more.

[Kiwizinho]

The problem there is that in most industries people don't get paid to train, instead they pay for it.

That's true, but typically it would be incorporated into the salaries/wages they're paid on completion of their training. It may not be a direct correlation, but I think generally there's a kind of expectation that more training time/expense means higher pay in compensation although there are exceptions.

[Kiwi645hauler]

Loving this discussion about commercial image use etc. I know if i get approached to photograph a ball or event of some kind, depending on who it is for, i operate around the $5-$10 per head as a charge out. So if there is 300 guests at the ball, i generally charge $7 per person, so $7x300 = $2100, this is very much a part time endeavor for me, and i will do maybe one or 2 a year if i feel like it.
On another note, Kodak have released new Ektacrhome to their field beta testers.... EXCITING Times

[sqrrl]

That's true, but typically it would be incorporated into the salaries/wages they're paid on completion of their training. It may not be a direct correlation, but I think generally there's a kind of expectation that more training time/expense means higher pay in compensation although there are exceptions.

Sadly, this doesn't work for most of the arts.

[Kiwizinho]

Sadly, this doesn't work for most of the arts.

Sadly true. It probably takes as long to train to be a top grade classical musician as it does to be a doctor, but there's a vast difference in pay, although admittedly people generally don't die as a result of musical misadventure.

[microlight]

people generally don't die as a result of musical misadventure.

Don't tell that to Jean Baptiste Lully!