|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
02-19-2014, 02:58 PM
|
| |
corporate America really believes in the theory, "he with the most attorneys on retainer shall always win"
we photographers are the little guys. why the hell would we NOT fight tooth and nail for every penny we can get out of our blood sweat and tears
every photo we make is a personal expression, a personal EXTENSION of ourselves.
I chaff at the audacity some have to say we (any photographer) aren't entitled to every dollar we can make from our labors because "name recognition should be enough" or "it's only a photo taken with a cell phone" or whatever other possible excuse is used to diminish the "value"
it's because of customer like color run, survival magazine, the cheapskate at the architectural firm and 100's of other collective examples those of us who have sold work in the marketplace can come with, that photographers HAVE to ask for larger fees. the market is saturated by hundreds of images available at 99 cents!!!! or better yet right-click saves as FREE for the unscrupulous. unless we are lucky enough to find a long term contract or get hired by a publication, we are fighting for our survival as multi million dollar corporations use OUR work to promote themselves on a global basis.
not every company is so disdainful, but enough are!
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
02-18-2014, 09:46 AM
|
| |
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.
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 ----------
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
|
