# Digital file value?



## Majeed Badizadegan (Jan 31, 2013)

I have an internet buyer who contacted me interested in buying one of my landscape shots. He wants the digital file, not print. He wants at least 2048px, if not bigger.

I'm just curious what others charge for something like this? Ive been wrestling with the notion of giving away a file, especially a large one.  I've heard of some who would never give up a digital file, while others, like Trey Ratcliff, posts full size shots to his blog. 

I've seen local photographers charge huge amounts for a digital file. On 500px, a 2048px download is 4 or 5 bucks. 

I'd just like to hear some discussion on the topic to gauge this better.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 31, 2013)

What is he planning to _do_&#8203; with the digital file?


----------



## SCraig (Jan 31, 2013)

Personally I don't worry about it.  I give away files frequently after public events that I shoot.  I don't give up my RAW files, but I will provide a large JPG at no charge if someone asks for it.

Edit ... Tyler's post reminded me, that I do only provide them for personal, non-commercial use.


----------



## Mully (Jan 31, 2013)

You better spell out usage.... Once the image is gone no telling what they will do with it.  I would want a written email or letter if intent.


----------



## Light Guru (Jan 31, 2013)

SCraig said:


> Personally I don't worry about it.  I give away files frequently after public events that I shoot.  I don't give up my RAW files, but I will provide a large JPG at no charge if someone asks for it.



I would feel the same if the image was a portrait, but thats not the kind of image the original post is asking about. 



Rotanimod said:


> I have an internet buyer who contacted me interested in buying one of my landscape shots. He wants the digital file, not print. He wants at least 2048px, if not bigger.





Rotanimod said:


> I've seen local photographers charge huge amounts for a digital file. On 500px, a 2048px download is 4 or 5 bucks.



It is safe to say that the person wanting to buy the image wants to make several large prints of the image and is looking to do it cheeper when what it would cost if he bought prints from you. 

Here is what I would do charge the guy 10x or more what you would charge him for a 40" print.


----------



## skieur (Jan 31, 2013)

I might go cheap at $1,200.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Jan 31, 2013)

I asked to buy a digital file from a pro and she would not sell. Would sell only prints. 

I offered free prints or digital files to some prospects, they didn't want them for free.

Guess it just depends on how much they like the picture.


----------



## KmH (Jan 31, 2013)

There is no way to guage it better.

Charge what the traffic will bear. But if you treat/promote your images as a commodity, don't expect to be able to sell them for more than $4 or $5.

Buying a high quality landscape image is a luxury purchase. I recommend you charge accordingly.

So some where between $5 and $50,000.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 31, 2013)

^   helpful.  

I would possibly be willing to sell the file, but I would only do it with a specific license indicating what they could do with the file, and I would charge according to their intent.  If they intended to make a single print for themselves, I'd probably sell it at 1.5x-2x the price of the largest print I usually sell.

If they intended to do anything more, I'd veer more towards what I would sell an exclusive license for, which would range depending on the quality of the image and how attached I was to it. For example, many of my "art prints", I would basically be inclined to NEVER give a digital image out for... for those I'd charge HUGE money ($10K?  $50K?) if I even sold it.  For anything less emotionally charged, like a picture of a building or something that I took for a commercial project, I'd probably just do a standard exclusive license at like $2000-5000.

There are sort of a lot of "ifs" in there, but the key is your image is going to be in the hands of someone that will be able to reproduce the work.  You have to work with them to clearly determine and document what they are allowed to do, have them sign an agreement to that effect, and price the image accordingly.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 31, 2013)

btw, if it wasn't obvious... you're not selling bits, you're selling a piece of artwork or a commercial asset. At WORST you're selling stock photography, but even that will cost more than $4-5.


----------



## dmunsie (Feb 1, 2013)

Like others have said, if this is an exclusive sale where they are going to become the owner, I would charge big bucks. If it's just a non exclusive where they want to do a few prints, etc, then get it in writing and price it accordingly. I'm not even selling photos yet, but I guarantee I'm not selling anything cheap. Once you go down the cheap route, I'm guessing it's almost impossible to reverse strategy.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 1, 2013)

Is this a business for you? If it's not a business, then you may be more comfortable simply giving it away. If you charge something, you may later feel that you left money on the table and you should have charged enough to buy the new whatever-it-is gizmo. If this isn't a business, you probably have no meaningful way to calculate a value for your cost to produce the image, so that angle's right out. At that point it's really trying to sort out what a) other people charge for similar work (which we've established is between $0 and $1,000,000) or b) what the market will bear (which you have to negotiate to find out).

There's a certain amount of 'well, I charge $X and if you do not, then you're undercutting me and you are an evil person' which simply ducks around the reality that large swathes of photographic product are free or incredibly cheap these days.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 1, 2013)

amolitor said:
			
		

> Is this a business for you? If it's not a business, then you may be more comfortable simply giving it away.



Wow.

Someone wants to buy a digital file from you, and you'd just give it away? 

I would suggest no one do this ever. Even an amateur landscape photographer. If someone asks to buy your work, it is a commodity, and should be valued as such. Giving away a file and potentially unlimited usage rights is by far the dumbest thing you could do. Might as well bend over and grab your ankles.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 1, 2013)

Why wouldn't I give it away? If it's not a business for me how, exactly, am I going to suffer a loss here by giving it away?


----------



## Buckster (Feb 1, 2013)

Depends entirely on their intended use for the digital file. 

Find out _exactly_ what what that intent is, write it _definitively_ into a contract, include both relevant copyright usage clearly spelled out and price, then charge accordingly when they've signed the agreement.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 1, 2013)

amolitor said:
			
		

> Why wouldn't I give it away? If it's not a business for me how, exactly, am I going to suffer a loss here by giving it away?



I guess some people value their intellectual property more than others.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 1, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> I guess some people value their intellectual property more than others.



While certainly true, that's not what's in play here. The OP wanted to see a discussion, so let's game out a possibility here.

Suppose the purchaser wants to spend $100 for one of my photos. I have no idea what the actual dollar amount is in the guy's mind, so let's just pick a number, a small one, and see what happens.

Possibility 1: I hold out for $1000. No sale. I've spent time and effort and emotion and gotten nothing, the purchaser has nothing. Since it's not a business for me, I _do not_ get the business benefit of protecting my price here, instead, I get nothing of value whatsoever. It's just time out of my life that's gone.

Possibility 2: I sell for $100. Now I have to bill the guy, I probably want to write a little contract, I worry about declaring this income on my taxes. Probably I am a little upset because $100 doesn't come close to cover my costs in any meaningful way. Benefits to me: $100 cash money, which affects my life not in the slightest, and the satisfaction of knowing someone likes my photograph and is enjoying it or using it in some fashion right now.

Possibility 3: I give it to the guy. All the fussing around with pseudo-business stuff goes away. Benefit to me: The satisfaction of knowing someone likes my photograph and is enjoying it or using it in some fashion right now.

Being unwilling to set a price on my intellectual property is not the same thing as valuing it cheaply.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 1, 2013)

Cool. Glad you see things that way. Let me know how giving away digital files works towards advancing your photography.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 1, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> Cool. Glad you see things that way. Let me know how giving away digital files works towards advancing your photography.



Plannin' to add anything of substance here, or is it gonna be pretty much just snippily disagreeing with me? Again. Always.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 1, 2013)

amolitor said:
			
		

> Plannin' to add anything of substance here, or is it gonna be pretty much just snippily disagreeing with me? Again. Always.



I'm not disagreeing with you for the sake of disagreeing. I am legitimately interested in future experiences you might have with furnishing a digital copy of a photograph free of charge. Is that so odd?


----------



## amolitor (Feb 1, 2013)

I suspect that you are being disingenuous, but I will certainly try to let you know how it goes if I give away a digital file some day. Mostly, I give away prints because that's what people actually want.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 1, 2013)

amolitor said:
			
		

> I suspect that you are being disingenuous, but I will certainly try to let you know how it goes if I give away a digital file some day. Mostly, I give away prints because that's what people actually want.



I'm 100% serious. Your suspicions are incorrect sir.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 1, 2013)

Ok, then. I will take what you say at face value. Now I kind of want to give something away just to see what you do when I tell you about it.

Probably enough of a derail for now, though. Feel free to PM me if.. um, there's some sort of clarification or.. something you want?


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 1, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> Cool. Glad you see things that way. Let me know how giving away digital files works towards advancing your photography.



wait...so....huh?
thus far, giving away camera equipment has not seemed to impede my photography in any way. 
in fact, I find it to be the opposite. Donating equipment (we hope) is helping OTHER people advance their photography. 
that might not be quite the same as donating files or prints...but if giving someone a photograph you took inspires THEM to turn around and do something good, or to improve their own photography to emulate that picture, then that might be a reward in itself. 
sometimes doing something good for someone doesn't have to involve benefiting from in any way other than a feeling of well being from doing a good deed.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 1, 2013)

amolitor said:
			
		

> Why wouldn't I give it away? If it's not a business for me how, exactly, am I going to suffer a loss here by giving it away?



It's more than a questioning business.  It's a question of control of something you created.  I suppose you could do a $0 contract, though personally that seems crazy to me.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 1, 2013)

manaheim said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is interesting, and I'll try to re-rail this thing a bit in my response. This is just me, your attitude differs and the OP's attitude may also differ. I'm just pointing out that there are people in the world who view these things differently.

There's no way I would do a $0 contract. If you're going to make me mess with paper, you're paying me. Implicit in your, and possibly tyler's, responses is that you take for granted the desire to control the destiny of your work. I don't. If I gave someone a digital file, it would be without restrictions. Do what you will. Why would I do this? Because restricting things requires effort on my part which I seek to avoid, and which brings me no benefit that I can understand.

- If your emotional attachment to your work is such that you don't want people to do just anything with it, well, that's fine. I have no problem with that, I understand it. I don't have such an attachment.

- If your controlling and selling your intellectual property is a business, then that too is fine. You need to control it to make money. Great! That's also not me.

I am an amateur. I occasionally make something I like. By giving you a copy of what I have made, I do not in any way I can see enable you to harm me. If you go and make a great deal of money with my image, well, good for you. If you tonemap my image into a horror-show and cover america with billboards, well, we probably won't be friends any more but it hasn't actually hurt me. I make intellectual property for a living, and have for 20-odd years now. It has paid me well. I have spent far more time than I should have thinking about IP and "what it all means" and part of the result is that I simply don't worry about digital copies of my photography. Have at it, go nuts. It hurts me not at all, and it may give you some joy. The world needs more joy.

How the OP feels about *his* work is another kettle of fish, but he's gotten a lot of discussion and why he should charge, and how much. Now he's got a little essay on why he might choose to charge nothing!


----------



## manaheim (Feb 1, 2013)

amolitor said:
			
		

> This is interesting, and I'll try to re-rail this thing a bit in my response. This is just me, your attitude differs and the OP's attitude may also differ. I'm just pointing out that there are people in the world who view these things differently.
> 
> There's no way I would do a $0 contract. If you're going to make me mess with paper, you're paying me. Implicit in your, and possibly tyler's, responses is that you take for granted the desire to control the destiny of your work. I don't. If I gave someone a digital file, it would be without restrictions. Do what you will. Why would I do this? Because restricting things requires effort on my part which I seek to avoid, and which brings me no benefit that I can understand.
> 
> ...



I'm attached, yes, but I also considered the OP may not be... But there are also pragmatic elements to consider.  

What if the holder of the image used it to slander another?  Or perhaps used it to make light of them in some way?  Maybe they don't care now, but what if they care later on in their life or career?  Or any number of other concerns I'm
Not thinking of but are still out there...

I just don't think it's ever wise to have anything you had responsibility for creating being out of your control without some basic protections in place.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 1, 2013)

Rather than digging in to point by point stuff that's not really relevant to the thread, I will simply remark that:

a) I see your points!

b) One of the sources of my view about intellectual property is that the "control" you retain over IP which is in another's hands is largely illusory anyways. My view is not only a lighter burden on my soul, but a pragmatic one.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 1, 2013)

I think amolitor should send all of us copies of all his digital files with no restrictions.

Because, umm... why not?


----------



## dmunsie (Feb 1, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Mostly, I give away prints because that's what people actually want.



I'm assuming photography is not your main source of income? (Checking your blog...) ah..ok.. you're in the software business like I am.  I have also thought about giving away prints (for promotional reasons) but once you go down that route, it's hard to convert the freebie seekers into actual paying customers.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 1, 2013)

I thought it was clear from the start that photography isn't my business? Nothing I have said makes any sense at all if it was a money-making operation for me, and I've been perfectly clear about that from the start, I think.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 1, 2013)

Buckster said:


> I think amolitor should send all of us copies of all his digital files with no restrictions.
> 
> Because, umm... why not?



Because it would be spamming you with things you don't want, most likely, and that's rude.

Do you see an image of mine someplace that you'd like a digital copy of? I'd be happy to give you one.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 1, 2013)

amolitor said:
			
		

> Rather than digging in to point by point stuff that's not really relevant to the thread, I will simply remark that:
> 
> a) I see your points!
> 
> b) One of the sources of my view about intellectual property is that the "control" you retain over IP which is in another's hands is largely illusory anyways. My view is not only a lighter burden on my soul, but a pragmatic one.



Yeah, totally agree. (someone mark a calendar!) but some protection is better than none, particularly if what they do with your work winds up on your doorstep as a law suit or something.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 2, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I thought it was clear from the start that photography isn't my business? Nothing I have said makes any sense at all if it was a money-making operation for me, and I've been perfectly clear about that from the start, I think.


I agree with you 100%.


----------



## terri (Feb 2, 2013)

Since the OP has YET to respond to the second post in this thread, back on page 1, you all might refrain from your internet fisticuffs until you have all the facts from OP.   If he doesn't come back soon to this thread it's going to be closed (he started this a couple days ago and has not returned).   

Please guys.  Think twice before getting so carried away here.   Thanks.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 2, 2013)

I thought it was a civil and interesting conversation... did I miss something?

Edit: Just looked again... maybe a tiny bit of sarcasm, but nothing serious.  I really don't see a point in locking the thread.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Feb 3, 2013)

Thanks everyone for the discussion. This discussion is basically what I wanted to see. 

I don't think I'd ever part ways with a full size digital file of a landscape for free. I put too much time/money/energy into creating the shot to justify giving it to an anonymous internet stranger for free.  

It still leaves me with how to price the file. This seems totally up to my discretion, as there is no guideline out there that I'm aware that exists for such a thing.  It seems like the full size digital file _should _be at least the price I'd charge for the largest print that could be made from it-- because it gives the buyer the option to make multiple large prints at cost. 

I'll just leave this here, as I've always fundamentally disagreed with Trey Ratcliff on this topic, but you can't argue with his success:

Why Photographers should Stop Complaining about Copyright and Embrace Pinterest


----------



## Buckster (Feb 3, 2013)

One more time: What's the digital file going to be used for?

If it's going to be used ONLY for the guy's screensaver and he's never going to ever share it with anyone else, that's one thing.  Price accordingly.

If it's going to be used in a world-wide advertising campaign for a giant corporation that has a near-unlimited advertising budget, that's a whole 'nuther thing.  Price accordingly.


----------



## kathyt (Feb 3, 2013)

Buckster said:


> One more time: What's the digital file going to be used for?
> 
> If it's going to be used ONLY for the guy's screensaver and he's never going to ever share it with anyone else, that's one thing.  Price accordingly.
> 
> If it's going to be used in a world-wide advertising campaign for a giant corporation that has a near-unlimited advertising budget, that's a whole 'nuther thing.  Price accordingly.



Yep. This. What are you selling? The right to use the digital file for XY or for XYZ? This is where the value of the image comes into play.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Feb 3, 2013)

He wants it for a design template to hang in his room.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 3, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> He wants it for a design template to hang in his room.


So, his intent is to make a print of it to hang on the wall.  Sounds like you should be selling him a nice print in whatever size he wants to hang on the wall, based on your regular print prices.

It makes me wonder why he even wants the digital file.

However, if you really want to sell the digital file so that he can possibly edit it and print it himself, I'd again determine the intended size from him, write up a contract that specifically details the ONLY copyright use you're allowing based on what he says he wants to do with it.  Include your price for a print of that size (minus your regular printing and shipping costs, if you feel generous - BUT - The fact that he'll have the digital file and can then make copy after copy as they fade or get destroyed without repeat buys from you should be taken into consideration).  When the contract is agreed to and payment is made, work up a JPG file appropriate for the size he wants to print, and send it to him.

It reminds me of the kind of transactions that one engages in when buying stock photos online to work with, which are typically delivered online via JPG or TIFF file.  If you buy an image to use as a background or a prop from Fotolia.com for example, the price varies depending on the original photographer/artist's value of his/her work and the size/quality needed. No matter what though, the buyer is restricted to use the image only as the contract agreement outlines.

Keep in mind also that stock agencies sell the same image to a lot of people/companies over time (the photographer/artist hopes), and they have a large enough audience and advertising resources to help make that happen.  As such, it's not unusual for them to sell digital images for literally PENNIES each to users who buy in bulk.  You, on the other hand, may only sell this image as a digital file just this once, and will have to price it  accordingly.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 3, 2013)

It sounds like the only meaningful way to set a price is to simply think on it, and come up with a number that's going to make you happy. You don't want to finish this deal feeling like you ripped the guy off, or feeling ripped off yourself.

Since there is money on the table, definitely write up an agreement, since that's going to affect how you feel about the number.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't see any meaningful way to set a price other than 'a number you feel good about'. Just my take on it, of course.


----------



## dmunsie (Feb 4, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> He wants it for a design template to hang in his room.



When I see the word "template" I think of a multiple use situation. The words "digital file", "design template" does not sound like this person just wants to make one print. I agree with the other poster, if all he wants is a print, handle it for him and price accordingly. At this point you should be armed with enough info to make the best choice for yourself, but I personally think getting what he wants in writing should be the next step.


----------



## dmunsie (Feb 4, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> I'll just leave this here, as I've always fundamentally disagreed with Trey Ratcliff on this topic, but you can't argue with his success:
> 
> Why Photographers should Stop Complaining about Copyright and Embrace Pinterest



That strategy works well if your primary income goal is from ad based or affiliate based income. Bottom line, you have to give away free stuff in order to get traffic to your website. And this has worked well for Trey. It probably makes the most sense in today's free internet experience where everyone expect games, music, videos, to be free with ads, etc. I've decided not to go down that route, but it can work if you do it.._.right_.


----------

