# So you want to use my picture for free?



## nerwin (Aug 18, 2015)

First off I want to say that I don't do photography professional, I don't have a business. But I have been known to sell some prints here and there. 

This evening I got a email from a supposed digital designer that wanted to use a photo I took in Boston to create 100 5x7 invitations for this one day wine activity at a fancy hotel. 

For something like this I felt it was appropriate to charge some sort of fee which was a $50 for a full res file in a format of their choice, which I thought was reasonable. I talked to another friend of mine that does photography professionally and that's what he suggested. 

The designer wrote back and counter offered by saying they can give me credit and promote my contact info in the invitation. Said it would give me exposure to all the famous wineries around the world. 

Wow thanks. So originally they weren't even going to give me credit in first place.  What a joke. After I saw that, I instantly turned them down and said they'd have to find another picture to use. 

I don't fall for these anymore.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 18, 2015)

Good call.  I've never yet been able to exchange photo-credit for food.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 18, 2015)

Ask the designer if he's/she's printing the invitations for free in exchange for credit.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 18, 2015)

The guy's *a cheapskate S.O.B. *looking to get something for abso-fricking-loutely-nuthin!

I would suggest to him that he might be well-served to engage in a bout of self-intercourse.

You said he was from Boston; there's a VERY good chance he's a masshole.


----------



## weepete (Aug 19, 2015)

I always laugh when these turn up. Its just comedy that some people think that you'd give away for free one of the major things they are getting paid for. Lol


----------



## snowbear (Aug 19, 2015)

On the other hand, at least he _asked_.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 19, 2015)

snowbear said:


> On the other hand, at least he _asked_.



I'll wager that after asking 2 or 3 photographers and getting turned down, he just steals an image off the net and uses it anyway.


----------



## runnah (Aug 19, 2015)

Derrel said:


> You said he was from Boston; there's a VERY good chance he's a masshole.


----------



## KmH (Aug 19, 2015)




----------



## TheUniverse (Aug 19, 2015)

I don't understand this thread at all. Especially this part: "I talked to another friend of mine that does photography professionally and that's what he suggested."

What exactly is the difference between free and $50?

It seems to me that 30 years ago $50 wasn't worth getting out of bed for...


----------



## waday (Aug 19, 2015)

TheUniverse said:


> What exactly is the difference between free and $50?


$50...


----------



## tirediron (Aug 19, 2015)

TheUniverse said:


> I don't understand this thread at all. Especially this part: "I talked to another friend of mine that does photography professionally and that's what he suggested."
> 
> What exactly is the difference between free and $50?
> 
> It seems to me that 30 years ago $50 wasn't worth getting out of bed for...


 I'll get out of bed for $50; heck, I'll even have a cup of coffee for $50!    Granted, the amount is small, but I think this is much more about the principle, and the fact that the graphic artist wasn't even willing to shell out the very, very small fee that the OP requested.


----------



## nerwin (Aug 19, 2015)

I wasn't so concerned about money, but I'm just tired of doing things for free. I've done a lot of things for people in my life for free and it got me no where. Yes $50 isn't much but I thought it was reasonable for access to full res file. But the fact that the designer said he would give me credit INSTEAD of compensation irritated me because he didn't plan on giving me credit in the first place.  I didn't think it was fair.

Also $50 covers 4 months of Adobe CC!


----------



## JacaRanda (Aug 19, 2015)

I was going to list several things that $50.00 could do for me.  But Adobe CC is perfect and fits the category.


----------



## TheUniverse (Aug 19, 2015)

tirediron said:


> TheUniverse said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand this thread at all. Especially this part: "I talked to another friend of mine that does photography professionally and that's what he suggested."
> ...



Principles don't pay the bills. But I do have a cup of coffee to sell you  

Back to serious, accepting less and less money on principle is bringing down the value of the profession as a whole. To the point that today, even government entities are using photos they are not paying for when they should be the first ones to respect copyright laws. But photography has become a joke and only very specialized photographers seem to still get paid a living wage.

Frankly, I couldn't care less. My pro-photo career was extremely limited and a long, long time ago. What I'm saying is for the benefit of the young guys and gals out there. And if they don't care, why should I?


----------



## KmH (Aug 19, 2015)

If you do $50 10x a day, that adds up to $500 a day, $2500 for a 5 day work week, or $125,000 a year if you take 2 weeks off for vacation and forego doing $50 10x a day during those 2 weeks.


----------



## sm4him (Aug 19, 2015)

Times have changed.  We can gripe or "reflect" all we want about how all sorts of different things are killing the photography business, but the FACT is, you either adapt with the times, or you sink.
Facts are facts, and one of those facts is that the internet and cell phone cameras have made it easier and cheaper for people to get photos for uses such as this. So, you can either let them use yours for $50, or you can decline and either someone else will get the $50 or they will simply steal something and hope they don't get caught (because, honestly? Hardly anyone does, not for little 100-invitation jobs like this)

I'd take the $50.  ESPECIALLY considering, this is a photo the OP had already taken, not something they were paying him TO take. Plus, they came to him--so there was no effort on his part to do any marketing work to sell the photo.  

But in this case, I'd durn sure have done as the OP did and insist on at least getting that. A wine event, really? And they want you to just give them your photo? 
A fundraiser for kids with cancer? You bet I'd let them use it for free. Maybe a leukemia awareness event? Sure. Alzheimer's Support? Absolutely.
But a wine event. F*** you, pay me.  Heck, at least give me some wine.


----------



## TheUniverse (Aug 19, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> I was going to list *several things* that $50.00 could do for me.  But Adobe CC is perfect and fits the category.



I'm pretty sure none of those are in your list of gear.


----------



## TheUniverse (Aug 19, 2015)

The biggest problem I see on this forum is that we are dealing with a lot of photographers who do not make a living from photography.

The gear is paid by some other, way more profitable job. So that not really getting paid for a photo is no big deal. Great for you people.

Not so great for the true photographers.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 19, 2015)

TheUniverse said:


> The biggest problem I see on this forum is that we are dealing with a lot of photographers who do not make a living from photography.
> 
> The gear is paid by some other, way more profitable job. So that not really getting paid for a photo is no big deal. Great for you people.
> 
> Not so great for the* true photographers*.


Ehh?  Whazzat?  Wanna back up the bus a minute there Jack?  "True" photographers?  I'm not sure what a "true" photographer is to you, but to me it's someone who's very, very good at photography, and quite frankly of all the hobbyists and paid pros I know, the greater overall skill set is most definitely with the hobbyists.  WHO cares how someone funds their gear or how much they charge for an image?


----------



## nerwin (Aug 19, 2015)

That's not fair. Just because some of us don't make a living doing photography, doesn't make us fake photographers. I personally don't really want to do photography professionally, maybe its something I'll think about later but right now its just a hobby and I love it.


----------



## sm4him (Aug 19, 2015)

TheUniverse said:


> The biggest problem I see on this forum is that we are dealing with a lot of photographers who do not make a living from photography.
> 
> The gear is paid by some other, way more profitable job. So that not really getting paid for a photo is no big deal. Great for you people.
> 
> Not so great for the true photographers.



I typed a very long, incredibly insightful, possibly emotional, response. Fortunately, I also followed my #1 rule of posting online--THINK before you post. So I deleted it all.

But I will say this:
First, I'm a bit confused as to whether you are one of these "true" photographers you mention. In another thread, you state "I'm working on my painting. From what I see here there is no way I will ever make money from photo."  So, I'm not sure what to think.

Second, are you saying that to be a "true" photographer, I must not only charge, but I must charge an amount that is acceptable to...who, exactly? You? Other "true" photographers? Who is setting the standard here? Does what I charge have to pay for my gear? So, if I use a bridge camera, I can charge less and still be a "true" photographer?

And finally--and let's not lose sight of this--the guy wasn't even willing to PAY the paltry $50!! Why? BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE TO!! EVEN if he doesn't do something unethical, like using a photo without permission--he will most likely find someone with a photo who will be MORE than happy to just let him use it.  And THAT is the competition the lower-end photographer faces these days. So, if you can manage to make $50 for a photo you already took, without any real effort on your part? Sorry but this chick is going to take that job All. Day. Long.

And I will NOT give up my "True Photographer" ID card because I let someone pay me $50 for a photo.

(Yes, believe it or not, the first response was far longer than this).


----------



## JacaRanda (Aug 19, 2015)

TheUniverse said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > I was going to list *several things* that $50.00 could do for me.  But Adobe CC is perfect and fits the category.
> ...


 
I was thinking in terms of a sandwich for lunch, an auto carwash, laundry detergent, underwear, socks etc., but here are photography items:

OP/TECH USA Utility Strap - Sling
OP/TECH USA Pro Strap and Pro Loop Strap
Photovision 14" Pocket One Shot Digital Target DT14010 B&H
http://www.amazon.com/White-Flash-D...8&qid=1440013280&sr=8-1&keywords=565+diffuser
http://www.amazon.com/Translucent-P...1440013314&sr=8-2&keywords=speedlight+softbox
OP/TECH USA Sling Strap Adaptor Quick Adjust
http://www.amazon.com/Transcend-800...&qid=1440013647&sr=1-8&keywords=compact+flash
http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Extre...013782&sr=1-5&keywords=sd+cards+16gb+san+disk

Pictures available upon request.


----------



## nerwin (Aug 19, 2015)

I bought a 32gb MicroSDHC class 10 card for my phone yesterday. Only cost $10.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 19, 2015)

I could find something to spend $50 on at the camera swap.

I don't think people should undervalue their work, but it's a challenge these days. I'd donate time and photos to a charitable cause, not for commercial or retail use.

If they want pictures for free they can take the photos themselves. And edit them. On their own dime and in their own time not mine.


----------



## snowbear (Aug 19, 2015)

TheUniverse said:


> It seems to me that 30 years ago $50 wasn't worth getting out of bed for...



30 years ago, $50 was around half of a day's net pay for me.


----------



## KmH (Aug 19, 2015)

sm4him said:


> Times have changed.  We can gripe or "reflect" all we want about how all sorts of different things are killing the photography business, but the FACT is, you either adapt with the times, or you sink.


In the case of making a living, adapting with today's times means choosing a profession other than photography.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 20, 2015)

TheUniverse said:


> The biggest problem I see on this forum is that we are dealing with a lot of photographers who do not make a living from photography.
> 
> The gear is paid by some other, way more profitable job. So that not really getting paid for a photo is no big deal. Great for you people.
> 
> Not so great for the true photographers.




well, now you are getting into what the definition of a "true" photographer is, and that is totally subjective, and does not make for good forum discussion as we have already seen in recent threads. 
I think the only really valid point here is this:
the OP placed a value on a photo. what that value is, is irrelevant to anyone else except the seller and the potential buyer. it doesn't affect anyone else. (if it does, those people are not managing their business model very well)
anyway....the OP placed a value on a photo. the potential buyer either did not see the same value as the OP, or could not afford the price. the OP stood by his price and perceived value of his product, and there was no transaction. 

now, to me...this was a very professional transaction. not a successful transaction, but certainly a professional one. 
the OP did not relent and give away his product. He stated his price for it and stood by his decision. 
whether or not people feel that price is good or not is irrelevant. 

good form nerwin. 
you stood up for everyone who produces something they feel has value, and refused to relent to the ridiculous notion that
only certain "elite" photographers are worthy of asking for monetary remuneration for their work.


----------



## AceCo55 (Aug 20, 2015)

TheUniverse said:


> The biggest problem I see on this forum is that we are dealing with a lot of photographers who do not make a living from photography.
> 
> The gear is paid by some other, way more profitable job. So that not really getting paid for a photo is no big deal. Great for you people.
> 
> Not so great for the true photographers.



Perhaps you really meant "full time" photographers?


----------



## tirediron (Aug 20, 2015)

AceCo55 said:


> TheUniverse said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest problem I see on this forum is that we are dealing with a lot of photographers who do not make a living from photography.
> ...


 Perhaps when he gets his foot out of his mouth, he'll explain what he really meant!


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 20, 2015)

AceCo55 said:


> TheUniverse said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest problem I see on this forum is that we are dealing with a lot of photographers who do not make a living from photography.
> ...



can you be a "true" photographer and only work part time?
can you be a "professional" and work part time?
I hope you can...otherwise im going to  have to tell my boss at the meeting tonight Im not a "true" flight medic because I only work there part time... funny though, my part-time paycheck clears the bank just as well as my full time check does.
and even funnier still, my part-part-part-semi occasional photography clients money seems to spend just as well too...

hmmm.....


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 20, 2015)

sm4him said:


> can you be a "true" photographer and only work part time?



Photographer.  You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.  Lol



> can you be a "professional" and work part time?



Yes.. but you need a bowtie



> I hope you can...otherwise im going to  have to tell my boss at the meeting tonight Im not a "true" flight medic because I only work there part time... funny though, my part-time paycheck clears the bank just as well as my full time check does.
> and even funnier still, my part-part-part-semi occasional photography clients money seems to spend just as well too...
> 
> hmmm.....



Weird.  So they don't make you have like a separate account for all that fakey part time money?


----------



## waday (Aug 20, 2015)

robbins.photo said:


> You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


----------



## TheUniverse (Aug 20, 2015)

You are all right, bad choice of word.

True meant pro. With certainly no meaning of the quality of the work as I agree with those who said that there are plenty of hobbyist who are better photographers.

Also, yes, I was exaggerating a bit the fact that $50 wasn't worth getting up for 30 years ago. Actually, some 35 years ago I lived on about $300 a month so, an extra 50 would have been nice but not, ever in the way described in the original post.

And yes, the business has changed a lot but I sure don't believe in "adapt or die". I think what is meant is "adapt AND die" because, as in a lot of other fields, the more people are willing to lower their rates (or prices) the more customers will want to see those rates go down. Until it's "adapt And die" or just get out.

And the fact that the photographer already had the shot doesn't fly with me either. Once upon a time that would have been called "stock photography". Do you know anyone making money from stock today? Well, once upon a time, stock was a way of making a very decent living. Today, I don't know anyone making a living from it, including some guy a few years back who had the largest stock library in the world, the largest number of sales, and made no profit whatsoever.

So, you don't have to like what I'm saying but, please, let's be real.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 20, 2015)

TheUniverse said:


> You are all right, bad choice of word.
> 
> True meant pro. With certainly no meaning of the quality of the work as I agree with those who said that there are plenty of hobbyist who are better photographers.
> 
> ...



so...
what your saying is, because nerwins photo is like "stock photography", which has tanked, his pictures are worthless and have no value?
just because stock photography is in the crapper doesnt mean that people still arent making money selling landscapes and artistic photos. and even if they werent, that still doesnt mean that nerwins photo has no value.
do you have a website that i could browse so you can send me photos for free with full commercial usage? or...would you charge me for your work? I assume you would not charge since you just said stock photography is dead so the pictures are worthless.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 20, 2015)

OP can charge whatever he wants for his images. That's his deal.

For a short run like this $50 is probably about right. We're not talking about a Samsung ad in TIME Magazine. The designer has to make money too.

This is why real designers go to royalty-free stock agencies, and not browse Flickr for some easy to flatter sucker.


----------



## nerwin (Aug 20, 2015)

I didn't want to make a big deal out of this, I just got fed up with these people contacting me asking to use my photos in this kind of way with out being compensated or at least credited for. Sure if it was something to do with awareness for leukemia which by the way a cousin of mine recently died from, I'd have no problems with them using it in however they please. If a picture of mine could help someones life, that's all the payment I need. But a wine event at a fancy expensive hotel and they couldn't afford to pay for my picture? Sounds sketchy honestly.

I get emails often asking if they can use my picture on their blog or website, I don't have a problem with that as long as they give me credit and link to my website or something. There is a local construction law firm in my town that uses one of my pictures as their website header. Check it out. Vermont Construction Law Attorneys | Chittenden County Construction Litigation Lawyers | Colchester VT Commercial Construction, Land Use And Zoning If you scroll down to the bottom of the page, the credit is there. I didn't charge them anything and this was a few years ago, didn't really know any better. Just thought it would be cool.

In 2011 my town got flooded really bad, it was probably 4-5 feet deep. A popular restaurant in town had most of their cooking equipment and expensive freezer destroyed. About $100k worth loss. The owner didn't have flood insurance. During renovations, the owner saw my picture on Flickr that he thought would look great in his restaurant and thought it was awesome that I was a local resident. He wanted a 40 x 60 canvas print of it. I thought big money. haha. But I realized he lost a lot of money and I didn't want money to become an issue with this deal. I really wanted my photo hanged in this restaurant as its very popular. He just wanted a TIFF file so he could get it printed himself. The best he could do was $50 and I ended up turning that down..told him to consider it as a gift in a way. He thanked me and said anytime I visit his restaurant while he's there, he'll give me VIP treatment..haha. He hanged it up with my name under it like at a gallery. Its pretty cool. I mean 40 x 60 is MASSIVE. You can't really miss it.

So about a year after that I got a email from a lady that was interested in getting a canvas print of that for her friend's wedding because her friend said it would look awesome in home. I'm like awesome, she wanted a 20 x 30 canvas, I got it printed and it came out amazing. I charged $350 and she was happy to pay for it and told me her friend was very happy with it. So by letting this restaurant owner have my picture for nothing actually ended up paying very well. 

You just gotta take everything case by case. In this case with the invitation cards I felt that $50 was reasonable and they wanted it for free. I didn't agree with it, told them they didn't have my permission to use the picture so that they would feel bad when they steal my photo anyways, haha.

This was actually a really good conversation. Where was this stuff when I was in photography class? All we did was sit in front of a computer with the teacher using a projector...so boring. I learned more since I signed up here than I did in photography class.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 21, 2015)

The amount of time involved in finding a photo that will work with a project is pretty significant. I can't imagine then having to sit around and wait for permission. I doubt in the end it's really paying off.


----------



## TheUniverse (Aug 21, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> so...
> what your saying is, because nerwins photo is like "stock photography", which has tanked, his pictures are worthless and have no value?
> just because stock photography is in the crapper doesnt mean that people still arent making money selling landscapes and artistic photos. and even if they werent, that still doesnt mean that nerwins photo has no value.
> do you have a website that i could browse so you can send me photos for free with full commercial usage? or...would you charge me for your work? I assume you would not charge since you just said stock photography is dead so the pictures are worthless.



So...

you're a staff member? Wow. Really?

If becoming a staff member here is like getting into the police...

Google

I understand your response better.


1/ Maybe you should learn to read so you could understand what I said better.

2/ Maybe you should take the time to read my different posts, especially my intoduction, which would have helped you not say something totally stupid.

3/ Maybe you should learn about stock photography before talking about it. "artistic photos" have never been the mainstay of stock.

Well I feel so much better knowing we have YOU keeping the sanity going here.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 21, 2015)

Actually, Jason's a good guy, maybe you should try getting to know him better; you could have differing opinions on a topic and agree to disagree.

I think that providing a photo or taking photos for free for a charity is fine, and I've had that happen too, one thing can lead to another opportunity. But for a business, I'd expect to get a contract paying the going rate for commercial use - if they wouldn't do that, passing it up was probably the best thing to do.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 21, 2015)

TheUniverse said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > so...
> ...



1: literary comprehension is obviously not your strong suit either bub.
2: see #1
3: you brought up stock photography in relation to the OP's picture. which doesn't entirely relate. the OP isnt trying to break into stock photography. he was just trying to put a price on one picture.

good job resorting to personal insults though. 
+10 internet points for you i guess.


----------



## wyogirl (Aug 21, 2015)

Robbins.Photo for the WIN!  

"Photographer.  You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.  Lol"

Now I must go home and watch The Princess Bride.  So while that is a great quote, my favorite is: "My way's not very sportsmen like."


----------



## Braineack (Aug 21, 2015)

Id rather have my name on a card and no money, than no name on a card and no money.

using tapatalk.


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 21, 2015)

nerwin said:


> I didn't want to make a big deal out of this,



Too late.  Lol.




> I just got fed up with these people contacting me asking to use my photos in this kind of way with out being compensated or at least credited for. Sure if it was something to do with awareness for leukemia which by the way a cousin of mine recently died from, I'd have no problems with them using it in however they please. If a picture of mine could help someones life, that's all the payment I need. But a wine event at a fancy expensive hotel and they couldn't afford to pay for my picture? Sounds sketchy honestly.



Agreed.  



> I get emails often asking if they can use my picture on their blog or website, I don't have a problem with that as long as they give me credit and link to my website or something. There is a local construction law firm in my town that uses one of my pictures as their website header. Check it out. Vermont Construction Law Attorneys | Chittenden County Construction Litigation Lawyers | Colchester VT Commercial Construction, Land Use And Zoning If you scroll down to the bottom of the page, the credit is there. I didn't charge them anything and this was a few years ago, didn't really know any better. Just thought it would be cool.



I've had a few websites that have contacted me for similar reasons, mostly for gorilla pics.  There all non-profits so I just say sure, enjoy.


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 21, 2015)

wyogirl said:


> Robbins.Photo for the WIN!
> 
> "Photographer.  You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.  Lol"
> 
> Now I must go home and watch The Princess Bride.  So while that is a great quote, my favorite is: "My way's not very sportsmen like."



Lol.. love that movie.  

I'm on the Brute Squad.
You *are* the Brute Squad!


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 21, 2015)

Just a thought;  instead of 50 dead presidents, how about payment via a bottle or two of that high-class hootch?


----------



## unpopular (Aug 21, 2015)

This thread is a whole lotta stupid.


----------



## clel miller (Aug 21, 2015)

Regardless of WHAT is is.....if a Pro Anything cannot absorb 50 bux to get their job done, there is a problem.
You did the right thing OP.
Can you imagine going to a mechanic, and they cannot fix your transmission... because They Would Not Pay For A 50 Dollar Tool.?


----------



## nerwin (Aug 22, 2015)

clel miller said:


> Regardless of WHAT is is.....if a Pro Anything cannot absorb 50 bux to get their job done, there is a problem.
> You did the right thing OP.
> Can you imagine going to a mechanic, and they cannot fix your transmission... because They Would Not Pay For A 50 Dollar Tool.?



Customer: "Can you fix my car?" Mechanic: "Sure, but it will cost $800" Customer: "First of all, your a great mechanic! Would you like me to put your name and number on my car window so when I travel, you get free promotion instead? Could be a big opportunity for you." 

That was pretty much the extent of my email. Lol.


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 22, 2015)

TheUniverse said:


> [
> So...
> 
> you're a staff member? Wow. Really?



Really.  I've seen his badge and everything.  They don't let them carry guns anymore.. not since that whole incident with tirediron and that bus full of nuns.  It was a total misunderstanding but well.. were really not supposed to talk about it.



> If becoming a staff member here is like getting into the police...
> 
> Google
> 
> I understand your response better.



I'm afraid I'm not understanding yours I guess.  Not seeing where you are getting this analogy,  it's not like pix pulled the "I'm a staff member card" here.  He expressed an opinion - one that differed from yours.



> 1/ Maybe you should learn to read so you could understand what I said better.



Wow.   Classy.  Maybe you should learn to explain things better, or be willing to clarify your position if you didn't make it clear.  You know, rather than just hurling around childish insults.



> 2/ Maybe you should take the time to read my different posts, especially my intoduction, which would have helped you not say something totally stupid.



True.. I find it very helpful to do an in depth psychological profile on everyone before responding to them.  Sadly though I have this thing called a "Day Job".


----------



## Braineack (Aug 22, 2015)

nerwin said:


> Customer: "Can you fix my car?" Mechanic: "Sure, but it will cost $800" Customer: "First of all, your a great mechanic! Would you like me to put your name and number on my car window so when I travel, you get free promotion instead? Could be a big opportunity for you."
> 
> That was pretty much the extent of my email. Lol.



no it's not.

not even close.


if you think that's how it is, no wonder you're acting the way you are about it.



it's more like this:

mechanic is making a promo for his business,  he likes a picture you took that he happened to stumble upon and reached out to you because he thought it would be nice to use in his ad.

He asks: Hey, can I use your picture on a $20 oil change promo I'm doing.

You say: Sure, for $50.

He says: I cant swing that, is photo credit not enough?  I have lots of customers with nice cars that might want a picture of them.

You still decline, noting that you'd rather not have the picture you never planned on making money on, not be used whatsoever.

You then post online how it's offensive that someone wanted to use your photo out of the blue and not pay for usage.


----------



## nerwin (Aug 22, 2015)

Braineack said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > Customer: "Can you fix my car?" Mechanic: "Sure, but it will cost $800" Customer: "First of all, your a great mechanic! Would you like me to put your name and number on my car window so when I travel, you get free promotion instead? Could be a big opportunity for you."
> ...



So what do you want me to do? Let them use my picture for free without any credit? Because they didn't offer NO MONEY or CREDIT. I had to ask for it. I don't want their stupid credit to help promote a business I do not have to wineries that I have no interest in.  They wanted to print my photo 100 times on 5x7 cards and then make digital version and pass it around via email. I'm sorry that I decided $50 reasonable, but I'm guess I'm wrong. I'll be sure to these things for free now on. Thanks.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 22, 2015)

clel miller said:


> Regardless of WHAT is is.....if a Pro Anything cannot absorb 50 bux to get their job done, there is a problem.
> You did the right thing OP.
> Can you imagine going to a mechanic, and they cannot fix your transmission... because They Would Not Pay For A 50 Dollar Tool.?



A rather poor analogy.  

I doubt the participants of those vinofest will give one hoot about where the image came from or whether he ponied up fifty bucks for it.

And the wine tasting shindig went on without the OPs image.

The analogy would be...... do you care if your mechanic used a $2 wrench he bought at a garage sale or a $59 one he bought off the Snap-On truck? Either way, your transmission got fixed and you drove to the wine tasting event.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 22, 2015)

I get the argument that the image is doing no good by just sitting around. But OP is not a professional photographer. He does not need nor want the publicity. There might be some argument here if the OP were a professional looking for publicity. But OP is an accountant, or IT guy, or HR person, or professional circus animal trainer or whatever OP does for a living. He doesn't need the publicity and wouldn't do him much good.

But even then, what is the likelihood that a potential client would look at a photograph tagline and then go out of his or her way to contact you, because they "liked that image"? Good pictures are a dime a dozen. We're inundated by them. It seems very unlikely that someone would say "woweee! that photo of that vineyard is so cool, I think i'll hire HIM to do my wedding!"

When has that *ever* happened?


----------



## clel miller (Aug 22, 2015)

nerwin said:


> clel miller said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless of WHAT is is.....if a Pro Anything cannot absorb 50 bux to get their job done, there is a problem.
> ...


----------



## clel miller (Aug 22, 2015)

Bottom line is the OP did the right thing for his situation.
Weird thread.
The backward, bourgeois, attitudes of some members has been enlightening.
Surprised at a few of the responses. I can see some of you guys download music and movies for free. 
Have A Good Day


----------



## unpopular (Aug 22, 2015)

Giving away images does devalue them. Some uses will demand exclusivity, or in the very least, freshness. If the image is familiar to another campaign, then a designer will be less inclined to want to use it. You have to at least recover the likelihood of this.

I have a couple particular image that I am very protective of, and would be unlikely to license on a royalty-free basis, let alone just give away in exchange for pats on the back. There are others which I would probably license for even less than $50, provided that credit is given depending on how the image is used.

Every image has to be evaluated on an individual basis with a realistic expectation of market value. But, I can't really think of any time that just giving them away would be appropriate, aside from as a donation to a charity that you support - but that's a different thing entirely.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 22, 2015)

Braineack said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > Customer: "Can you fix my car?" Mechanic: "Sure, but it will cost $800" Customer: "First of all, your a great mechanic! Would you like me to put your name and number on my car window so when I travel, you get free promotion instead? Could be a big opportunity for you."
> ...


Here's the problem tho...
You give the impression that because the picture us just sitting there with no plans for making money that it has no value. Who cares what the picture is doing? How is that relevant? The OP wanted to be paid for the work he put Into the photo and did not want "photo credit" in leu of monetary compensation. Why Is it wrong for the person who took the photo to want to decide how they are paid for it?


----------



## unpopular (Aug 22, 2015)

Thank god the mechanic isn't going to charge us more to work on our primary vehicle!

Hemi engines are expensive enough to maintain!


----------



## thereyougo! (Aug 23, 2015)

I had this in my flickr inbox the other day:

Hi,

Your photo of Mount Fuji is incredible! I was wondering if you would be so kind to e-mail me the digital file? I would love to blow this up and put it on my wall.

Hope to hear back from you.

Thanks,


I responded by asking him if he wished to purchase a print or purchase a download, and he said he didn't realise there would be a cost involved...


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 23, 2015)

thereyougo! said:


> I had this in my flickr inbox the other day:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> ...


It's a sign of the times. Images are plentiful and cheap so people just assume you are ok with giving them away.....and when someone has the audacity to actually think they should be compensated for the time and effort they put into making a photo, they are chastised for it.


----------



## thereyougo! (Aug 23, 2015)

Indeed, that's the problem with social media.  An image I had on Facebook  - low resolution at 72ppi got interest from someone to buy the print, I replied with the link of the online shop for it, someone else replied saying "Why bother paying for it and proceeded to give instructions to copy the photo from Facebook. " Never did get the sale...


----------



## thereyougo! (Aug 23, 2015)

Braineack said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > Customer: "Can you fix my car?" Mechanic: "Sure, but it will cost $800" Customer: "First of all, your a great mechanic! Would you like me to put your name and number on my car window so when I travel, you get free promotion instead? Could be a big opportunity for you."
> ...



Sorry, but this attitude is part of the problem.  There are far too many photographers accepting credit as payment which is devaluing the whole industry.  There's a time and a place for giving something for credit, the OP has given a good example of it where a restaurant owner showcase his work in such a way that someone was prepared to pay a good price for it, not just put a 6pt font credit that no one will read.  There is way too much thinking that if it's online, it must be free.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 23, 2015)

there's a huge difference in someone stumbling across a photo you already took online (for person gain, with no intention of ever making money on it), reaching out and asking they can use it for a stupid promotion that 100 people might see and a person reaching out to hire you to take a photo they want, and suggesting photo credit as payment for the service.

This designer could sign up for istock credits and use a better photo for $33 vs $50, plus save two credits to spare for two more photos down the road (ultimately making the cost $11).  the designer's budget for this invitation was probably $15 total, and that covered getting it printed at Kinko's.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 23, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> Here's the problem tho...
> You give the impression that because the picture us just sitting there with no plans for making money that it has no value. Who cares what the picture is doing? How is that relevant? The OP wanted to be paid for the work he put Into the photo and did not want "photo credit" in leu of monetary compensation. Why Is it wrong for the person who took the photo to want to decide how they are paid for it?



there's nothing wrong with it.

but that metaphor was completely bogus--the designer never asked the OP to take a photo in exchange for photo credit.

The scenario would be more like the designer found an unused car part he needed to fix his own car laying in the OP's garage floor and asked if he could have it in exchange for telling everyone who's garage it came from.

there's nothing wrong with saying, no i want $50 for it.  But I _personally_ would rather have my name and contact information in front of a bunch of people, than not--especially when I have nothing else to lose from it. That's all I said.  I'm evaluating the scenario objectively.

but go ahead, chastise me for my opinion....




nerwin said:


> So what do you want me to do? Let them use my picture for free without any credit? Because they didn't offer NO MONEY or CREDIT. I had to ask for it. I don't want their stupid credit to help promote a business I do not have to wineries that I have no interest in.  They wanted to print my photo 100 times on 5x7 cards and then make digital version and pass it around via email. I'm sorry that I decided $50 reasonable, but I'm guess I'm wrong. I'll be sure to these things for free now on. Thanks.



All I suggested was your scenario was wrong.  our decision is your decision.   I might have made a different one, I might not have.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 23, 2015)

Braineack said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the problem tho...
> ...


All I was ever saying is that I think nerwin was right to ask for something, and was fine for making a decision on how he wanted to be compensated and sticking to it.
The notion that SOMETHING is better than NOTHING is only good if you actually want the something that was offered. If you dont, then the "something" is just as bad as the "nothing". I certainly don't see any problem with someone selling photos for exposure


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 23, 2015)

Ok, so reading through this again what I'm getting is that everybody agrees with everybody else and now we're just down to arguing over metaphors.

Thank god we all have the kind of lifestyles that allow us to indulge in such minutia!  Yes, I think a celebration is in order here.

Lol

Sent from my 306SH using Tapatalk


----------



## Braineack (Aug 23, 2015)

yes.


----------



## coastalconn (Aug 23, 2015)

Back to the subject, I get free requests all the time lately.  I have started to politely decline even though many are for NPO for land conservation.  I allowed a woman to use an image to promote a friends lecture and the next day she emailed me and wanted another one for her newsletter.  I politely declined and she sent me a rude email saying how she was sorry to be a burden to me and not to worry about it she had found a free image from fish and wildlife services..

Then my same friend was having an article written about him for a magazines online blog.  I agreed to allow them to use 2 images and sent along a RM license outlining what I would allow to for usage and the editor emailed me back explaining they don't sign contracts for their images.. They decided to use someone else's that was free with no contract...


----------



## Braineack (Aug 24, 2015)

"free"


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 24, 2015)

I need more popcorn to read this thread


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 24, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> I need more popcorn to read this thread



We all need some. You supply it. Put your name on the bags and give it to us at no charge.  ;-)


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 24, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > I need more popcorn to read this thread
> ...


We will of course then take them to movie theaters everywhere so you can get plenty of free advertising out of the deal.

Either that or put your mechanics name on the bag and see if you can swap that for a new transmission.

Lol

Sent from my 306SH using Tapatalk


----------



## Braineack (Aug 24, 2015)

No, this will be a one time showing of a home movie of a kid's 2 year old birthday party at the theater we rented out for a corporate package showing.  We'll still make sure to charge a fee of $11 a ticket for those who are going to attend plus the price of popcorn.


----------



## pijak (Aug 28, 2015)

What?   Not even an offer for free wine.?..


----------

