Should I watermark images sent to publications for their review?

[ottor]

I captured an image a while back, and upon a whim, sent it to a magazine. About 2 months later, I was contacted by the magazine with an offer to purchase the image for their cover photo. I was offered $375 for the color image, and they’d pay upon publication.. I think for a first time shot at this, I got lucky !!

It’s now in my blood, and I have prepared other photos to send to many various publications. My question is, should I watermark these photos? - Some want images on DVD, others want only printed images. In my previous successful attempt with the magazine that purchased my photo, I just Emailed them a small image, but no watermark. Are most magazines honest or should I just trust nobody as a rule?

I’d let you know the magazine (But I doubt many would know of it), and show you the image, but it was one of their requirements that I keep the magazine and image to myself until it’s published and released. It ‘is’ a magazine that deals with ‘watersports’ of some kind however…

Damn …. once I receive the check, can I consider myself a Freelance photographer??

Rick

 

[o hey tyler]

Being a victim of image theft myself, I take the precaution to at the very least watermark "proof" images. I don't think it's a bad idea, or poor form. Possibly disclosing that it's nothing personal, it's just the way you operate (by watermarking your images) to protect yourself.

Also, CONGRATS BUDDY! :thumbup:

 

[jamesbjenkins]

I'd mark it up in some way until you get your check. Some of the photo editors I've dealt with in past have no moral compunction with stealing images if they can get away with it.

And a very big congrats, man! Getting published is a huge accomplishment.

 

[KmH]

No don't watermark them, unless you want to kill their value.

Pricing depends on the quantity of the print run. The print run is a function of how wide spread the distribution of the magazine is.

As a guide for negotiating, and assuming one time, non-exclusive reproduction rights - for the cover of a 10,000 or less print run, the low price should be more like $550 and the high price would be about $1000.

10,000 to 50,000 - $650 to $1300
50,000 to 100,000 - $700- $1400
100,000 to 250,000 - $700 to $1500
250,00 to 500,000 - $750 - $1650

and so on.......

Any user of your images will have their best interest at heart, not yours.

 

[ottor]

I have no idea of the distribution but the Magazine prints 6x a year... I was happy with the offer, and - since its the first time this has happened to me, the addition to my resume makes up for the difference... I can now state that I've been published, so hopefully that could increase the value of subsequent transactions..... maybe? :mrgreen:

tks,

r

 

[imagemaker46]

No don't watermark them, unless you want to kill their value.

Pricing depends on the quantity of the print run. The print run is a function of how wide spread the distribution of the magazine is.

As a guide for negotiating, and assuming one time, non-exclusive reproduction rights - for the cover of a 10,000 or less print run, the low price should be more like $550 and the high price would be about $1000.

10,000 to 50,000 - $650 to $1300
50,000 to 100,000 - $700- $1400
100,000 to 250,000 - $700 to $1500
250,00 to 500,000 - $750 - $1650

and so on.......

Any user of your images will have their best interest at heart, not yours.

Magazine and book user prices are all over the place these days, it's not like it used to be where it was easier to negotiate a user fee. While it is good to use a price guide simply as a guide, it doesn't always mean that the prices are fixed. Getting a first time fee of $375 is pretty good.

 

[SamSpade1941]

Being a victim of image theft myself, I take the precaution to at the very least watermark "proof" images. I don't think it's a bad idea, or poor form. Possibly disclosing that it's nothing personal, it's just the way you operate (by watermarking your images) to protect yourself.

Also, CONGRATS BUDDY! :thumbup:

As long as you can prove the image is your property . You don't need to water mark them, copy right law was revised in the US several years ago to reflect that you own the copy right the minute you create the content. No marking or registration is required. I have all my original raw files and additionally all of my original files are hosted on a site where they are offered for sale such as deviant art for example. Now in my case I personally choose to extend a Creative Commons license granting non commercial use of my works as long as they are not modified in any way or used for profit. I do check from time to time to see if my works have been used by any publications and they have not . I would like to actually sell something other than a stock image one day to a magazine but it has not happened. If it makes you feel better though to water mark your images then do so but I don't think it matters the meta data has your information and you have the original raw files. Congrats by the way.

 

[Psytrox]

Congrats!! Can you show as the photograh now that its been published?

 

[Buckster]

Every 3 months, spend $30 and send all the photos you've shot in that time period to the US Copyright Office online and get a proper copyright. It's easy, it's cheap, and it covers you.

Then you can forget about watermarks, especially when submitting to publications, whose editors certainly know better than to take a chance on using copyrighted images, considering what it can cost them if they do.

 

[KmH]

Buckster is referring to copyright registration. If a photo's copyright is not registered with the US Copyright office, the federal court system won't accept the filing of an infringement action. See - 17 USC § 411 U.S. Copyright Office

The type of damages (statutory or actual) that can be sought in an infringement action are determined by the timing of photo registration and the date of the infringement.
There is a 3 month window that allows for seeking statutory damages. Beyond that 3 month period only actual damages can be sought.
See - 17 USC § 504 for actual, statutory damages.

 

[Designer]

ottor; as I understand, watermarks can be removed, and it would be removed anyway before publication, even if you sent the photo with one on.

 

[imagemaker46]

If you're dealing with reputable publication it shouldn't be an issue.

 

[PhotoTish]

ottor; as I understand, watermarks can be removed, and it would be removed anyway before publication, even if you sent the photo with one on.

A local magazine used some of my images and they asked if they could remove the watermark and put a credit for me underneath the photograph instead. As Designer already said above, they had no problem removing my signature. Congratulations on your first published photo :thumbup: