Advance Notes: A client wants to use one of your photos on his website. What do you charge the client? Here's an easy formula to use.
WEBSITE PRICING is easy if you use the "Hits Formula." It applies to both editorial as well as commercial markets. A client asks, "What do you charge for website use?" Return the question with your question, "How many hits does your site get each day?"
This question may stump them, and they may admit, "I don't know." But you can easily look like the expert when you return with, "Just a minute, I'll let you know."
Using the free software from www.Alexa.com (a company owned by Amazon.com) you call up Alexa.com. Type your client's website address in the search bar. Once a page comes up, at the bar at the bottom of your screen, click on, "traffic." The statistics will not only show you the owner and address of the company (you can spout that back to them also for verification) but the number of "Alexa hits" they get each day. Alexa has its own secret formula for determining the number of web traffic hits, but it's generally regarded as close to accurate.
Now that you've determined this figure, you are ready to apply the "Hits Formula." Most inquirers contacting you for a photo to use on the Web, are interested in acquiring a photo for their Home Page, and the formula applies to this usage.
THE FORMULA*
If your client currently receives 50,000 hits a day, you will charge them $25 per month. If they receive 100,000 hits per day, you will charge them $50 per month. If they receive 200,000 hits a day then their monthly fee would be $100.*
A client may be just starting out and not have stats available yet at Alexa. Your response: "Who are your competitors? Can I assume you plan to keep up with them? Let's see what they are getting in the way of daily visitors."
Of course, if your client receives very few hits per day, a minimum you would establish is $10 per month.
Some companies may plan to use a number of photos at various places on their website. In that case it's discount time. The monthly fee for the initial, primary photo will remain the same, but for the extra photos, divide the monthly fee by the number of photos they plan to use. This will give you the per photo fee to charge, for those additional photos.
You might find it necessary to make some bargaining concessions. To keep the style consistent in their website, they might want to use only one photographer's work - and plan to use many photos profusely throughout their site. It may be good politics to adjust your price for volume purchase.
For non-profit organizations that might have a high visitor count but a low budget, be prepared to make adjustments.
* Multiply the number of hits by .0005 to get the dollar amount you will charge them each month for the use of your picture on their home page.
Rohn Engh, veteran stock photographer and best-selling author of "Sell & ReSell Your Photos" and "sellphotos.com," has helped scores of photographers launch their careers. For access to great information on making money from pictures you like to take, and to receive this free report: "8 Steps to Becoming a Published Photographer," visit http://www.sellphotos.com
Welcome
to Pre-OwnedPhoto.com. Here's where you'll
find information about photography, digital cameras, social photography, photobuyers, photography marketing and business, stock photo agencies, and selling pictures.
Should Your Website Contain
PEOPLE PICTURES...
Recently, in our popular "Kracker Barrel" page on our website, a photographer wrote:
I have many stock images that contain people in them. Most of them, unfortunately, aren't model released. I know that my potential market for these images is limited to "editorial" only. My question is regarding my desire to post some of these (non-released) images on my website, and possibly on PSI's PhotoSourceFolio. Is this allowed? Or will I be risking a lawsuit by posting unreleased images this way? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
First off, it's difficult to make comments on legal questions long distance, or to even advise. What we have to go with here is precedent, and here at PSI we have dealt with that for a long time -35 years.
However, times change, and so do legal interpretations of matters of the law. Like any interpretation of law, you can go so far, and then when you come to the fine-tuning part, you have to fly on your own. In other words, you make the decision.
Posting examples of your work on the web is not unlike the portrait photographer who displays examples of his/her work in a store window, or the local newspaper. Using the Golden Rule and common sense, the PPofA advises members to get permission from clients before posting them in a way that would give the impression that the people pictured are endorsing or promoting your business. A website can be construed as a brochure. For brochures, you of course need a model release -as we all know.
It's true that for editorial pictures (which your pictures could certainly be) -you need no model release when they are published in books, magazines, and newspapers. We already have legal precedents on that subject.
The web is in its infancy and new interpretations of the law are starting to come down. Recently a Court decision was made to allow companies like AltaVista.com and Ditto.Com to post pictures that these massive search engines find on the web. (Many of these have releases--others do not.)
POSTING ON THE WEB
These search engine companies state that the owners of pictures can "block" the Search Engine from coming into their site to reference the photos on the Search Engine's database. The Court ruled that such searches are "Fair Use" in the spirit of the Copyright Law.
As for posting non-released pictures on your website, it would be prudent to post only pictures of persons who are family members, neighbors, relatives -anyone for whom you have a model release, or could easily get a release. Of course, photos of people who are not recognizable require no commercial model release.
Legal interpretations are slow in coming, and it may be a good while before a concrete ruling would be made as to whether such a situation as posting non-released images on your website would be interpreted as outright promotion or just informative display of your photographic talent.
The reason to be cautious is, again, the Golden Rule.
Say you have displayed a picture of a young couple in a romantic mood in a public place. (Ordinarily such a picture needs no release when used for editorial purpose.) The picture was taken several years ago in a town you visited only once. Since then the couple married, and recently had a difficult divorce. Displaying their picture on a website could embarrass them, could be interpreted as promotional "brochure" use, and could lead to a challenge. Using the Golden Rule, you could ask yourself, "Would I, or a family member, want to be pictured in this manner?"
MODEL RELEASES
In my 35 years of observing the "model release" situation, I have found that rarely do parties sue a photographer. (Litigating lawyers always look for "deep pockets." Attorneys want to spend their time on lucrative cases.) So a suit is most always against the publisher. In this case, you are the publisher.
History shows that when the publisher is the photographer, which now will become more common, with the emergence of the web, the party asks for a retraction, or an apology plus a cease and desist. (You remove the picture.)
At the same time, in most cases, the party is honored that the photographer chose their picture as an example of his/her work.
Remember, though, that politicians and other public figures, by the nature of their position, are excluded from protection against public display of their images. So a picture of Bill Clinton or a local politician on your website would generally be immune from the situation we are talking about here.
All of the above suggests that you should hold off publishing photos of any unknown parties, especially if the situation is sensitive, intimate, or compromising in some way. An exception might be photos from your travels in a foreign country where the Law of Probability would suggest that you'd never be challenged by the individuals involved.
And finally, remember, in no way does the above suggest that you should cease capturing intimate and thought-provoking images of people. The top photos in photography history are usually of this nature. And no editorial photo editor who is aware of his/her First Amendment rights would ask you for a model release. It's when you are using the images for commercial use for your own personal photography promotion - and a website could be interpreted as this -- is it best to get permission to use the photo(s) for promotional purposes.
Since you have dozens of great photos of relatives, friends, and family members, why not use some of those for your promotional purposes - at least until legal interpretations come down on web use of non-released images.
Rohn Engh, veteran stock photographer and best-selling author of "Sell & ReSell Your Photos" and "sellphotos.com," has helped scores of photographers launch their careers. For access to great information on making money from pictures you like to take, and to receive this free report: "8 Steps to Becoming a Published Photographer," visit http://www.sellphotos.com
Business
Notepad
FlashBack
1993 – The first issue of PhotoStockNotes appeared.
Happy Birthday to
PhotoStockNOTES!
(Thanks to LoriLee Sampson, ace photographer and web designer)
... Full
Story
Program maintains it's easy to earn extra
funds by establishing a photo business out of your home and
photographing local businesses, corporations, churches, schools,
sports teams, and families in your community.
Model/Property Release
Q: I have a pretty good understanding of the model/property release issue with editorial stock, but I do have a question. If a photo is used for a magazine/book cover, wouldn't that be considered promotional and require a model/property release?
A: Book and magazine covers have a way of becoming “quasi advertisements” when they do double duty of “hyping” the book or magazine when placed on a newsstand or in a catalog or even in an ad in, say, The New Yorker magazine.
The courts, however, have almost always considered book and magazine covers as editorial in nature, and therefore not subject to the usual conditions of advertising photography. One of the earliest cases addressing this was back in the early part of the last century, when a hod carrier on the New York waterfront, sued a local magazine for using his picture on their front cover. The magazine won the suit, and the case is often used as the example (precedent) for similar suits.
The famous Arrington case in the early ‘80’s is another significant case concerning this question. It points up how in some cases the use of a picture might be editorial in nature, but might be embarrassing to the person being photographed. Mr. Arrington, a black man, sued the New York Times for publishing a photograph of him. The Court judged that the photograph, taken in a public place, and used to illustrate
an article on the upward mobility of blacks, was not considered detrimental because Arrington’s name was not used, and the photograph was published for illustrative, not commercial purposes. The law subsequently was amended to protect freelancers supplying photographs for use as news. (1983) You can look up this case at: Arrington v. New York Times, 433 N.Y.S.2d 164 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980), modified, 55 N.Y.2d 433 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1146 (1983).
Advance Notes: "The check's in the mail." It's not that you'll hear this often, but if you're selling your photos, you might hear it from a small publisher or one just starting out. There's relief.
- - - - - - - - -
Some publishers have been known to pay their electricians, plumbers, and gardeners before they get around to paying their photo suppliers. When you inquire about slow payment, these companies have been known to refer you to their accounting department. The response there frequently is, "The check's in the mail."
After a few months of e-mail exchange, and still no payment, you decide to go the legal route.
Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts is good organization to start with. They have volunteers in most major cities. They're willing to help impoverished artists, but for regular customers, they charge regular fees. Their advantage: they are accustomed to dealing in this area of "intellectual properties." If your situation evolves to a point where it looks pretty certain that you'll get a settlement, you could ask the attorney to work on a contingency basis. The National VLA address is 1 East 53rd St 6th Fl, New York NY 10022 (1 212 319 2787 or 1 212 752 6575).
TO THE RESCUE
Or you might want to try Small Claims court. This is an education in itself. Most cities have a limit in Small Claims, usually between $1,000 and $2500. You've probably heard that you have to personally appear in the court jurisdiction of the defendant (the photobuyer). However, if the publishing house has a presence in a city near you, you can make your claim in that city. What is a "presence"? For example, the publisher might outsource work to an art director in your nearby city. Or the publisher might do business with an advertising agency in that city near you. These two examples would be usually considered a "presence."
However, once the Art Director or Photo Editor receives a subpoena and shows it to the boss, they start getting serious and usually settle out of court.
If you are a subscriber to the PhotoDaily or PhotoLetter and are having a problem of "No Pay" or "Slow Pay" with a photobuyer who has listed in one of our marketletters, let us know. We are here to help.
Rohn Engh, veteran stock photographer and best-selling author of "Sell & ReSell Your Photos" and "sellphotos.com," has helped scores of photographers launch their careers. For access to great information on making money from pictures you like to take, and to receive this free report: "8 Steps to Becoming a Published Photographer," visit http://www.sellphotos.com
Of
Interest
The Wifetest
DIGITAL IMAGES AND SOFTWARE
Every piece of software I purchase has to pass the rigorous "wife-test."
The wife-test basically asks two questions. Those questions are:
1. Will this product make me more efficient?
2. Will this product pay for itself in the near future?
If the answer to both questions is "yes," I go ahead and buy. And it has to be a clear yes, no sneaking around with a "probably," or a "yes, maybe..."
I call it the "wife-test" because if I asked my wife, Ruth, for her input about a particular piece of software or anything else I might need for my business; those are the questions she would ask. Not because she thinks I might fritter our money away but because she's a practical and astute person who sees through the ads and marketing hype.
DIGITAL EXTRAS
As we all know, when you go digital there's no end to all the extras you'll need. Like a faster computer, new hard drives, a DVD burner, software ... Full
Story
CAMERA CATCHES NURSING HOME WRONGDOING. Deb Hamilton suspected her grandmother Armeda Thomas was being mistreated at the facility, so she set up a hidden camera that captured some disturbing evidence, such as an aide walking in with a meal then eating the food herself as Thomas laid in bed.
http://www.lex18.com/Global/story.asp?S=9466418&nav=EQlp
WATERMARKS, er uh, FINGERPRINTS. - The PhotoshopDisasters blog has a collection of actual ads made from images that are overlayed with the iStockphoto watermark.
TAKEAWAY: Who knows, in the future, maybe watermarks will become designer symbols like an NIKE check mark or “AS SEEN ON CNN.”.
http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/12/are-people-scoffing-at-your-watermark.html
Jerry Kennelly, who sold his Stockbyte imaging business to US-based Getty Images two years ago for $135m (USA) at the time), is preparing to launch a major new online venture backed by a multimillion euro investment.
TAKEAWAY. The Microstock model was good to Kennelly. Let’s see what he comes up with in 2009.
http://www.ukpreneur.co.uk/1442/a-light-shines-brightly-for-kerry-entrepreneur/
WHO IS THE WINNER ? Win a Trip For Two to Maui - By just entering this contest Popular Photography takes exclusive license of your photo. Read the contest rules, "exclusive" license means 'you' can't use your photo.
http://www.photoattorney.com/
