Jump to content


decosnapper

Member Since 19 Dec 2008
Offline Last Active May 30 2014 12:04 AM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: What is a fair price for the right to use the image?

30 May 2014 - 12:06 AM

 

What would be the fair price?

 

 

 

Ask the client what the budget is. Treat that fee as a starting point and negotiate upwards.

 

As a guide, use a stock library pricing calculator. Find the highest fee and have that in your mind when discussing it with them. They may well have done the same...


In Topic: Is selling stock images worth the trouble?

27 May 2014 - 10:23 PM

I started pulling all my work from stock around 2 years ago. The value of either individual sales or use by large subscription deals had dropped to single digit dollar levels. At the peak I had four figure volume of work available for licensing through various agents. I was seeing images licensed for worldwide perpetual use by large publishers and I would end up with maybe one or two euros commission.

 

The other issue is what is known as a sub-licensing agreement whereby the first agent you can sign to ends up selling your work through other stock libraries. This means the 100% sale fee can be split twice or three times before you see your money. I

 

After pulling all images from stock the issues I have since found is that:-

 

a) Not all publishers using stock paid for it at time of download, and the agency never chased these up. 

b) Even after pulling material from stock some agencies continued to license my work.

c) when contacted, none of those in either a) or b) think they have done anything wrong.

 

These issues have continued to cause me more problems than the original submission is worth.

 

As an aside, Getty are now allowing bloggers free use of images. There are rules and its not quite a free-for-all but the monetisation of this use is not as daft as it seems. Getty - who own the rights to the meta data describing your photo - can hang advertising alongside the image. As the entire process is based on meta data and its relevance to the advert, I don't anticipate Getty paying a share to the photographer any time soon...

 

So in summary, if you want to earn beer money go and work in a bar or stack shelves in the supermarket. By the time you have sorted, ID'd and described and keyworded your work the return on your time - not including the time to actually shoot the stuff - is so low you may just end up wondering why you bothered. After pulling from stock I have missed the 'income' precisely zero. It made no statistical difference to turnover.

 

And if you choose not to allow your creative efforts to be licensed by a third party for practically nothing then I will salute you.


In Topic: The case of the ignored watermark

01 May 2014 - 10:18 PM

It is indeed good news.

 

The UK has lacked actual judgments on things like this...low value stuff tha the hourly-rate-way-beyond-likely-damages IP lawyers would not touch it and if they did and the claimant lost then the defendant's legal costs would swallow a small housing estate, not just the house.

 

Now individuals can seek redress knowing thelr potential losses are restricted to around £240 or so. I know I am not the only one prepared to seek justice and every judgment helps explain to infringers just where things lie with respect to their actions.

 

Having said that, it requires tenacity and stamina and to be quite frank the adversarial process is a miserable place. But it won't stop me recovering my losses. I'm using an agent for UK stuff and a combination of an agent and contingency IP attorney for anything in the US. 

 

If anyone knows a good IP lawyer in France who could take cases on contingency then do please contact me. The driot d'auter rules have been overlooked in that territory by a few and I would like to see if recovery is possible. Same with Switzerland...


In Topic: Underwater Photography Challenge

24 March 2014 - 01:35 AM

Hi Decosnapper or should I say Hi Simon, I haven't heard from you for a few months, well not since you last asked to come diving with us at Studland to take pictures of seahorses to sell (I seem to remember you wanted to help promote the work of the trust), even though you knew we do not allow flash or light under licensing conditions. Funny how you were happy to accept my 'opinion' when you wanted to come and get a dive, interesting that.

 

 

Are you sure you have the right 'Simon'? Apart from helping me ID some Hippocampus I photographed in Bulgaria's Black Sea last year, I can't recall being in touch with yourself for a very, very long time indeed?

 

As already stated, I have precisely no interest in photographing seahorses in the UK and have have nothing to lose or gain by a lifting or imposition of a ban on the use of flash. Equally, I cannot see there is nothing wrong with questioning the opinion of others who hold a particular view. Reason and debate is just part of a functioning democracy. 


In Topic: Underwater Photography Challenge

22 March 2014 - 05:04 AM

 

Can you tell me why the option has to be to take top quality pictures if it harms the animal?? (in my opinion), if the aim is to take a memento of seeing the seahorse then why not a lower grade one that can be tweaked in photoshop?

 

Therein lies the crux of the issue I think.

 

I would suspect that divers, and in particular those carrying a camera, are unlikely to accept an opinion alone. By their nature/nurture underwater photographers tend to be a questioning, curios and inquisitive bunch who may not subscribe to mainstream accepted ideas readily or willingly. Certainly not just because someone says it must be so.

 

What everyone seeks is firm evidence, based on sound and open research. Until then, either case simply remains unproven and no amount of asserting who is right just won't cut it.

 

And ethically, there are limits of what level of post-shoot manipulation is permitted.

 

Anyway, why am I bothering? I need to save a bumble bee that has hatched in our loft...no its not flippant nor am I kidding...it is the 5th one today...